Your Tax Dollars at Work

More complaints about the Reebok NHL jerseys

This is from the Calgary Flames

I kinda dig the Katrina jersey. Not too bad by the Nike folks….(Crap! Did I just type that?)

I received the shop.NHL.com catalog in the mail yesterday. Please enjoy the following marketing drivel:

NEW 2007 Rbk EDGE Authentic Jerseys
These jersey authenticate the on-ice player-worn Pro-cut jersey in fabric, trim and team design lines and feature a four-way stretch body material with Bead Away, a water repellent treatment.

“Authenticate”???? So am I buying the jersey the players wear on the ice, or something that kinda sorta resembles it? And if I’m not buying the on-ice product, then why are you charging me $250!!!

Paul – Simply awesome link you have there. I love throwback hats but they are never in the right style as yours is there. Where’d you get that?

According to a small entry buried on this Q&A page, the Patriots will ditch their silver alternate jersey in 2009 and go with a red throwback jersey instead

That is fantastic. I ::heart:: Pat the Patriot.

I don’t know offhand where to find it, but I’ve seen shots of the White Sox doing drill exercises with rifles as well. Guess it was a common thing during the first world war.

[quote comment=”147535″]Those LSU jerseys would look better if they didn’t have those “fragments” of their usual shoulder stripes. Either have the full stripes and put the patches elsewhere or just have a plain jersey.

I suppose this means Tulane will be wearing white at home.[/quote]

They would also look better if they weren’t on those frightening looking mannequins. Seriously, I can’t be the only one freaked out a little by those, can I?

P.S. Was the eye-black really necessary?

I’m sure you own it, but if you don’t, you ought to check out this book. It has a lot of great old baseball pictures. link

[quote comment=”147533″]According to a small entry buried on this Q&A page, the Patriots will ditch their silver alternate jersey in 2009 and go with a red throwback jersey instead

That is fantastic. I ::heart:: Pat the Patriot.[/quote]

Absolutely…I was commenting on another message board on Sunday how ugly those silver Pats unis are. Combined with the Bills blue-on-blue (or really, any combo of the current Bills unis that doesn’t include the throwback), it was a truly ugly game for us Uni Watchers on Sunday.

Hopefully with the throwback thirds, we’ll be able to get a couple good hat styles with Pat the Patriot on em.

Regarding the Patriots’ plans to don red retros in 2009…

I was just pondering recently, during an interminable morning drive, that 2009 will be the 50th Anniversary of the AFL (i.e., 50th season of football for the 8 original 1960 franchises). On the 25th Anniversary in 1984, each of the 8 teams wore commemorative patches on their jerseys with the AFL logo and the team’s current helmet design; the NFL didn’t start wearing “throwbacks,” really, until the Jets did it for one game in 1993 and then the whole league went retro for the 75th Season in 1994.

Clearly, as I get back on point, the 2009 season will present a grand opportunity for some serious retro styling. The Jets are already dressing up as the Titans this year; the Bills have their mid-’60s throwbacks and we saw a few others in 1994. Might we see the Bills go all the way back to silver helmets and light blue jerseys? The Broncos in brown and gold with vertical-striped socks? The Raiders in black helmets with gold trim and rounded numerals? The Chiefs with the state of Texas on their helmets, the Chargers with thick block numerals on theirs, and the Patriots with 18th-century headwear on theirs? And will the Titans break out those excellent 1960 Houston Oilers duds they wore in ’94?

That Reds “tight pants” prank is the funniest one I’ve heard in a long time. Has anyone ever heard of that one being pulled before? Sheer genius.

Rbk Jerseys: Watched the Flyers/Devils game last night. Didn’t see the hit where the helmet number flew off, but those jerseys do appear to restrict movement, no matter how ‘stretchy’ they may claim to be. As for the sweating problem in the Calgary Sun article, I have a couple of tee-shirts that are made with this water/stain repelent fabric and I find that it prevents as much perspiration from being wicked away as repelling moisture.

[quote comment=”147542″]Questions on the actual authentic RBK Edge jerseys actualy being just like the ones players wear raises questions with me. Someone mentioned yeterday some authentic jerseys don’t have the fight strap. In previous models, it was that fight strap that made the jersey authentic, that and the NHL sheild next to the CCM logo and the patches actualy being sewn on instead of heat applied.

If there is no fight strap, no reason to spend the extra money for the authentic.

Side note – as a goalie I wore my fight strap simply to keep my jersey from tucking into the back of my breezers. I love the fight strap, if anything just because of the name.[/quote]

I took a look at the authentics in the Bruins team store last weekend, and they did have the fight strap.

Paul, what year is that Denver photo from? It looks like it could be from before the major leagues’ introduction of uniform numbers in 1929. Didn’t Cleveland have numbers on the sleeves in 1915 or 1916 or thereabouts? Is this photo notewprthy for more than just the look?

Those Philadelphia sweaters are great!

a. in the early part of last century, mlb players and managers wore woven sweaters over their jerseys. in todays post PL shows a lot of examples.

over time fabrics and textiles have changed, but players and managers still wear garments over their jerseys, be it a jacket, fleece pullover, or hoody (all three seen link)

another thing that has changed over time is what they call these “over garments”. official supplier majestic calls them jacket, fleece and sweatshirt. why? because they arent sweaters anymore.

i just cant agree with calling hockey jerseys, “sweaters” especially now, with performance textiles and fabrics. its not a sweater.

b. M&N would have a field day with some of the above apparel. those sweaters, and especially that yanks jacket are really sharp.

c. from the hat website, i thought this was somewhat interesting… and appropriate to the site…

d. from yesterday, the chicago simeon high school player was ben wilson whose number is honored.

[quote comment=”147568″]…might have gone toward helping ease the way into a move.[/quote]

Yep. That was my first thought as well.

[quote comment=”147570″][quote comment=”147564″]I really dislike teams “throwing back” to the same uniforms they have already “thrown back” to. I’d rather have a brand new alternate jersey for the Pats than yet another Pat Patriot throwback like they did a few years ago (which didn’t even come close to matching the beauty of the one actually worn during the time period they are actually “throwing back” to).

Unless they are going to switch back full time (which I would welcome with open arms) I say throw back to another era. That’s why I loved the Eagles this past weekend. At least they were doing something different instead of wearing some 70s or 80s throwback like every other team does.

Why can’t the Pats throw back to link. The uniform was basically the same as the Pat Patriot era. Or check out link from the Boston Patriots era. Or link.

I know there is some natural instinct for teams to go for the same old throwback that people love for marketing reasons but the Eagles showed some balls this past Sunday and wore something different. I know the Eagles were throwing back for their 75th anniversary but couldn’t the Pats think about doing the same thing.

Hell, I’d even take link as a throwback as something different. No one would have seen link coming.[/quote]

On another note, those two Boston Patriots cards I linked to are confusing. Could they be pictures from guys wearing another teams uni? I got them from link which has a bunch of wierd colors in the pictures. I still say they should do something different, but I could be off with my suggestions.[/quote]

I think those cards show the men in their college uniforms. Some card mfrs used to do that for rookies before they had a photo of the player in his pro uniform, and it was harder to airbrush in the new team’s colors without making it look fake.

[quote comment=”147572″]Now for something completely different:
This is obviously old news but has anyone heard the story about how Ron Wolf almost changed the Packers uniforms in 1994? Apparently, it was just a signature away from happening, but he decided that new people on the field is what he really needed (I read it link) link is the website author’s interpretation of what it would have looked like.

I am thinking that it would have ended up looking something like link or link.

So I am wondering, what do a bunch of People That Get It think of this? Personally (and I say this as a hardcore lifelong Packer fan) I think it would be an improvement. I never liked the Packer’s color combination (Sorry Paul).

Also, do any of you think this will happen any time soon. I didn’t think there was a chance in hell, but then I was reminded of link and thought, “Where’s the yellow?” It just kind of makes me wonder…[/quote]

Thanks for linking to my site – hope you like it.

I would have welcomed the change, and still would. That proposed uniform would have bridged the gap between the two great Packer eras, reflecting a little bit of Vince Lombardi and a little bit of Curly Lambeau. Plus it has the added benefit of getting rid of the last remnants of Forrest Gregg’s “improvements”.

I don’t think it’ll happen. They could have done it then, when the Packers were mired at the end of decades of futility. But change the uniform Brett Favre wore? Not unless and until we have a couple decades of bad football in our future.

[quote comment=”147576″][quote comment=”147568″]…might have gone toward helping ease the way into a move.[/quote]

Yep. That was my first thought as well.[/quote]
No. Not going to happen – the city of St. Petersburg, who hold the lease, are not going to let the Rays out of it.

Should they move? Absolutely. But the only thing that keeps them in Florida at all – the dome’s lease – keeps them locked to St. Petersburg.

[quote comment=”147568″]This is my first post here, but I’ve had some thoughts about the new Rays jersey that I wanted some input on that I haven’t seen anyone else comment on yet.

It seems to me that the oodles of dollars that they paid whatever company to come up with what amounts to a rather bland copycat logo might have gone toward helping ease the way into a move. In addition to eliminating the city name from the away jersey…

A) Changing the name from Devil Rays to Rays allows them to claim a larger part of the Sunshine State (hence the much-maligned sunburst in the new logo). They keep the fish on a sleeve patch to make the transition more gradual.

B) The name Tampa Bay Rays is just clunky. “Tampa Bay Devil Rays has the same cadence (order of stressed syllabes) in both halves (stressed-unstressed-somewhat stressed). The new name does not have this symmetry. However, Orlando Rays has a unstressed-stressed unstressed-stressed cadence that sounds much more pleasing to the ear.

Put these alongside the exploratory games in Orlando this season and the fact that MLB has all but demanded that the Rays find a new place to play by 2010 (or is it after 2010?) and this is doesn’t look to good for the city of Tampa and it’s surrounding area, unless you count unloading a perrineal loser.

Sorry for the long post and the tangential-at-best nature of this to uniforms, I couldn’t think of a better group of folks to get input from. Thanks![/quote]
Welcome to the Party, Matt O.

I find it hard to believe that if a team was thinking about relocating that they would telegraph the move by taking the city/state/region off the road jersey. I mean, the hat still says ‘TB’. Most likely a team wouldn’t move in during the season, so they would most likely have time to produce new road unis.

And the total syllables of ‘Tampa Bay Devil Rays’ has nothing on the Philadelphia 76ers or San Francisco 49ers. I agree, though, that ‘Tampa Bay Rays’ is just a bad moniker and doesn’t flow as well as the original.

[quote comment=”147587″][quote comment=”147568″]This is my first post here, but I’ve had some thoughts about the new Rays jersey that I wanted some input on that I haven’t seen anyone else comment on yet.

It seems to me that the oodles of dollars that they paid whatever company to come up with what amounts to a rather bland copycat logo might have gone toward helping ease the way into a move. In addition to eliminating the city name from the away jersey…

A) Changing the name from Devil Rays to Rays allows them to claim a larger part of the Sunshine State (hence the much-maligned sunburst in the new logo). They keep the fish on a sleeve patch to make the transition more gradual.

B) The name Tampa Bay Rays is just clunky. “Tampa Bay Devil Rays has the same cadence (order of stressed syllabes) in both halves (stressed-unstressed-somewhat stressed). The new name does not have this symmetry. However, Orlando Rays has a unstressed-stressed unstressed-stressed cadence that sounds much more pleasing to the ear.

Put these alongside the exploratory games in Orlando this season and the fact that MLB has all but demanded that the Rays find a new place to play by 2010 (or is it after 2010?) and this is doesn’t look to good for the city of Tampa and it’s surrounding area, unless you count unloading a perrineal loser.

Sorry for the long post and the tangential-at-best nature of this to uniforms, I couldn’t think of a better group of folks to get input from. Thanks![/quote]
Welcome to the Party, Matt O.

I find it hard to believe that if a team was thinking about relocating that they would telegraph the move by taking the city/state/region off the road jersey. I mean, the hat still says ‘TB’. Most likely a team wouldn’t move in during the season, so they would most likely have time to produce new road unis.

And the total syllables of ‘Tampa Bay Devil Rays’ has nothing on the Philadelphia 76ers or San Francisco 49ers. I agree, though, that ‘Tampa Bay Rays’ is just a bad moniker and doesn’t flow as well as the original.[/quote]

What about “Indianapolis Colts?” I always thought “Indiana Colts” would have been much more pleasing to the tongue and ear.

For some more photos of vertical lettering, as well as upturned collars with lettering even- here’s my contribution take out of my mitchell and ness closet this morning:

link

::john

any chance that the nhl would go back to the old style of jersey like the nba went to the old basketball midseason last year?

Note the Federal League logo on the sleeve – “kinda reminds you of a recently redesigned logo from some other league, doesn’t it?” notes Lindquist.

So now the new NFL logo must be amazing, right? ‘Cause it’s really a throwback to the early 20th Century. And everyone here knows that everything old is automatically and unquestionably “classy”, right?

[quote comment=”147597″]any chance that the nhl would go back to the old style of jersey like the nba went to the old basketball midseason last year?[/quote]

And order all new jerseys in mid-season? I doubt it.

I could see them changing back next year, though. Are players wearing sweat-absorbent undershirts to counteract the sweat-repelling sweaters? It would be interesting to find out how the guys who don’t like these jerseys are dealing with them.

that didn’t work because I’m dumb but if you search teams like Chicago Whales or Brooklyn Tip Tops you can see them on distantreplays.com

[quote comment=”147581″][quote comment=”147572″]Now for something completely different:
This is obviously old news but has anyone heard the story about how Ron Wolf almost changed the Packers uniforms in 1994? Apparently, it was just a signature away from happening, but he decided that new people on the field is what he really needed (I read it link) link is the website author’s interpretation of what it would have looked like.

I am thinking that it would have ended up looking something like link or link.

So I am wondering, what do a bunch of People That Get It think of this? Personally (and I say this as a hardcore lifelong Packer fan) I think it would be an improvement. I never liked the Packer’s color combination (Sorry Paul).

Also, do any of you think this will happen any time soon. I didn’t think there was a chance in hell, but then I was reminded of link and thought, “Where’s the yellow?” It just kind of makes me wonder…[/quote]

Thanks for linking to my site – hope you like it.

I would have welcomed the change, and still would. That proposed uniform would have bridged the gap between the two great Packer eras, reflecting a little bit of Vince Lombardi and a little bit of Curly Lambeau. Plus it has the added benefit of getting rid of the last remnants of Forrest Gregg’s “improvements”.

I don’t think it’ll happen. They could have done it then, when the Packers were mired at the end of decades of futility. But change the uniform Brett Favre wore? Not unless and until we have a couple decades of bad football in our future.[/quote]

Those were almost my exact thoughts about bridging the gap! I knew some people would think it heresy for me to suggest that a change would be better, because the pack has been green and “gold” for so long, but I think the casual fan doesn’t realize the origins in blue and (actual) gold and later to green and (actual) gold.

Great site, by the way!

[quote comment=”147598″]
Frankly, if the Packers implemented those changes (specifically changing the “athletic gold”, i.e. yellow, to “metallic gold”), it would suck all of the soul out of their look and the team. The Green Bay Packers uniforms have existed in their current form (except for what amounts to variations in striping patterns) since 1959, and are ingrained into the mind of every football fan. Those uniforms are part of the iconography of sports in much the same way as the Yankees, Celtics or Canadiens uniforms are. To change them for something completely different would be sacrilege.[/quote]

I cannot agree (especially since the only constant of the Packers’ first forty years was change), but Ron Wolf eventually came around to your way of thinking.

Not to get too far off topic, but why do all sports teams from the City of Tampa go by “Tampa Bay” – a geographic feature, and not a city? We don’t call them the Detroit River Tigers.

It seems to have started with the Bucs, who may have been going for some sort of Green Bay thing, no? (After one year in the AFC, the Bucs were moved to the old NFC Central, which led to (the late) Pete Axthelm’s “Bay of Pigs” moniker to describe a Packers-Bucs matchup.)

… and I weigh in with hockey-related items.

1) The fighting strap must be secured for every player on the ice, including the goalie. Failure to secure the strap and is caught by the officials is an automatic game misconduct regardless of the situation. Rule 24A, part (e) reads as follows: “Jerseys must be ‘tied down’ properly at all times.”

Rule 56 states as follows:

“A player who deliberately removes his sweater prior to participating in an altercation or who is clearly wearing a sweater that has been modified and does not conform to Rule 24A — Players’ Jerseys, shall be assessed a minor penalty for Unsportsmanlike Conduct and a game misconduct. This is in addition to other penalties to be assessed to the participants of an altercation.

A player who engages in fisticuffs and whose sweater is removed (completely off his torso), other than through the actions of his opponent in the altercation or through the actions of the Linesman, shall be assessed a game misconduct penalty.

A player who engages in fisticuffs and whose sweater is not properly “tied-down” (sweater properly fastened to pants), and who loses his sweater (completely off his torso) in that altercation, shall receive a game misconduct.

A player who is involved in an altercation, when the opponent has been identified as an instigator, shall not be assessed a game misconduct if his sweater should be removed by an opponent or an Official in the discharge of his duties.”

In the case of both goalies, they should have been issued game misconducts for improperly securing their jerseys.

2) On the flip side, maybe they were just too hot and needed to strip down? :o)

[quote comment=”147605″]
Those were almost my exact thoughts about bridging the gap! I knew some people would think it heresy for me to suggest that a change would be better, because the pack has been green and “gold” for so long, but I think the casual fan doesn’t realize the origins in blue and (actual) gold and later to green and (actual) gold.

Great site, by the way![/quote]
Thanks again.

I’ve long felt like a voice in the wilderness about a change. Heck, in 1994 I suggested that the Packers ought adopt the throwback blue and golds full-time….

But as I said, I think the moment has passed. The only way I can see them changing now is if Favre plays at least one more year and he can inaugurate the new uniforms. Once he retires, the Packers’ uniforms are set in stone for at least another decade.

[quote comment=”147612″]… and I weigh in with hockey-related items.

1) The fighting strap must be secured for every player on the ice, including the goalie. Failure to secure the strap and is caught by the officials is an automatic game misconduct regardless of the situation. Rule 24A, part (e) reads as follows: “Jerseys must be ‘tied down’ properly at all times.”

Rule 56 states as follows:

“A player who deliberately removes his sweater prior to participating in an altercation or who is clearly wearing a sweater that has been modified and does not conform to Rule 24A — Players’ Jerseys, shall be assessed a minor penalty for Unsportsmanlike Conduct and a game misconduct. This is in addition to other penalties to be assessed to the participants of an altercation.

A player who engages in fisticuffs and whose sweater is removed (completely off his torso), other than through the actions of his opponent in the altercation or through the actions of the Linesman, shall be assessed a game misconduct penalty.

A player who engages in fisticuffs and whose sweater is not properly “tied-down” (sweater properly fastened to pants), and who loses his sweater (completely off his torso) in that altercation, shall receive a game misconduct.

A player who is involved in an altercation, when the opponent has been identified as an instigator, shall not be assessed a game misconduct if his sweater should be removed by an opponent or an Official in the discharge of his duties.”

In the case of both goalies, they should have been issued game misconducts for improperly securing their jerseys.

2) On the flip side, maybe they were just too hot and needed to strip down? :o)[/quote]
Is all that void because they are not wearing sweaters? :)

About the Yankees and Tigers drilling with rifles, in 1917 the presidents of the American and the National Leagues ordered all players who were not drafted into the armed forces to undergo military training. They usually used bats instead of rifles, but each team was assigned a military instructor to teach them close order drills. At the end of the season, the teams were graded by Army officers with the St. Louis Browns taking home the prize of $500. I found this page from here” rel=”nofollow”> The Cleveland Indians Encyclopedia describing this.

I can never get the links on this page to work. The article is here:

link

Cut and paste at your discression.

[quote comment=”147564″]…from the Boston Patriots era. Or link…[/quote]

Anyone notice a link? Strange.

[quote comment=”147623″]I know it’s been mentioned that the San Francisco Giants have the worst uni dept. in the bigs, so it should be no surprise that Closer of the Week Tyler Walker was missing his Rod Beck memorial patch last night. I don’t have any screen grabs. Does anyone else? Anyone? Anyone?[/quote]
I bring this up every few weeks because it really bugs me. I’m really pissed that the Giants have chosen to observe the passing of Rod Beck, but have made no effort to honor Jose Uribe, who died in Dec. ’06.

I tried to find out from the team but got nowhere.

[quote comment=”147631″][quote comment=”147610″]Not to get too far off topic, but why do all sports teams from the City of Tampa go by “Tampa Bay” – a geographic feature, and not a city? We don’t call them the Detroit River Tigers.

It seems to have started with the Bucs, who may have been going for some sort of Green Bay thing, no? (After one year in the AFC, the Bucs were moved to the old NFC Central, which led to (the late) Pete Axthelm’s “Bay of Pigs” moniker to describe a Packers-Bucs matchup.)[/quote]

It is an attempt, from a marketing perspective, to make the team a regional entity as opposed to representing just a single city. It helps to broaden the potential fan base and the area from which the team can solicit potential sponsors. It isn’t an uncommon practice in sports (i.e. New England Patriots, Golden State Warriors, Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim), but makes particular sense in Tampa’s case considering the proximity of St. Petersburg (especially considering the Rays actually play in St. Pete).[/quote]

Yeah, it sounds like one of those marketing “rules” that have no basis in reality. Did anyone ever think “Gee, they’re the California Angels, I live in California, I’ll be an Angels fan!” No, you following winning sports teams.

[quote comment=”147610″]Not to get too far off topic, but why do all sports teams from the City of Tampa go by “Tampa Bay” – a geographic feature, and not a city? We don’t call them the Detroit River Tigers.

It seems to have started with the Bucs, who may have been going for some sort of Green Bay thing, no? (After one year in the AFC, the Bucs were moved to the old NFC Central, which led to (the late) Pete Axthelm’s “Bay of Pigs” moniker to describe a Packers-Bucs matchup.)[/quote]

I have wondered that before also – is it perhaps because of the team names chosen? Buccaneers, being seafaring folk, would have a connection with the bay as apposed to the city. Likewise with a Devil Ray – it would be pretty rare to see one in the city of Tampa, I’m sure they prefer the bay. Perhaps a stretch, but that’s how I always thought of it in my head.

[quote comment=”147597″]any chance that the nhl would go back to the old style of jersey like the nba went to the old basketball midseason last year?[/quote]

I don’t see a midyear mandate coming to change, but if it gets enough complaints, and gary buttman stops being an idiot, I can see them saying you can wear the old style of you want as a team. Not individuals but the whole team would have to say yes or no. Of course what is the chance that buttman will stop being an idiot?

Very nice to see Scott Player and his magical one bar facemask – along with Morten Andersen’s Dungard, and the throwbacks on show it’s been a good week!

[quote comment=”147635″][quote comment=”147631″][quote comment=”147610″]Not to get too far off topic, but why do all sports teams from the City of Tampa go by “Tampa Bay” – a geographic feature, and not a city? We don’t call them the Detroit River Tigers.

It seems to have started with the Bucs, who may have been going for some sort of Green Bay thing, no? (After one year in the AFC, the Bucs were moved to the old NFC Central, which led to (the late) Pete Axthelm’s “Bay of Pigs” moniker to describe a Packers-Bucs matchup.)[/quote]

It is an attempt, from a marketing perspective, to make the team a regional entity as opposed to representing just a single city. It helps to broaden the potential fan base and the area from which the team can solicit potential sponsors. It isn’t an uncommon practice in sports (i.e. New England Patriots, Golden State Warriors, Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim), but makes particular sense in Tampa’s case considering the proximity of St. Petersburg (especially considering the Rays actually play in St. Pete).[/quote]

Yeah, it sounds like one of those marketing “rules” that have no basis in reality. Did anyone ever think “Gee, they’re the California Angels, I live in California, I’ll be an Angels fan!” No, you following winning sports teams.[/quote]

I disagree if the Giants ever changed their name to the New Jersey Giants I would root for them instead of the Jets, same goes for the Nets. The minute they become the Brooklyn Nets or whatevers I stop rooting for them.

[quote comment=”147619″][quote comment=”147612″]… and I weigh in with hockey-related items.

1) The fighting strap must be secured for every player on the ice, including the goalie. Failure to secure the strap and is caught by the officials is an automatic game misconduct regardless of the situation. Rule 24A, part (e) reads as follows: “Jerseys must be ‘tied down’ properly at all times.”

Rule 56 states as follows:

“A player who deliberately removes his sweater prior to participating in an altercation or who is clearly wearing a sweater that has been modified and does not conform to Rule 24A — Players’ Jerseys, shall be assessed a minor penalty for Unsportsmanlike Conduct and a game misconduct. This is in addition to other penalties to be assessed to the participants of an altercation.

A player who engages in fisticuffs and whose sweater is removed (completely off his torso), other than through the actions of his opponent in the altercation or through the actions of the Linesman, shall be assessed a game misconduct penalty.

A player who engages in fisticuffs and whose sweater is not properly “tied-down” (sweater properly fastened to pants), and who loses his sweater (completely off his torso) in that altercation, shall receive a game misconduct.

A player who is involved in an altercation, when the opponent has been identified as an instigator, shall not be assessed a game misconduct if his sweater should be removed by an opponent or an Official in the discharge of his duties.”

In the case of both goalies, they should have been issued game misconducts for improperly securing their jerseys.

2) On the flip side, maybe they were just too hot and needed to strip down? :o)[/quote]
Is all that void because they are not wearing sweaters? :)[/quote]

Just so you know, when goalies leave their crease to fight, they get a Game Misconduct anyway, so wearing the fight strap doesn’t really make a difference in those goalie v. goalie situations. If a goalie threw down with a regular player, however, he’d want it buttoned up. (Plus the added bonus of goalies not having to server major penalties would allow him to continue playing while his opponent chills for 5.)

[quote comment=”147652″]anyone else find it interesting that the guy in this link is wearing a Red Sox sweater but the caption says Boston Americans? I know the Americans turned into the Red Sox but you’d think that the photographer would’ve known which it was.[/quote]

Maybe it was a prototype sweater [/sarcasm]

[quote comment=”147570″][quote comment=”147564″]I really dislike teams “throwing back” to the same uniforms they have already “thrown back” to. I’d rather have a brand new alternate jersey for the Pats than yet another Pat Patriot throwback like they did a few years ago (which didn’t even come close to matching the beauty of the one actually worn during the time period they are actually “throwing back” to).

Unless they are going to switch back full time (which I would welcome with open arms) I say throw back to another era. That’s why I loved the Eagles this past weekend. At least they were doing something different instead of wearing some 70s or 80s throwback like every other team does.

Why can’t the Pats throw back to link. The uniform was basically the same as the Pat Patriot era. Or check out link from the Boston Patriots era. Or link.

I know there is some natural instinct for teams to go for the same old throwback that people love for marketing reasons but the Eagles showed some balls this past Sunday and wore something different. I know the Eagles were throwing back for their 75th anniversary but couldn’t the Pats think about doing the same thing.

Hell, I’d even take link as a throwback as something different. No one would have seen link coming.[/quote]

On another note, those two Boston Patriots cards I linked to are confusing. Could they be pictures from guys wearing another teams uni? I got them from link which has a bunch of wierd colors in the pictures. I still say they should do something different, but I could be off with my suggestions.[/quote]

those cards show those players in their college uniforms: McNamara in his Minnesota Golden Gophers uni, and Norwood from LSU. almost every card in that online 1960 Patriots gallery shows the player in their college uni…there’s one from Tulune in green, one from Northwestern in purple, etc.

[quote comment=”147646″]So I have something really weird and totally un-unirelated. I’m running Mac OS X with a Firefox browser, and like Paul said that little “No Mas” ad on top of the page doesn’t work as a link when you click on it. But something I just discovered is that when I move the cursor OFF the add to the left or right by just a smidge and then click, it DOES redirect me to the “No Mas” site. I know it doesn’t really matter that much, but I found it really odd…[/quote]

That worked for me as well. Weird.

Fantastic photo gallery of the Boston Bruins goalie’s masks for this season. I’m sure this will spark a lot of conversation… anyone know what that patch is on Cheevers left shoulder is? I can make out Massachusetts, but not the logo or name below
link

From yesterday, the 10 on the back of USC’s linebacker Rivers is for the Bob Chandler Award he was awarded before the season. He will wear it all season.

[quote comment=”147665″][quote comment=”147664″]Fantastic photo gallery of the Boston Bruins goalie’s masks for this season. I’m sure this will spark a lot of conversation… anyone know what that patch is on Cheevers left shoulder is? I can make out Massachusetts, but not the logo or name below
link

Massachusetts Bicentennial?[/quote]

Couldn’t find it on a Bruins jersey but here it is on a link…

[quote comment=”147671″][quote comment=”147665″][quote comment=”147664″]Fantastic photo gallery of the Boston Bruins goalie’s masks for this season. I’m sure this will spark a lot of conversation… anyone know what that patch is on Cheevers left shoulder is? I can make out Massachusetts, but not the logo or name below
link

Massachusetts Bicentennial?[/quote]

Couldn’t find it on a Bruins jersey but here it is on a link…[/quote]

If I just link….

[quote comment=”147650″]
Just so you know, when goalies leave their crease to fight, they get a Game Misconduct anyway, so wearing the fight strap doesn’t really make a difference in those goalie v. goalie situations. If a goalie threw down with a regular player, however, he’d want it buttoned up. (Plus the added bonus of goalies not having to server major penalties would allow him to continue playing while his opponent chills for 5.)[/quote]

That’s incorrect. It’s when he crosses centre ice he receives a game misconduct. Lots of goalies leave their creases, especially to handle the puck.

And goalies do throw down with regular players (Ray Emery vs. Andrew Peters from last season). The goalie, however, loses a teammate for five minutes which doesn’t help him defensively. Since most goalies want to protect their hands and face for obvious reasons, they won’t fight.

what timing and syncronicity regarding old time base ball sweaters, as this White Sox gem showed up on ebay:

1917 White Sox sweater

[quote comment=”147674″][quote comment=”147637″]I believe I have read that the first Tampa Bay franchises — the NASL Rowdies and the NFL Buccaneers — were named Tampa Bay to honor the support of St. Petersburg and Clearwater in making those bids. In the 1970s, Tampa alone was not large enough to support a professional franchise.[/quote]

Also, the cities of Tampa and St. Petersburg themselves are of relatively equal population, and the Tampa Bay area for the most part functions as one large city. Anyone from Pinellas County can tell you there’s no telling where one city ends and the next begins. Think Minneapolis and St. Paul, none of their teams are called “Minneapolis”, instead they chose Minnesota, probably for the same reason.[/quote]

Possibly, but remember that old Metropolitan Stadium (where the Twins and Vikings first played) was in Bloomington, MN, where the Mall of America is now.

I showed up a little late today, but I wanted to chime in on the “Tampa Bay Rays”. The logical choice for me would be “Tampa Rays” but that ignores the St. Petersburg part of the metro area. Other dual city metropoles like Minneapolis-St. Paul (“Twin Cities”) and Dallas-Fort Worth (the “Metroplex”) have nicknames but neither are used for sports franchises like Tampa Bay is. But then again, “San Francisco Bay” isn’t used at all.

And here in DFW, “Dallas” gets the nickname for almost all teams, when the majority play outside the city, and even Dallas County. FC Dallas – Frisco, Collin County. By 2011, Dallas Cowboys – Arlington, Tarrant County. Texas Rangers, same (but you might make the argument that if the team had chosen any other nickname, they’d be the Dallas ____s. Texas Rangers just fits well, for obvious reasons.

Thankfully, Laura Miller’s lasting legacy as Dallas mayor is that she only let the Cowboys leave, and not the Mavs & Stars too. So at least 2 teams play within the city limits.

Enough rambling. Go Arlington Cowboys!

Anyone that thinks that changing the team name to Tampa would alienate fans from surrounding regions are being ridiculous. I was born, raised, and still live in Rockford, IL. Yet I love the Green Bay Packers, why? because my dad’s from Wisconsin and that’s the team I grew up watching. To go along with that, my dad only watches football, as I ended up rooting for the White Sox and Bulls. Why? Because the Bulls are the default team to root for in you live in northern Illinois and I like the White Sox because my Grampa watched them. You don’t root for a sports team only if you actaully live in that city. You root for them because you grow up watching them. Never once have I said to myself, “Self, shouldn’t you really be a Bears fan? Or, shouldn’t you feel aleinated because the other teams you root for are from Chicago, and you’re from Rockford?” You people that think peopl only like a team if it’s got their coty’s name on their chest are ridiculous.

[quote comment=”147692″]You people that think peopl only like a team if it’s got their coty’s name on their chest are ridiculous.[/quote]

To be fair, I think everyone here has a good point. When creating a new team, you want to include as many people as possible to create your fan base. Therefor I think it makes sense to call it Tampa Bay since none of those cities are a huge metropolis. I think a person would feel closer to a team (subconsciously) if it doesn’t have the name of a city that he/she doesn’t live in.
On the other hand, you are right that there is a lot more that goes into your favorite team than just your city. This is coming from a Packers/Red Wings/Twins fan (it’s a long story).

Not exactly “Uniform” related.. But Making the link dress up as the cast of the Wizard of Oz is pretty funny.

Saw this while reading an article and thought you would be interested. Here is the link: link…

New-look Phils
David Buck, the Phillies’ senior vice president of marketing and advertising sales, confirmed that the team would have an alternate home uniform next season. It is expected to have a throwback look with a modern touch. Expect the uniform to be unveiled before the end of the year

They leaked. They are a pinstripe-less version of the current home and have edge piping on the sleeves and collar. Basically it’s the style they wore in the late 40s.

link

[quote comment=”147703″]Saw this while reading an article and thought you would be interested. Here is the link: link…

New-look Phils
David Buck, the Phillies’ senior vice president of marketing and advertising sales, confirmed that the team would have an alternate home uniform next season. It is expected to have a throwback look with a modern touch. Expect the uniform to be unveiled before the end of the year

They leaked. They are a pinstripe-less version of the current home and have edge piping on the sleeves and collar. Basically it’s the style they wore in the late 40s.

link

And by “modern touch”, I imagine he means that those heinous player names will be on the back.

(Either that or the fact that the current number font will still be used. I like this font, but the immense numbers and the straight, unhooked “1” from that era look even better.)

[quote comment=”147692″]Anyone that thinks that changing the team name to Tampa would alienate fans from surrounding regions are being ridiculous. I was born, raised, and still live in Rockford, IL. Yet I love the Green Bay Packers, why? because my dad’s from Wisconsin and that’s the team I grew up watching. To go along with that, my dad only watches football, as I ended up rooting for the White Sox and Bulls. Why? Because the Bulls are the default team to root for in you live in northern Illinois and I like the White Sox because my Grampa watched them. You don’t root for a sports team only if you actaully live in that city. You root for them because you grow up watching them. Never once have I said to myself, “Self, shouldn’t you really be a Bears fan? Or, shouldn’t you feel aleinated because the other teams you root for are from Chicago, and you’re from Rockford?” You people that think peopl only like a team if it’s got their coty’s name on their chest are ridiculous.[/quote]

What you’re not getting is that they aren’t marketting to you as a customer.. they already have you. They’re trying to get the fringe fans that want something to take pride in, and their location is that something.

[quote comment=”147683″][quote comment=”147681″]
Did it never occur to Reebok’s designers that hockey players (like all athletes) sweat?[/quote]

Did it ever occur to Reebok that hockey didn’t need new jerseys?[/quote]

teebz, thanks for referring to them as jerseys…

[quote comment=”147696″][quote comment=”147692″]You people that think peopl only like a team if it’s got their coty’s name on their chest are ridiculous.[/quote]

To be fair, I think everyone here has a good point. When creating a new team, you want to include as many people as possible to create your fan base. Therefor I think it makes sense to call it Tampa Bay since none of those cities are a huge metropolis. I think a person would feel closer to a team (subconsciously) if it doesn’t have the name of a city that he/she doesn’t live in.
On the other hand, you are right that there is a lot more that goes into your favorite team than just your city. This is coming from a Packers/Red Wings/Twins fan (it’s a long story).[/quote]

i always was curious about this…
the benefits of taking a state name,
texas rangers,
minnesota timberwolves,
tennessee titans
vs. a city name
houston astros
chicago bulls
jacksonville jaguars
vs. an area name
tampa bay devil rays
new england patriots
vs. state alias
golden state warriors…

whats the benefit?

[quote comment=”147700″]Not exactly “Uniform” related.. But Making the link dress up as the cast of the Wizard of Oz is pretty funny.[/quote]

on the radio broadcast yesterday, suzyn waldman was going nuts about this…
i do wish however that the pro teams would use a term other than hazing though. especially since all of the trouble college hazing has caused.

Why can’t the Pats throw back to link.

That helmet is great. Better than the patriot playing center, or the current design.

Let’s see.. SI.com, uniform-related photo gallery. Where oh where should I post a link? Maybe… here:
link

I don’t care for naming teams for anything other than the principal city in the metropolitan area. I still say Boston Patriots – yes, I’m old enough for it to be “still”. MLB teams include Phoenix and Miami, not Bisbee or Key West. It’s galling that the original ownership group of my local MLB and NHL teams violated this basic principle and more galling that subsequent ownership hasn’t fixed it.

Paul,
Found the sweater pics interesting, especially the 1913 Philadelphia A’s photo. I have this actual photograph framed. It was a gift several years ago. It is well over four feet long. Can you or anybody else give any details about the photo and what something like this might be worth in $$$?

If you are having trouble with links, the easiest way to do it is to type out whatever you want to say, and then highlight the text that you want linked (like “check out this site” or whatever). Then click the link button and paste in the address when the box pops up. This will give you a complete link, with the closing tags and everything and you are all set.

If you click the link button without selecting any text, you have to paste the code into the box, which gives you the start of the link code. Then you have to type the text you want linked and click the “/link” button when the cursor is at the end of the link text.

The easiest way is the first way, but remember (in my browser anyways) there is a preview of what you have typed below the box. You can see if your links show up. You can right click them and open them in a new window and see if they work. Remember, you can’t edit your post later.

[quote comment=”147712″][quote comment=”147683″][quote comment=”147681″]
Did it never occur to Reebok’s designers that hockey players (like all athletes) sweat?[/quote]

Did it ever occur to Reebok that hockey didn’t need new jerseys?[/quote]

teebz, thanks for referring to them as jerseys…
[/quote]

I haven’t referred to them as sweaters since they changed from wool to polyester. You’ll alaways hear “jerseys” from me, Todd, unless we’re talking about the 1950s and earlier. :o)

Hey,
Anybody know what’s up with the green dots on the backs of NFL quarterbacks’ helmets this season?

[quote comment=”147740″]Hey,
Anybody know what’s up with the green dots on the backs of NFL quarterbacks’ helmets this season?[/quote]

The green dot indicates what player is wearing the radio receiver in his helmet

MikeB-
I get what you’re saying about possibly more dollars coming in from businesses supporting the “home” rather than a team from next door. Obviously marketing is the reason they name teams they way they do, otherwise the Marlins would be the Miami Marlins, but it still irritates me. I can’t explain why, but it does, always been a big fan of the city name instead of the state name. In the end I think the only people that like these regional names are the big wigs. I’d like to think the casual fan isn’t so fickle as to choose their team based whether it’s the Tampa or Tampa Bay team down the road. I’ll stop ranting about no uni-specific BS now. Btw, I’m in the process of talking a friend of mine, with Packer-Vikings tickets, into letting me make him a t-shirt for the game that says “Even your uniforms suck!” Not that we need a reason to hate the Vikings more, but thanks again, Vikings brass, for those monstrosities you put out on the field each week, well done.

[quote comment=”147709″][quote comment=”147692″]Anyone that thinks that changing the team name to Tampa would alienate fans from surrounding regions are being ridiculous. I was born, raised, and still live in Rockford, IL. Yet I love the Green Bay Packers, why? because my dad’s from Wisconsin and that’s the team I grew up watching. To go along with that, my dad only watches football, as I ended up rooting for the White Sox and Bulls. Why? Because the Bulls are the default team to root for in you live in northern Illinois and I like the White Sox because my Grampa watched them. You don’t root for a sports team only if you actaully live in that city. You root for them because you grow up watching them. Never once have I said to myself, “Self, shouldn’t you really be a Bears fan? Or, shouldn’t you feel aleinated because the other teams you root for are from Chicago, and you’re from Rockford?” You people that think peopl only like a team if it’s got their coty’s name on their chest are ridiculous.[/quote]

I actually agree with your point Duckstyle. As I said in my earlier post, there are lots of reasons to become a fan of a certain team. I’m a fan of the Indians, Cavs and Browns but I live 2 hours away from Cleveland. Why? The same reasons as you – my old man was a Cleveland fan, I had friends that were Cleveland fans and, in a lot of ways, it was also the “default” thing to do. Even so, I have plenty of friends that are fans of other teams from all over the country. Are they wrong? No, of course not. They all have their own reasons for becoming a fan. That’s what great about sports – you can find whatever team you best relate to and make it your own.

However, at the risk of again being labeled ridiculous, I have to point out that from a marketing perspective (and whether we want to accept it or not, sports franchises are businesses) it is a straight numbers game. The larger you can make your market by expanding your territory, the more people you have an opportunity to sell tickets to and the more companies you have an opportunity to sell sponsorships to. If, as the owner of a franchise, you feel fans and corporations in outlying areas would be more likely to be involved if the team name encompassed their geographic area, then that is what you will do. Take it from someone that worked in marketing and corporate sales for a professional team with a geographic name.

This is all especially true in Tampa. As Chris mentioned in post #104, the cities are in very close proximity and basically function as one city. (Not to mention that the Rays play their home games in St. Pete, not Tampa). How could you include the name of one city, but not the other? Would St. Pete residents stop being fans if the team changed to just Tampa? Probably not, but why give half of your primary market a slap in the face for no reason?[/quote]

What about the 2 New York teams that actually work and play in New Jersey – same thing, but since Tampa is NOT in the Northeast – doesn’t get much run.

[quote comment=”147760″][quote comment=”147740″]Hey,
Anybody know what’s up with the green dots on the backs of NFL quarterbacks’ helmets this season?[/quote]

What’s up with you asking this question every day? Does it make you giggle, or is there some other reason why?[/quote]
Yeah, MT in Chicago you ask that every day. I know your probably doing that to try and get reactions out of people…which worked a couple weeks ago. I was also one that loved it when people asked that just to see others freak out and overreact (theres some high strung people here). But now that everyone has calmed down and just answers the question you might as well just stop.

On the Tampa Bay question: just to be clear, the options are either the St. Pete Rays or the Tampa Bay Rays, NOT the Tampa Rays. St. Petersburg is where the Rays play and, unlike, say, Auburn Hills, MI or Arlington, TX, it is not merely a suburb of a larger city. To put the team in one city and name it exclusively after the city next door is, IMHO, ridiculous.

Not to get too far off topic, but why do all sports teams from the City of Tampa go by “Tampa Bay” – a geographic feature, and not a city? We don’t call them the Detroit River Tigers.

It seems to have started with the Bucs, who may have been going for some sort of Green Bay thing, no? (After one year in the AFC, the Bucs were moved to the old NFC Central, which led to (the late) Pete Axthelm’s “Bay of Pigs” moniker to describe a Packers-Bucs matchup.)It is an attempt, from a marketing perspective, to make the team a regional entity as opposed to representing just a single city. It helps to broaden the potential fan base and the area from which the team can solicit potential sponsors. It isn’t an uncommon practice in sports (i.e. New England Patriots, Golden State Warriors, Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim), but makes particular sense in Tampa’s case considering the proximity of St. Petersburg (especially considering the Rays actually play in St. Pete).

One of the options they explored was, “Bay State Patriots”, but this was rejected when some marketing genius anticipated how this name would be abbreviated in a newspaper headline.

[quote comment=”147767″][quote comment=”147726″]I don’t care for naming teams for anything other than the principal city in the metropolitan area. I still say Boston Patriots – yes, I’m old enough for it to be “still”. MLB teams include Phoenix and Miami, not Bisbee or Key West. It’s galling that the original ownership group of my local MLB and NHL teams violated this basic principle and more galling that subsequent ownership hasn’t fixed it.[/quote]

Are they the Minneapolis Twins to you? But then they really wouldn’t be ‘Twins’ (Minneapolis AND St. Paul) now would they?[/quote]
When they’re losing they’re Mpls and when they’re winning they’re St. Paul. ;-)

[quote comment=”147774″]On the Tampa Bay question: just to be clear, the options are either the St. Pete Rays or the Tampa Bay Rays, NOT the Tampa Rays. St. Petersburg is where the Rays play and, unlike, say, Auburn Hills, MI or Arlington, TX, it is not merely a suburb of a larger city. To put the team in one city and name it exclusively after the city next door is, IMHO, ridiculous.[/quote]

I would not characterize Arlington as a suburb of Dallas. It has 400,000 people in it. Dallas has around a million on one side and Fort Worth has around 650,000 on the other side.

[quote comment=”147779″][quote comment=”147764″][quote comment=”147760″][quote comment=”147740″]Hey,
Anybody know what’s up with the green dots on the backs of NFL quarterbacks’ helmets this season?[/quote]

What’s up with you asking this question every day? Does it make you giggle, or is there some other reason why?[/quote]
Yeah, MT in Chicago you ask that every day. I know your probably doing that to try and get reactions out of people…which worked a couple weeks ago. I was also one that loved it when people asked that just to see others freak out and overreact (theres some high strung people here). But now that everyone has calmed down and just answers the question you might as well just stop.[/quote]

Yea, read the blog today. Paul said play nice.[/quote]
How am I out of line? I’m saying it’s stupid that THE SAME PERSON asks the same question every day.

But then again, “San Francisco Bay” isn’t used at all.

I beg to differ link

[quote comment=”147810″]I just wish the Florida Marlins would become the Miami Marlins![/quote]
Yeah, they should have stuck with the better-sounding name from the city’s minor league days. Just like the Arizona Diamondbacks should have been the Phoenix Firebirds (former AAA team). A much better name.

[quote comment=”147755″]
What about the 2 New York teams that actually work and play in New Jersey – same thing, but since Tampa is NOT in the Northeast – doesn’t get much run.[/quote]

I don’t think it’s the same thing at all – the Jets and Giants play in suburban New York City. It might be across a state line, but it’s still the NYC suburbs.

[quote comment=”147803″][quote comment=”147774″]On the Tampa Bay question: just to be clear, the options are either the St. Pete Rays or the Tampa Bay Rays, NOT the Tampa Rays. St. Petersburg is where the Rays play and, unlike, say, Auburn Hills, MI or Arlington, TX, it is not merely a suburb of a larger city. To put the team in one city and name it exclusively after the city next door is, IMHO, ridiculous.[/quote]

“Ridiculous” like the Washington Redskins that play in Landover, MD and have their offices in Ashburn, VA… nothing about them is DC except the name.[/quote]

There is nothing wrong with a team that plays in the suburbs using the name of the main city. Even if their offices are in another suburb.

[quote comment=”147811″][quote comment=”147810″]I just wish the Florida Marlins would become the Miami Marlins![/quote]
Yeah, they should have stuck with the better-sounding name from the city’s minor league days. Just like the Arizona Diamondbacks should have been the Phoenix Firebirds (former AAA team). A much better name.[/quote]

The logos are in alphabetical order so scroll down to the P’s and there you will see the link.
I agree, this would’ve been a better name, at least we wouldn’t have to constantly see D’Baacks

uh, I meant GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS.

PPS (where is my brain today? Ah I recall, I am home sick.)

The SF Giants will ALWAYS be called the SF Giants.
“Bay Area Giants?” No.

By the way, if everybody is going to be up in arms about city names, region names and whatever else shouldn’t we be taking up the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim? That is the most BS name in the history of sports. They’ve freely admitted is was for marketing, which means to make more money. Saying some will be offended because they took the ‘Bay’ out of Tampa Bay Rays is about as ridiculous as me feeling left out because it’s the Boston Red Sox and I’m from Haverhill. You aren’t allowed to like a team anymore because the city name isn’t yours? That’s just dumb. If the New England Patriots went back to Boston Patriots at some point I guarantee that there would still be people in New Hampshire would still support them.

I nominate the Charlotte Bobcats as the worst name in pro sports..yawners. They need to some how bring back the name Grizzlies as a team name.

[quote comment=”147834″]By the way, if everybody is going to be up in arms about city names, region names and whatever else shouldn’t we be taking up the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim? That is the most BS name in the history of sports. They’ve freely admitted is was for marketing, which means to make more money. Saying some will be offended because they took the ‘Bay’ out of Tampa Bay Rays is about as ridiculous as me feeling left out because it’s the Boston Red Sox and I’m from Haverhill. You aren’t allowed to like a team anymore because the city name isn’t yours? That’s just dumb. If the New England Patriots went back to Boston Patriots at some point I guarantee that there would still be people in New Hampshire would still support them.[/quote]

Some of you are just totally missing the poin. Nobody has ever claimed that you can’t like a team that doesn’t have your city’s name on it, but it really that hard to believe that there are at least some people out there who don’t think the same way you do? Especially since people have posted here saying they know people from St. Pete who DO care. In the example above: Maybe 95% of Patriots fans from NH would root for the Boston Patriots, but what about the 5% who (for whatever reason) wouldn’t? They’re supposed to just abandon fans (and money) because some very non-representative group of people thinks it sounds bad? That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.

[quote comment=”147812″][quote comment=”147799″]
How am I out of line? I’m saying it’s stupid that THE SAME PERSON asks the same question every day.[/quote]

I think it was meant to be in agreement with you. At least that’s how I interpreted it – the other guy is out of line.[/quote]

Yes. That’s what I meant. The repetitive question meant to push buttons is out of line. (kind of like a first base umpire harassing a short-tempered ballplayer.)

Just to chime in, the AZ D-Backs Play in Downtown Phoenix, but have spring training in Tucson, and since there is a natural Phoenix-Tucson rivalry (ASU-UofA) the Arizona moniker was more of a natural fit. Naming the team the Phoenix Firebirds would have been all well and good had they not been a AAA affiliate of the division rival Giants.

The Arizona Cardinals were originally(relatively speaking) the Phoenix Cardinals until someone realized “Hey! The Cardinals play thier games in Tempe, have their HQ-practice facility in Tempe and have Training Camp in Flagstaff (hour and a half away). Lets change the name to Arizona Cardinals.”

[quote comment=”147844″][quote comment=”147834″]By the way, if everybody is going to be up in arms about city names, region names and whatever else shouldn’t we be taking up the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim? That is the most BS name in the history of sports. They’ve freely admitted is was for marketing, which means to make more money. Saying some will be offended because they took the ‘Bay’ out of Tampa Bay Rays is about as ridiculous as me feeling left out because it’s the Boston Red Sox and I’m from Haverhill. You aren’t allowed to like a team anymore because the city name isn’t yours? That’s just dumb. If the New England Patriots went back to Boston Patriots at some point I guarantee that there would still be people in New Hampshire would still support them.[/quote]

Some of you are just totally missing the poin. Nobody has ever claimed that you can’t like a team that doesn’t have your city’s name on it, but it really that hard to believe that there are at least some people out there who don’t think the same way you do? Especially since people have posted here saying they know people from St. Pete who DO care. In the example above: Maybe 95% of Patriots fans from NH would root for the Boston Patriots, but what about the 5% who (for whatever reason) wouldn’t? They’re supposed to just abandon fans (and money) because some very non-representative group of people thinks it sounds bad? That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.[/quote]

Obviously there is no easy answer. I’d like to know the reasoning behind feeling left out by dropping the ‘Bay.’ It’s just the name of a team after all. And actually I think that the Rays should drop the Tampa as well and go with the St. Petersburg Ray since that’s the city they are actually in.

[quote comment=”147808″]But then again, “San Francisco Bay” isn’t used at all.

I beg to differ link[/quote]

Touche. Good find. But…if the article says they are the “Bay Bombers”, wouldn’t the city/region be simply “San Francisco”?
Which syntax is correct?
San Francisco : Bay Bombers :: Tampa : Bay Devil Rays
or
San Francisco Bay : Bombers :: Tampa Bay : Devil Rays ?

[quote comment=”147825″]
When the A’s new stadium opens in what, 2012?..you can bet they’ll be “The Oajland Athletics of Fremont.” And you can thank the Angels owner for that.[/quote]

Fremont didn’t bid on the stadium just to have the A’s call the stadium “Cisco Field in Fremont”. They’re gonna want some cred in the team name like what Moreno did.

I’ll be at the Rangers/Angels game tonight. As a die-hard Dodger fan who normally wears his LA hat to the Ballpark, I will refrain from doing so to avoid being confused with the regional fan. Last game I was at was Rangers/Chisox and there were WAY too many Cubs jerseys. WHITE SOX ≠ CUBS just as Dodgers ≠ Angels. I hate Moreno for the name change and will not be confused with a bandwagon Angels fan tonight. Go Rangers.

[quote comment=”147854″]Funny thing about the LSU “Katrina” unis is that they are mostly white…which probably won’t sit well with those that say only the African-American residents of New Orleans were effected by Kartina.Huricane warning flagsin LSU’s colors.[/quote]

Uhh…the middle of my post was ate…

What I said was: Funny thing about these unis is that they are mostly white…which probably won’t sit well with those that say only the African-American residents of New Orleans were effected by Kartina.

Also, I noticed that the LSU logo has some type of design in the letters, anyone know what the hell they represent?

And the partial shoulder stripes kind of look like Hurricane Warning flags…

Imagine the Niners had been founded as the San Francisco Bay Forty-Niners and had played all of their games in Oakland. Then, without moving the team to San Fran, the team just decided to “drop” the Bay and go by San Francisco Forty-Niners. Doesn’t it make sense the folks in Oakland might be a bit miffed?

The Rays have always been located in St. Pete. This whole discussion started with a question about why teams are named after geographic regions instead of the city in which they operate. Some folks were arguing that “Tampa Rays” sounds better than “Tampa Bay Rays”. My only point was that if the Rays are going to drop the regional name and adopt the name of the city (not suburb) in which they operate, then they should be the St. Petersburg Rays, not the Tampa Rays.

As a Cubs fan living in an AL only city, I would think that wearing a Cubs hat to a White Sox away game is sending the message “I am not necessarily a fan of the home team, but I am definitely against the White Sox.” Wearing only Bulls/Bears/Blackhawks gear to a White Sox away game would show support for the White Sox.

Which syntax is correct?
San Francisco : Bay Bombers :: Tampa : Bay Devil Rays
or
San Francisco Bay : Bombers :: Tampa Bay : Devil Rays ?

I honestly don’t know which is correct. I don’t know whether the team name is ‘Bay Bombers’ or if the use of ‘Bay’ is shorthand for San Francisco Bay.

[quote comment=”147840″]I nominate the Charlotte Bobcats as the worst name in pro sports..yawners. They need to some how bring back the name Grizzlies as a team name.[/quote]

Like the “Memphis Grizzlies”, perhaps?

link

[quote comment=”147610″]Not to get too far off topic, but why do all sports teams from the City of Tampa go by “Tampa Bay” – a geographic feature, and not a city? We don’t call them the Detroit River Tigers.

It seems to have started with the Bucs, who may have been going for some sort of Green Bay thing, no? (After one year in the AFC, the Bucs were moved to the old NFC Central, which led to (the late) Pete Axthelm’s “Bay of Pigs” moniker to describe a Packers-Bucs matchup.)[/quote]
Tampa Bay is also the name of the area.

Who else wants to kill Keith Olberman after his halftime segment on SNF? His “worst person in the NFL” (haha, get it, because his regular show has a worst person in the world) was the Iggles unis. Not even a real person!

I live in North Texas, and I just wanted to make it clear the Arlington is not a suburb of Dallas, or Fort Worth for that matter. In fact, you might say Mansfield is a suburb of Arlington.

[quote comment=”147899″]I live in North Texas, and I just wanted to make it clear the Arlington is not a suburb of Dallas, or Fort Worth for that matter. In fact, you might say Mansfield is a suburb of Arlington.[/quote]

Point taken. My apologies for being guilty of the very kind of assumption I was criticizing.

I think the city/suburb talk needs to end

I live in North Texas, and I just wanted to make it clear the Arlington is not a suburb of Dallas, or Fort Worth for that matter. In fact, you might say Mansfield is a suburb of Arlington.

I’m not really sure what the point of all this debate is, but as a lifelong DFW resident, Arlington is most definitely a suburb of Dallas. I’m curious about why anyone would not agree. Because it’s the third-largest city in the Metroplex? Because it’s not contiguous with Dallas proper? Because it’s nearly equidistant between Dallas and Fort Worth? What about Plano, where I grew up — are you going to tell me that’s not a suburb of Dallas? The Woodlands isn’t a suburb of Houston?

On another note, I never thought I’d see a BQ sweater pic on UniWatch! (CT ’01)

[quote comment=”147857″][quote comment=”147818″][quote comment=”147755″]
What about the 2 New York teams that actually work and play in New Jersey – same thing, but since Tampa is NOT in the Northeast – doesn’t get much run.[/quote]

I don’t think it’s the same thing at all – the Jets and Giants play in suburban New York City. It might be across a state line, but it’s still the NYC suburbs.[/quote]
Funny, the NJ Devils are physically closer to NYC than the Jets/ Giants… yet they are NY teams.

New York Devils![/quote]

The Devils are closer? By, what, inches?

And now that they’re in Newark, NJ?

Here’s a good link of the LSU football uniform in all-white. As an LSU fan, I really wouldn’t mind that being our full time uni. That forum is also a good opportunity to see what amateurs think of the uniform topic.

[quote comment=”147950″]You’ve GOT to be kidding me. Is link considered a jersey or a tank top?[/quote]

Looks like an link top.

[quote comment=”147850″]Just to chime in, the AZ D-Backs Play in Downtown Phoenix, but have spring training in Tucson, and since there is a natural Phoenix-Tucson rivalry (ASU-UofA) the Arizona moniker was more of a natural fit. Naming the team the Phoenix Firebirds would have been all well and good had they not been a AAA affiliate of the division rival Giants.

The Arizona Cardinals were originally(relatively speaking) the Phoenix Cardinals until someone realized “Hey! The Cardinals play thier games in Tempe, have their HQ-practice facility in Tempe and have Training Camp in Flagstaff (hour and a half away). Lets change the name to Arizona Cardinals.”[/quote]

During the time playing at Scum Devil Stadium, the only game that would sell out was the Cardinals-Cowboys game, so Jerry Jones bought a few billboards around the state that said “Dallas Cowboys – Arizona’s Team”.

For what its worth, after the G-Men played at Yale, they played one season at Shea (1975) before moving to the swamp.

Blog posting about link. Are they new? I actually like the top photo with the turtleneck tops–rather USC Song Girl-like.

[quote comment=”147657″][quote comment=”147652″]anyone else find it interesting that the guy in this link is wearing a Red Sox sweater but the caption says Boston Americans? I know the Americans turned into the Red Sox but you’d think that the photographer would’ve known which it was.[/quote]

I’m going to presume that you’re serious here.

“Americans” was a common nickname used to refer to teams in the American League (especially in cities with teams in both leagues).

I am not aware that any team used “Americans” as an official, exclusive nickname at any time. The cloest is the Washington Nationals, who despite the name played in the American League.[/quote]

>>>”Americans” was a common nickname used to refer to teams in the American League…..

While that is true – most clubs did have other, at least unofficial, nicknames aside from their league name. However,the Bos AL club (or the newspaper writers) did specifically use the nickname “Americans” before the official change to Red Sox.

As to the photo caption – there are a lot of errors in the on-line Bain collection. Many have been corrected or are in the process of being corrected.