Every now and then a debate breaks out in the comments section about the precise definition of logo creep. As the guy who came up with the term, I feel reasonably qualified to define it as follows: Logo creep is visual clutter formed by the unnecessary proliferation of logos where they don’t belong. This can include maker’s marks, league logos, and other sorts of gratuitous logotypes. And have I got a doozy of an example for you today.
Here’s the scoop: As you no doubt recall, the NFL instituted a new rule last season requiring the one radio-equipped helmet on the offensive side of the ball to be adorned with a green sticker (which led to my receiving an endless stream of “What’s that green dot?” e-mails last season, but that’s another story). As you may also recall, there was talk a few months ago of allowing one defensive helmet to be radio-equipped as well. That led many folks to wonder if a corresponding green dot would appear on the defensive side of the ball.
Judging by this photo from the first day of Giants camp, the answer is yes. That’s Antonio pierce wearing the telltale green sticker. But it looks a little smudgy, no? Is there some dirt on the dot, or maybe something printed on it?
It’s tough to tell for sure in that photo. Fortunately, I’m able to provide you with a better view. Here’s what the sticker looks like up close.
This isn’t the stupidest thing the NFL has ever done, but that’s only because they tried to keep Mike Nolan from wearing a suit. Like, seriously, do these people have the NFL logo tattooed on their dicks or what? Do they sit around an NFL logo-shaped table while munching on NFL logo-shaped macaroons and ponder new places to apply the NFL logo? Are they aware that the average NFL player already wears the league’s logo on his jersey, pants, helmet, gloves, towel, wristbands, and those little stretchy bands that Jeremy Shockey likes to wear on his biceps to show what a studmuffin he is?
There’s something about this whole enterprise that reeks of everything that’s wrong with the NFL (and with a lot of other corporate enterprises that spin out of control). For starters, who needs radio-equipped helmets anyway? Larynxes and hand signals and worked fine for decades. Then radio-equipped helmets begat the problem of multiple radio-equipped helmets, so they came up with the rule that there could only be one electronically wired helmet on the field at a time. Which in turn meant they had to come up with the green dots, which looked like shit because they didn’t match any team’s color scheme except the Seahawks’. And now the green dot has been imprinted with a design that looks like a smudge from a distance and looks pathetic up close.
The technology-driven progression here reminds me of instant replay, which seemed like a good idea until it led to lengthy delays, coaches who didn’t know which plays were and weren’t reviewable, teams that would hurry to the line and snap the ball just to prevent the opposing team from asking for a review, bad calls that couldn’t be challenged because the coach had already used up his allotment of challenges, refs who didn’t remember where the ball should be placed after they’d ruled on a challenge, and little red flags that revealed the horrible truth about NFL coaches (namely that they all throw like girls, at least when tossing a red challenge flag). It’s like there’s something about the NFL that makes them take every idea to its most ridiculous extreme until they’ve sapped every ounce of potential enjoyment from the situation. I still like football, but they’re making it harder and harder.
In happier news, I attended yesterday’s Mets/Cards game in the company of my good friend The Rev. Nørb, who’s smarter than everyone at NFL HQ put together — a fact clearly demonstrated by the two installments of his seminal food and drink manifesto, “Rev. Nørb’s Keen Cusine,” which you can enjoy here and here. It has nothing to do with uniforms, but it’s brilliant in precisely the same way that a logo-emblazoned green dot is idiotic, and therefore serves as a handy antidote for these troubled times.
Uni Watch News Ticker: Any further discussions of “the worst baseball uniform ever” will have to reckon with the uni that Dylan Horowitz has turned up. Look, if you dare, here. ”¦ Really interesting article here about the guy who makes Ichiro’s gloves (with thanks to Jeremy Brahm). ”¦ My recent ESPN column on the 1998 futuristic game between the Royals and Mariners inspired gumball helmet maven Bill Jones to create these. He’s also got lots of updated logo sheets available for sharing, as you can see here. ”¦ More Iowa State Baseball Tourney observations from Jesse Gavin: a cool, kinda Negro Leagues-esque cap worn by Grandview Park Baptist; award decals being used by Johnston; and lots of very flat brims. ”¦ On the subject of logo-emblazoned socks, Karl Krekeler found these UPS hose. ”¦ If you go to this link and then click to page 32, you’ll find an article on the designer who created the Astros’ tequila sunrise design (with thanks to John Weghorst). ”¦ Brad Foster nominates the CFL’s now-defunct Memphis Mad Dogs in the “worst jersey ever” sweepstakes (here’s another shot). ”¦ Pretty damn cute. ”¦ Get this: The first time an Atlanta police detective solves a case, he’s rewarded with a fedora. Additional info and photos here (great find by Brent Hardman). ”¦ Last year I wrote about how Carlos Gomez had worn a cap that was a weird hybrid of the Mets’ road and alt caps (blue brim, but that version of the “NY” logo usually appears only on the solid black cap; details here). I assumed it was a one-time manufacturing glitch by New Era, but apparently it’s at least a two-time glitch, because Casey Moses found the same hybrid design in a store (additional pics here, here and here). “It was the only one of its kind at the store, so I bought it as a novelty, even though it’s not my size,” he says. ”¦ This story about former Czech president Vaclav Havel includes the following: “And what, if anything, disappoints Havel with the state of contemporary capitalist culture, whose forces he helped unleash as a dissident? ‘I do not like the ads on the shirts of hockey or football players,’ he said. ‘You’d think Coca-Cola is playing against Pepsi Cola.'” I assume he’s talking about European hockey and soccer there, and he’s right (great find by Bryant Robinson). ”¦ Hmmm, got logo creep? Looks like they worked in just about every manufacturer (with thanks to Wayne Yeung). ”¦ Speaking of logo creep, David Sonny points out that the Reebok logo is front and center on this Sporting News cover photo, which is interesting because the MLB undershirt license actually belongs to Nike, not Reebok — wonder whether it was Yunel Escobar or TSN who was responsible for that little maneuver. ”¦ On Friday I quoted a reader asking whether any football teams had replaced their primary helmet logos with anniversary logos. But as many readers immediately pointed out, lots of college teams wore the NCAA’s “100” mark in 1969, including Ole Miss, ’Bama, ASU, Navy, and many more (thanks to Jim Parker for those pics, and please let’s not have everyone posting every single example — we all get the idea). ”¦ Lots of really cool old-timey sports T-shirts available here. I especially like this one (with thanks to Dusty McGowan). ”¦ Big news from Steve Dewing (whose baseball photo site remains essential viewing): He’s got a new site devoted to old hockey photos. Check it out here. ”¦ Some great new baseball revelations from Steve too, including Chris Spier wearing an Astros helmet in the 1972 All-Star Game and Denny McLain as a Brave. ”¦ Interesting NOB here (courtesy of Johnny Garfield) — note that it’s “Miller, M.” instead of “M. Miller.” Anyone know more about this? ”¦ Brinke Guthrie notes that several of the Giants’ recent call-ups seem to have their uni numbers riding a tad low. ”¦ Reprinted from Saturday’s comments: Cool slideshow of the Oklahoma football equipment room here. ”¦ Also from Saturday: Indiana assistant hoops coach Bennie Seltzer wore the team’s candy-striped warmup pants to get recruits’ attention at a recent summer camp. Details here. ”¦ Interesting note from eagle-eyed Josh Edney regarding yesterday’s Phils/Braves game, which had a two-hour rain delay: “The umps started out the game in their powder blue shirts, including home plate umpire Alfonso Marquez, whose shirt was No. 61, even though his number is listed on the MLB web site as 72. When the rain delay concluded, the umps returned to the field wearing black shirts, and Marquez’s had his proper number.” ”¦ Mark Mihalik‘s footwear site has an interesting tidbit regarding Bronson Arroyo’s swooshes. ”¦ Mets-hating Phillies fans should dig this and this, both available here (with thanks to Morris Levin). ”¦ The B.C. Lions will be wearing a memorial decal in honor of former team exec Bob Ackles. Details here (courtesy of Alex Tepperman). ”¦ Jeremy Brahm reports that the Japanese volleyball team will be wearing this in Beijing. ”¦ Several jillion readers wrote in to tell me that Xavier Nady’s uni number and helmet number didn’t match on Saturday. Also, the last item on this page reads like so: “The [Yanks’] new left-handed reliever Dámaso Marte was issued No. 34, with the blessing of the injured pitcher Phil Hughes, who had no luck with the number early this season. Xavier Nady took No. 29, last worn by pitcher Kei Igawa, who was dropped from the 40-man roster.” ”¦ Becky Taylor has crated a huge gallery of Georgia high school sports photos — some that she’s taken herself, some scanned from yearbooks she’s collected. ”¦ And Hadyn Green has scanned a bunch of photos from old rugby almanacs. ”¦ “I was going through some old issues of Pro magazine,” writes Michael Princip. “The Aug. 17, 1978 issue had an article on George Brace and the portraits he did of 1931 Chicago Bears players. Great read [here and here], as well as photos [here and here].” ”¦ Terry Proctor along a bunch of pics of the 1956-57 Rochester Royals — note the striped shorts. “Sort of a ‘Globetrotters-meets-NBA’ look to the whole set, he says. ”¦ Latest team to wear their BP jerseys for a regular-season game: the Rays yesterday. Even worse, they did while playing the Royals, who were wearing their powder blues, resulting in a pathetic spectacle that was unworthy of MLB status. ”¦ Lots of news (much of which we’ve already heard) regarding NHL alts here. ”¦ Good story here about America’s last remaining baseball glove factory. ”¦ Against all reason (but much to my delight), graphic artists continue to depict baseball players wearing stirrups. Latest example is here. ”¦ Absolutely stomach-turning sight, at least for me: Bowie Kuhn wearing a Mets cap. ”¦ The more you look through the Sporting News archives, the more you find that the old mag was way into uni-watching, as seen in this 1969 clipping regarding Ken Harrelson’s NOB (great find by John Schaefer). ”¦ Two interesting field hockey shots from Tris Wykes: First, rather unusual socks on display here. And what was Kecoughtan High from Hampton, Virginia, thinking when they outfitted their goalkeeper? ”¦ Jeremy Sowers looked particularly sharp yesterday. ”¦ “So I popped open my Hockey News this week, and the contents page showed Brian Rolston’s nameplate being applied,” writes T.J. Leibowitz (who also sent along some pics of Japanese Little Leaguers wearing stirrups and Asian uni numbers). ”¦ “This article seems to argue (midway down, right around the white jersey with LUFC in cursive) that Leeds United’s manager at the time (Don Revie) started manufacturer’s logo creep on soccer jerseys in Britain,” says Andrew Connor. ”¦ “Here is a pic of my grandpa, John Novosel, who played for the 1941 Springfield Browns, writes Scott Novosel. “They were a minor league team for the St. Louis Browns that played in Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana. That year he batted .302 and a scout from the New York Giants came down to see him play. The scout asked the Browns how much it would cost for him. The Browns said $60,000, and the scout said, “No thanks, for that much money, we got a guy who is pretty good in right field.” He was referring to Mel Ott.” ”¦ By now you’ve seen that Aquafina commercial with Lou Piniella a few dozen times (if not, it’s here), but Doug Simpson noticed something that nobody else had brought to my attention: The pitcher who’s backing up third base at the very beginning of the ad has no uni number. ”¦ The Red Sox have previously flown a Jolly Roger flag in their bullpen, but now they’ve modified it somewhat, as seen here (with thanks to Randy Williams). … “I took this photo at Fenway Saturday,” writes Jere Smith. “As you can see, Ortiz seems to have a flame/torch decal on his bat. He had this bat in BP and, as shown here, on deck during the game. It appears to be red, yellow, and green from left to right, like the Rastafarian flag. I’ve never seen any decal like this on a bat during a game before.” … Speaking of Big Papi, it’s one thing to mark your helmet with a memorial tribute to a deceased family member, teammate, or friend. But I think doing it for a family member of a former teammate, as Ortiz did on Friday night, is pushing it. That inscription on his helmet read, “RIP 45,” for Pedro Martinez’s father — well-meaning, yes, but I say it’s a bit much. ”¦ Tigers and Chisox wore Negro Leagues throwbacks on Saturday (additional pics here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). ”¦ What the hell is this? Did the Twins really wear this in 1968, as the seller contends, or — as I suspect — is it just a scam? Details, please (as found by Jeff Barak). ”¦ Eric Sun notes that Geno Espineli doesn’t just have picture-perfect stirrups, he’s completing the old-school look with a Spalding glove and Puma spikes.
Brad Foster nominates the CFL’s now-defunct Memphis Mad Dogs in the “worst jersey ever” sweepstakes (here’s another shot).
link
I thought I was looking at Jonathan Ogden on quick glance…
the new mantra in the red sox pen may be related to this great story…first nugget here:
link:
link
What the hell is that field hockey goalie wearing? It looks like a foam factory exploded! Is this legit gear?
Paul,
This is, I think, the third time that the Rays have worn their BP jerseys in a live game. They view them as slumpbusters. Other teams choose other things to be slumpbusters…
link
A few quick things before work…
1. Wondered if those Rochester Royals striped trunks had ever been discussed here at Uni-Watch.
2. Back issues of TSN. Check 1962, around June, maybe. Was a fun cartoon (Willard Mullen-type) about new trends in unis…nylon, tighter pants, higher stirrups, etc. Was on front page. Had the clipping for awhile but can’t find that sucker anywhere.
3. Oldis Twins ’68 “throwback”? Well, if it happened, it happened right under my nose, which certainly could have happened, I had a busy summer in ’68, including meeting and dating my first wife, lol. Oldis WAS a coach with the Twins in’68, and he WAS #5 (source: NOW BATTING, NUMBER… by Jack Looney).
Later, gang.
–Ricko
[quote comment=”282143″]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3019/2709192362_3d8e033129_b.jpg
What the hell is that field hockey goalie wearing? It looks like a foam factory exploded! Is this legit gear?[/quote]
I love how she’s padded up like she’s going to get hit with a cannonball…. but her forearms are totally exposed. lol nice.
I thought the RIP 45 on Ortiz’s helmet was for the 45 days he was on the DL …
Here’s a jersey I bet not a lot of people have…
link
Inconsistency at its finest: The Sox wear their beach-blanket throwbacks last week, complete with helmets, which I pointed out to my sisters. But the Negro leauge throwbacks… black socks and black helmets. As one of my sisters said, “No wonder nobody in Chicago likes them. That looks like hell.”
Those are definitely not numbers, those are their family names for the little leaguers.
The kid reaching into the blue basket on the far left is Fujiwara.
from the link section of your fielding 101 manual:
legs bent? check
glove open? check
top hand ready to trap errant hop? check
eyes closed? check
wait…what?
[quote comment=”282151″]from the link section of your fielding 101 manual:
legs bent? check
glove open? check
top hand ready to trap errant hop? check
eyes closed? check
wait…what?[/quote]
All this effort for a foul ball? check
wait… what? Damn it!
link
What an odd eBay scam. Minneapolis (along with the state of Minnesota) is only celebrating its sesquicentennial this year, having achieved statehood (and cityhood) in 1858. Certainly not 1768.
Nice looking flannel, though.
Nice to see some love for the taquila sunrise uniform. It gets ridiculed here, but truly is one of the great designs in all of sports. Frankly, it’s what’s RIGHT with sports, especially baseball … which is chock full of bland, blue “same” designs across the board. Cheers to this fella for bringing the Astros alive. A for “effort” with the Indians uni from above … anything but another blue/gray combo.
PS – The funny thing about the NFL logo creep … some art director probably got paid a few thousand to come up with and execute that idea. “A lightning bolt, that’s what we need, show it to me.”
So I popped open my Hockey News this week, and the contents page showed Brian Rolston’s nameplate being applied,”
Uggghhhhh! Looks like the names are pre-fabricated on a transfer paper then applied to a nameplate that appears to be already attached to the jersey…this makes no sense! Not only does this defeat the purpose of a nameplate, it saddens me that the names are not placed by hand any more. Where is the pride in the craft?
I came back last Tuesday from a week-long second honeymoon in Paris, and learned (during an entire week without internet access — gasp!) that the “obsessive” part of the Uniwatchblog banner for this sight does, absolutely, speak of me.
While I was there, a number of things struck me as interesting — things that I couldn’t WAIT to get back to the states and share with the Uniwatch faithful:
The “classic” Adidas logo is everywhere in France (Sorry no pictures, but here’s a link
to shoes like I’ve seen — I bet I saw the old logo at least 50 times a day while we were there.
I don’t know if there’s any real connection here, but while at the Louvre museum, my wife and I stopped and looked at link, also well known as “Nike”. What I found on the lower part of this monument (the front of a ship) link. Coincidence? I think not.
But the REAL unicentric jewel of my journey came when we visited Chartre Cathedral an hour outside of Paris. While touring with incredibly gifted and intelligent (yet horribly pompous and arrogant) tour guide Malcolm Miller, we learned that when the church was being built in its current form around 1200 A.D., there was a great deal of cost to be absorbed. In the gothic style of the church, the builders chose to use stained glass to tell the stories from the bible, but to offset costs, they allowed (drum roll please) the earliest form of logo creep in recorded history. I apologize for the quality of some of these photos, but taking pictures of windows three stories high with a $300 camera and no tripod in a church lit almost exclusively by dirty stained glass windows is not an easy task.
Example #1: link
This window tells the story of Adam and Eve. It was “sponsored” by shoe-makers who, in return for paying for the window, got their images included in the bottom link of that window’s stained glass story.
Example #2: The windows in link were sponsored by the baker’s guild. While it looks in these blurry shots more like buckets of popcorn in the lowest part of the second and third windows, I assure you those are baskets of bread strategically placed as a nod towards those who paid for the making of the windows. Here is a link
in a different part of the church confirming what our tour guide had already explained to us in regards to these windows.
Example #3: Some windows with medieval logo creep had some cross-merchandising behind them. link, which portraits the story of Noah’s Arc, was sponsored – fittingly enough – by the link.
Regarding the fedora tradition for Atlanta homicide cops, I only have one thing to say…..
How freaking cool is that?!
Are you sure the logo a Big Papi’s bat isn’t just gold with the red reflecting from the jersey and the green relecting from the grass?
[quote comment=”282154″]What an odd eBay scam. Minneapolis (along with the state of Minnesota) is only celebrating its sesquicentennial this year, having achieved statehood (and cityhood) in 1858. Certainly not 1768.[/quote]
Thanks for so quickly pointing this out. I was getting ready to do some searching on the issue, because there was just no way that the cities had been in existence for so long.
If it was just the lightning bolt, I might actually think it’s kinda cool…but that logo…cripes, it’s everywhere!
I’ve been wondering when I’m going to get excited about the Steelers upcoming season…usually by the time training camp opens I’m itching for some football. But this year, nothing. I suppose it has to do with the Pens success last season…hockey is all I can think about! Say what you will about how they run the league, etc., but I think the NHL makes the NFL seem so overexposed, boring and corporate.
[quote comment=”282161″]If it was just the lightning bolt, I might actually think it’s kinda cool…but that logo…cripes, it’s everywhere!
I’ve been wondering when I’m going to get excited about the Steelers upcoming season…usually by the time training camp opens I’m itching for some football. But this year, nothing. I suppose it has to do with the Pens success last season…hockey is all I can think about! Say what you will about how they run the league, etc., but I think the NHL makes the NFL seem so overexposed, boring and corporate.[/quote]
Now you know how I feel 24/7. Always pumped for hockey to start.
[quote comment=”282162″][quote comment=”282161″]If it was just the lightning bolt, I might actually think it’s kinda cool…but that logo…cripes, it’s everywhere!
I’ve been wondering when I’m going to get excited about the Steelers upcoming season…usually by the time training camp opens I’m itching for some football. But this year, nothing. I suppose it has to do with the Pens success last season…hockey is all I can think about! Say what you will about how they run the league, etc., but I think the NHL makes the NFL seem so overexposed, boring and corporate.[/quote]
Now you know how I feel 24/7. Always pumped for hockey to start.[/quote]
Rob, let me third the motion! This is the least excited I’ve been for an NFL season and the Steelers and I think it has everything to do with the Pens.
I do agree that a logo on the green dot is too much, but here’s a thought. It could be to prevent tampering. I could go to an office supply store and buy a whole package of green dots. I could conceivably switch the dot for whatever deceptive purpose I may have. Perhaps with the radios going to both sides of the field the NFL came up with a inspection process. Maybe an NFL official goes in with his logoed stickers and says give me the radio helmet, inspects it, and put the NFL seal of approval. Just like a ref siging a boxer’s gloves. Just a thought.
Or maybe they got tired of people emailing them and asking, “What’s that green dot on the helmet?” The lighting bolt clears everything up.
Everyone expand the “Got Logo Creep” pic and check out the shoulder of the swimmer…..she’s got fingers growing out of her shoulder!
[quote comment=”282164″]I do agree that a logo on the green dot is too much, but here’s a thought. It could be to prevent tampering. I could go to an office supply store and buy a whole package of green dots. I could conceivably switch the dot for whatever deceptive purpose I may have. Perhaps with the radios going to both sides of the field the NFL came up with a inspection process. Maybe an NFL official goes in with his logoed stickers and says give me the radio helmet, inspects it, and put the NFL seal of approval. Just like a ref siging a boxer’s gloves. Just a thought.[/quote]
My thought exactly. Has anyone ever asked Joe Skiba or Rob Roecker (Bengals) what kind of security measures are protecting green dot tampering? Just curious.
The tampering point makes a lot of sense – plus, is it really that big of a deal? It’s a little sticker, on the back of a helmet, of 2 players – let’s not blow it out of proportion.
“…do these people have the NFL logo tattooed on their dicks or what?”
lol
[quote comment=”282166″]Everyone expand the “Got Logo Creep” pic and check out the shoulder of the swimmer…..she’s got fingers growing out of her shoulder![/quote]
Just linkthe source you stole that joke from.
[quote comment=”282166″]Everyone expand the “Got Logo Creep” pic and check out the shoulder of the swimmer…..she’s got fingers growing out of her shoulder![/quote]
…and the tall track guy in the middle has no right arm
[quote comment=”282167″][quote comment=”282164″]I do agree that a logo on the green dot is too much, but here’s a thought. It could be to prevent tampering. I could go to an office supply store and buy a whole package of green dots. I could conceivably switch the dot for whatever deceptive purpose I may have. Perhaps with the radios going to both sides of the field the NFL came up with a inspection process. Maybe an NFL official goes in with his logoed stickers and says give me the radio helmet, inspects it, and put the NFL seal of approval. Just like a ref siging a boxer’s gloves. Just a thought.[/quote]
My thought exactly. Has anyone ever asked Joe Skiba or Rob Roecker (Bengals) what kind of security measures are protecting green dot tampering? Just curious.[/quote]
If the NFL was really worried about tampering, then you’d think they’d use something better than a green sticker. Maybe include the green circle into the “paint” of the helmet where the green wouldn’t come off?
[quote comment=”282165″]Or maybe they got tired of people emailing them and asking, “What’s that green dot on the helmet?” The lighting bolt clears everything up.[/quote]
“Does the lightning bolt mean the helmet is electric?” [/sarcasm]
[quote]is it really that big of a deal? It’s a little sticker, on the back of a helmet, of 2 players – let’s not blow it out of proportion.[/quote]
*insert straight face icon here*
[quote comment=”282170″][quote comment=”282166″]Everyone expand the “Got Logo Creep” pic and check out the shoulder of the swimmer…..she’s got fingers growing out of her shoulder![/quote]
Just linkthe source you stole that joke from.[/quote]
Or I just noticed the fact that she has freaking fingers growing out of her shoulder….And I am sure Deadspin isn’t the only website to have noticed this….
Minneapolis and St. Paul both predate statehood in 1858. Fort Snelling, the Army post around which permanent white settlement eventually formed, was founded in 1819. Both St. Paul and Minneapolis — originally a suburb of St. Paul — came into being after Fort Snelling. St. Paul, then called Pig’s Eye, made the leap from “group of huts” to “town” in the 1830s, and Minneapolis was organized by the territorial legislature in the 1850s. In addition, there were white explorations of, and ongoing presence in, what is now Minnesota long before 1768. Part of Minnesota became U.S. territory in 1783, part became U.S. territory in 1803, and the rest in 1818. So 1768 just isn’t a date with any significance to the region.
[quote comment=”282172″][quote comment=”282167″][quote comment=”282164″]I do agree that a logo on the green dot is too much, but here’s a thought. It could be to prevent tampering. I could go to an office supply store and buy a whole package of green dots. I could conceivably switch the dot for whatever deceptive purpose I may have. Perhaps with the radios going to both sides of the field the NFL came up with a inspection process. Maybe an NFL official goes in with his logoed stickers and says give me the radio helmet, inspects it, and put the NFL seal of approval. Just like a ref siging a boxer’s gloves. Just a thought.[/quote]
My thought exactly. Has anyone ever asked Joe Skiba or Rob Roecker (Bengals) what kind of security measures are protecting green dot tampering? Just curious.[/quote]
If the NFL was really worried about tampering, then you’d think they’d use something better than a green sticker. Maybe include the green circle into the “paint” of the helmet where the green wouldn’t come off?[/quote]
Probably wouldn’t do the paint thing due to players subbing in and out / getting injured where they’d have to switch who gets the head set in the helmet. If someone unexpectendly has to wear the headset it’s easier to replace a sticker than paint.
BTW, that has to be one of the freakest pictures used as the headline pic I’ve seen…
The Miami Dolphins offense wore link on the first weekend of training camp. Is this a sign of things to come for the upcoming season? They haven’t worn the link in a while. Additional pics link.
I remember playing a very obscure football trivia video game in the early ’90s. I still remember one question “How many times does the NFL logo appear on the uniform?” The answer was 3 (helmet, jersey collar, pants hip of course).
With “NFL Equipment” gloves, wristbands, armbands, bandanas, towels, undershirts, towels, and now green dots, I wonder what the answer to that question would be today?
I was going to bring up the tampering issue about the NFL stickers, but others have done it better than I.
Or, perhaps someone in the NFL front office has a sticker printing business on the side?
And on that Mets hat, dude, I’m a size 8 – how much you want for that? I like the look of the drop shadow NY and the blue brim.
WOW
Anyone see the Edmonton Swastikas photo yet?
link
link
…i mean…what HOF ceremony would be complete otherwise?
[quote comment=”282180″]I remember playing a very obscure football trivia video game in the early ’90s. I still remember one question “How many times does the NFL logo appear on the uniform?” The answer was 3 (helmet, jersey collar, pants hip of course).
With “NFL Equipment” gloves, wristbands, armbands, bandanas, towels, undershirts, towels, and now green dots, I wonder what the answer to that question would be today?[/quote]
Not to be a stickler, but I would argue that the answer to that question would be the same today. The gloves and everything else you name are accessories, not part of the uniform. You have a different answer for nearly every player in the league.
Beautiful…
link
I never thought I’d see the day when a Norb (pardon my laziness in looking up the proper “o” {and, just for giggles, I’ll be using multiple nested parentheticals [in different styles, no less (the man influenced me years ago and I can’t seem to shake him)]}) namedrop in a sports blog.
[quote comment=”282182″]WOW
Anyone see the Edmonton Swastikas photo yet?
link
Well, as the article notes, all those teams played BEFORE World War II, and at that point, the Swastika had a farily positive meaning. Now, if this photo was taken in, say, 1974, well then that would be a lot different.
[quote comment=”282182″]WOW
Anyone see the Edmonton Swastikas photo yet?
link
paul did a whole lead story on this not too long ago…
unfortunately the search function is busted (still) and i can’t seem to find the story in the archives (something about marge schott, if i recall)…
[quote comment=”282183″]link
…i mean…what HOF ceremony would be complete otherwise?[/quote]
Apparently, Lil Phil, there is joy in Mudville tonight.
The logo on Ortiz’s bat is a standard logo from Nokona, his bat manufacturer. A number of major-leaguers use Nokona bats (they’re better known for their baseball gloves – in fact, Paul links to a story about their Texas baseball glove factory above – the bats are actually made in Massachusetts).
As someone else said above, the bat has a foil stamp that reflected some colors, making it look multicolored.
See link for more information.
[quote comment=”282188″][quote comment=”282182″]WOW
Anyone see the Edmonton Swastikas photo yet?
link
paul did a whole lead story on this not too long ago…
unfortunately the search function is busted (still) and i can’t seem to find the story in the archives (something about marge schott, if i recall)…[/quote]
Native Americans in the Southwest considered the swastika symbol to be good luck. However, their symbol was the mirrored-image of the Nazi swastika. The US 45th Infanty Division in WWII originally had a yellow swastika on a red diamond as it’s shoulder patch. The 45th was orginally OK, AZ, CO, and NM National Guard units so the swastika was chosen to represent their southwest heritage. As you could imagine, US troops going into battle with a swastika on their uniform wasn’t a good thing so the patch was changed to a yellow bird on a red diamond. The division was then named the “Thunderbirds”, still keeping with Native American heritage.
And that’s our history lesson for today kids!
[quote comment=”282149″]Inconsistency at its finest: The Sox wear their beach-blanket throwbacks last week, complete with helmets, which I pointed out to my sisters. But the Negro leauge throwbacks… black socks and black helmets. As one of my sisters said, “No wonder nobody in Chicago likes them. That looks like hell.”[/quote]
The Sox had blue socks w/ a white band on top, if you opened your eyes you’d see it. As for no one liking the Sox in Chicago, that sounds like an ignorant comment from a typical Cub fan.
[quote comment=”282188″][quote comment=”282182″]WOW
Anyone see the Edmonton Swastikas photo yet?
link
paul did a whole lead story on this not too long ago…
unfortunately the search function is busted (still) and i can’t seem to find the story in the archives (something about marge schott, if i recall)…[/quote]
link
Geno Espineli is showing too much white with the stirrups.
I’ve been looking into the Twin Cities 1768 mystery. There was a guy named Jonathan Carver who was travelling in the area around that time & writing in his diary about it. One source suggests he was the first person of English descent to be there; obviously there were Indians & French settlers there already. Carver, however, lived a while with the Indians & received from them a grant of territory “between the Mississippi and St. Croix rivers,” which would indicate the land that later became St. Paul. Wikipedia’s timeline places this transaction in 1766, though.
Did anyone else notice the NOB for the sample Japanese volleyball unis? “Takeshita”- I thought it had to be a joke, but, she’s actually the team captain.
link
OK, I can’t take it anymore. I’ve put off this post for sometime, but today is the day after Paul’s link to Geno Espinelli’s “picture-perfect stirrups.” First let me say I’m a big fan of the site and applaud Paul’s pro-stirrup stance since I also hate the pants over the shoes look. That said (and I think Paul may actually agree with me), Paul’s take on the correct way to wear stirrups is just his opinion and not necessarily the “right” way.
Here’s my take on Paul’s preference – Paul probably grew up watching the bulk of his childhood baseball in the 70’s. That’s when Paul’s preferred stirrup look was in fashion. I say in fashion because it really was a fashion statement. Think of all the pictures we’ve seen of players of that era who modified their stirrups to be longer. It was a fashion statement no different than today’s players who want the low look.
If you look back in history, most early sock styles showed very little white. This site even explained at least once that stirrips only existed because the dyed wool socks would be too bulky to wear in one’s shoes so the toes and heels were cut out. Sanitary socks only existed because the dye was toxic and not for any fashion reasons.
You could argue that if sock making “technology” was then what it is today, we never would have had stirrups. If desiginers of the 1800’s had their way, teams would just be wearing full socks like many of today’s players – ironically a fashion look Paul hates!
Just my two cents…
the green sticker looks dumb (like someone went to Office Depot and bought the first sticker packet they saw) but I’m not sure printing the NFL shield on it means Western Civilization has ground completely to a halt…
@ marty
[quote comment=”282195″]Geno Espineli is showing too much white with the stirrups.[/quote]
@mike
[quote comment=”282198″]OK, I can’t take it anymore. I’ve put off this post for sometime, but today is the day after Paul’s link to Geno Espinelli’s “picture-perfect stirrups.” First let me say I’m a big fan of the site and applaud Paul’s pro-stirrup stance since I also hate the pants over the shoes look. That said (and I think Paul may actually agree with me), Paul’s take on the correct way to wear stirrups is just his opinion and not necessarily the “right” way.
Here’s my take on Paul’s preference – Paul probably grew up watching the bulk of his childhood baseball in the 70’s. That’s when Paul’s preferred stirrup look was in fashion. I say in fashion because it really was a fashion statement. Think of all the pictures we’ve seen of players of that era who modified their stirrups to be longer. It was a fashion statement no different than today’s players who want the low look.
If you look back in history, most early sock styles showed very little white. This site even explained at least once that stirrips only existed because the dyed wool socks would be too bulky to wear in one’s shoes so the toes and heels were cut out. Sanitary socks only existed because the dye was toxic and not for any fashion reasons.
You could argue that if sock making “technology” was then what it is today, we never would have had stirrups. If desiginers of the 1800’s had their way, teams would just be wearing full socks like many of today’s players – ironically a fashion look Paul hates!
Just my two cents…[/quote]
all true
that being said…gino espineli’s stirrups are perfect
Hey, it could be worse. The green dot on the radio-equipped helmet could have the Motorola logo.
[quote comment=”282167″][quote comment=”282164″]I do agree that a logo on the green dot is too much, but here’s a thought. It could be to prevent tampering. I could go to an office supply store and buy a whole package of green dots. I could conceivably switch the dot for whatever deceptive purpose I may have. Perhaps with the radios going to both sides of the field the NFL came up with a inspection process. Maybe an NFL official goes in with his logoed stickers and says give me the radio helmet, inspects it, and put the NFL seal of approval. Just like a ref siging a boxer’s gloves. Just a thought.[/quote]
My thought exactly. Has anyone ever asked Joe Skiba or Rob Roecker (Bengals) what kind of security measures are protecting green dot tampering? Just curious.[/quote]
I’m no computer whiz and I could whip up a counterfeit of that green sticker with the lightning bolt and NFL logo in about 2 minutes flat so if it is an anti-tampering measure it’s a pretty crappy anti-tampering measure. A hologram, sticker with an RFID tag, or referee signed sticker would work much better.
Logically though, these stickers seem to assume that the cheating will come in the form of players who are entitled to go onto the field with radios in the helmets choosing to go onto the field without radios. If they are concerned with tampering by having several players out on the field at one time with radios it would be better to inspect all the non-radio helmets before the game and put a mark on them and assume any non-marked helmet is live.
[quote comment=”282171″][quote comment=”282166″]Everyone expand the “Got Logo Creep” pic and check out the shoulder of the swimmer…..she’s got fingers growing out of her shoulder![/quote]
…and the tall track guy in the middle has no right arm[/quote]
tall track guy? he’s standing on a huge box. i’m pretty sure that’s bryan clay who is only 5’10” and is, according to his site, the smallest elite decathlete by far.
[quote comment=”282201″][quote comment=”282167″][quote comment=”282164″]I do agree that a logo on the green dot is too much, but here’s a thought. It could be to prevent tampering. I could go to an office supply store and buy a whole package of green dots. I could conceivably switch the dot for whatever deceptive purpose I may have. Perhaps with the radios going to both sides of the field the NFL came up with a inspection process. Maybe an NFL official goes in with his logoed stickers and says give me the radio helmet, inspects it, and put the NFL seal of approval. Just like a ref siging a boxer’s gloves. Just a thought.[/quote]
My thought exactly. Has anyone ever asked Joe Skiba or Rob Roecker (Bengals) what kind of security measures are protecting green dot tampering? Just curious.[/quote]
I’m no computer whiz and I could whip up a counterfeit of that green sticker with the lightning bolt and NFL logo in about 2 minutes flat so if it is an anti-tampering measure it’s a pretty crappy anti-tampering measure. A hologram, sticker with an RFID tag, or referee signed sticker would work much better.
Logically though, these stickers seem to assume that the cheating will come in the form of players who are entitled to go onto the field with radios in the helmets choosing to go onto the field without radios. If they are concerned with tampering by having several players out on the field at one time with radios it would be better to inspect all the non-radio helmets before the game and put a mark on them and assume any non-marked helmet is live.[/quote]
I think if a pitcher and a catcher can understand each other with hand signals, so can a quarterback and a coach.
[quote comment=”282200″]@ marty
[quote comment=”282195″]Geno Espineli is showing too much white with the stirrups.[/quote]
@mike
[quote comment=”282198″]OK, I can’t take it anymore. I’ve put off this post for sometime, but today is the day after Paul’s link to Geno Espinelli’s “picture-perfect stirrups.” First let me say I’m a big fan of the site and applaud Paul’s pro-stirrup stance since I also hate the pants over the shoes look. That said (and I think Paul may actually agree with me), Paul’s take on the correct way to wear stirrups is just his opinion and not necessarily the “right” way.
Here’s my take on Paul’s preference – Paul probably grew up watching the bulk of his childhood baseball in the 70’s. That’s when Paul’s preferred stirrup look was in fashion. I say in fashion because it really was a fashion statement. Think of all the pictures we’ve seen of players of that era who modified their stirrups to be longer. It was a fashion statement no different than today’s players who want the low look.
If you look back in history, most early sock styles showed very little white. This site even explained at least once that stirrips only existed because the dyed wool socks would be too bulky to wear in one’s shoes so the toes and heels were cut out. Sanitary socks only existed because the dye was toxic and not for any fashion reasons.
You could argue that if sock making “technology” was then what it is today, we never would have had stirrups. If desiginers of the 1800’s had their way, teams would just be wearing full socks like many of today’s players – ironically a fashion look Paul hates!
Just my two cents…[/quote]
all true
that being said…gino espineli’s stirrups are perfect[/quote]
Perfect if you’re Keith Hernandez. Too much white otherwise.
[quote comment=”282202″]Hey, it could be worse. The green dot on the radio-equipped helmet could have the Motorola logo.[/quote]
That’ll be next season, when the NFL realized that they can sell ad space on the green dot
The ticker the other day mentioned not recalling times where anniversary logos replaced the regular ones. I knew of a couple off of the top of my head, and came across several more (complete with pictures) while searching for pictures of the ones I already knew about. So much for helping out.
During his Dodger debut, Casey Blake was still sporting his black Indians cleats and navy blue Mizuno wristbands with his old number…
link
Sunday afternoon he still had the black spikes, but he had colored over the #1s on his wristbands…
link
link
[quote comment=”282205″][quote comment=”282200″]@ marty
[quote comment=”282195″]Geno Espineli is showing too much white with the stirrups.[/quote]
@mike
[quote comment=”282198″]OK, I can’t take it anymore. I’ve put off this post for sometime, but today is the day after Paul’s link to Geno Espinelli’s “picture-perfect stirrups.” First let me say I’m a big fan of the site and applaud Paul’s pro-stirrup stance since I also hate the pants over the shoes look. That said (and I think Paul may actually agree with me), Paul’s take on the correct way to wear stirrups is just his opinion and not necessarily the “right” way.
Here’s my take on Paul’s preference – Paul probably grew up watching the bulk of his childhood baseball in the 70’s. That’s when Paul’s preferred stirrup look was in fashion. I say in fashion because it really was a fashion statement. Think of all the pictures we’ve seen of players of that era who modified their stirrups to be longer. It was a fashion statement no different than today’s players who want the low look.
If you look back in history, most early sock styles showed very little white. This site even explained at least once that stirrips only existed because the dyed wool socks would be too bulky to wear in one’s shoes so the toes and heels were cut out. Sanitary socks only existed because the dye was toxic and not for any fashion reasons.
You could argue that if sock making “technology” was then what it is today, we never would have had stirrups. If desiginers of the 1800’s had their way, teams would just be wearing full socks like many of today’s players – ironically a fashion look Paul hates!
Just my two cents…[/quote]
all true
that being said…gino espineli’s stirrups are perfect[/quote]
Perfect if you’re Keith Hernandez. Too much white otherwise.[/quote]
I agree with Marty on this one. I prefer the Reds’ 1970s low stirrups.
This would be a fun topic on which to have a poll taken among the Uni Watch readers. Weren’t the powers-that-be looking into a poll function on the site at one point?
does anybody remember eddie murray playing for the angels when they had those god-awful disney uniforms because here’s a picture of him in them
link
Apparently you have no idea how complicated an NFL offensive scheme is these days. Gone are the days of “I-formation 31 trap.” Even watching some of the Arena Bowl yesterday with coaches/QBs miked you can hear how complicated the terminology is.
With all the different formations, shifts/dances, motions, check-with-mes, etc, you’d damn near create a new sign-language!!!! And good luck sending in the play with a player, he’d forget the entire line before he got to the hash.
I know, I know, the radio can malfunction but that’s not best case scenario. Sure there’s a backup plan but surely it’s scaled down.
Pretty much an apples/oranges comparison to pitchers and catchers having “1” for fastball, “2” for curve, “3” for change, slider or whatever along with signals for stepping off and throwing to first.
As an editorial aside, let me state for the record, I’m not saying this is a good thing. I think the pro game is needlessly complicated and has a bunch of coaches that try to hard to out-think the other guy. I’m just stating what I see is a sign of the times.
Unrelated, didn’t the NFL experiment with a speaker that amplified the QBs voice in certain “crowd noise” situations? What ever happened to that?
Article in the Baltimore Sun today – The Flip Side: 10 most unwearable sports jerseys
link
Bayern Munich has an interesting way to unveil their new kits.
link
Interesting NOB here (courtesy of Johnny Garfield) – note that it’s “Miller, M.” instead of “M. Miller.” Anyone know more about this? …
not sure if this is why they did it, but in 1979, the Browns had both Mark Miller, QB and Matt Miller, the aformentioned Tackle, so that might be why you’d have a Miller, M. jersey
Imagine if Manny Ramirez played in the No-Fun-League. How much in uniform fines would he rack up for “Manny being Manny”. As much as I don’t really like the overly baggy uniform and ridiculous headscarf thing but you have to give MLB credit for not acting like big brother and imposing dress codes (NBA), introducing wide-sweeping uniform changes unsuccessfully (NHL) or fining you for not wearing the required 25 league logos or having them slightly out of place (you know who you are)… I know, I know “uniform” means, well uniform but cmon guys…
Just wanted to add to Jeremy’s comment about the Japanese little leaguers with their names in giant characters on the backs — that’s standard in youth baseball for practice uniforms. There’s a generic all-white uniform, complete with white cap, sold in sporting goods stores everywhere. link There are no numbers on the backs — those are reserved for the people who actually get to play in games — so guys will draw their surnames on the backs. Most surnames are two or three characters, so you can write them vertically and they fit just right. link
And something does need to be done about the link on the Giants. It’s everywhere — the Cubs suffered from it when they had number-only jerseys a few years ago. Some people say that it’s because the manufacturers leave space for a name even when the team doesn’t want one, but I think the problem is that they base their centering point around the most massive players. Check out the link Just move the number up a few inches — it wouldn’t look any worse on the Chris Youngs and Richie Sexsons, but would look a lot better on the 5-7 Mike Fontenots.
re: Number on back out of position.
It’s because they put the numbers in the same place they’d put them if a NOB. It’s like that postion has become the standard number postion whether NOB or not, no matter how “off” it is, visually
Certainly some manual work, or resetting computers/machinery necessary, so I imagine they just don’t bother with it. Especially if teams don’t tell them to bother with it.
Just look at how high NFL numbers on back were before room had to be allowed for the nameplate.
JOCKTAG IS UPSIDE DOWN ON Eagles PRACTICE JERSEY
Go to sixth photo in this series:
link
What’s with the half-shirt hem on the practice jerseys?
There’s actually a couple of pirate references in the Red Sox bullpen
link
link
Regarding the man with the unusual Mets hat… Are there more of those for sale? Or was that the only one of it’s kind at that store? Is he willing to sell it, because that is my size…
Oops, I see now that it was the only one…
[quote comment=”282205″][quote comment=”282200″]@ marty
[quote comment=”282195″]Geno Espineli is showing too much white with the stirrups.[/quote]
@mike
[quote comment=”282198″]OK, I can’t take it anymore. I’ve put off this post for sometime, but today is the day after Paul’s link to Geno Espinelli’s “picture-perfect stirrups.” First let me say I’m a big fan of the site and applaud Paul’s pro-stirrup stance since I also hate the pants over the shoes look. That said (and I think Paul may actually agree with me), Paul’s take on the correct way to wear stirrups is just his opinion and not necessarily the “right” way.
Here’s my take on Paul’s preference – Paul probably grew up watching the bulk of his childhood baseball in the 70’s. That’s when Paul’s preferred stirrup look was in fashion. I say in fashion because it really was a fashion statement. Think of all the pictures we’ve seen of players of that era who modified their stirrups to be longer. It was a fashion statement no different than today’s players who want the low look.
If you look back in history, most early sock styles showed very little white. This site even explained at least once that stirrips only existed because the dyed wool socks would be too bulky to wear in one’s shoes so the toes and heels were cut out. Sanitary socks only existed because the dye was toxic and not for any fashion reasons.
You could argue that if sock making “technology” was then what it is today, we never would have had stirrups. If desiginers of the 1800’s had their way, teams would just be wearing full socks like many of today’s players – ironically a fashion look Paul hates!
Just my two cents…[/quote]
all true
that being said…gino espineli’s stirrups are perfect[/quote]
Perfect if you’re Keith Hernandez. Too much white otherwise.[/quote]
Sorry, Marty. Those babies are poifect.
Two questions that went unanswered this weekend, maybe someone can help me out here:
(1) This past weekend, on the Phillies’ throwback day, they wore a dark blue hat with a red brim. Was the blue on the hat always that dark? I recall earlier in the season the blue looking a bit more royal than what it is now.
(2) When the Astros went to the tequila sunrise uniforms, did they use the same unis for home and road? or were the road unis a different cream-like color to differentiate? Dressed to the Nines shows them both being the same shade, although that site has been known to be incorrect on occasion……
[quote comment=”282220″]Regarding the man with the unusual Mets hat… Are there more of those for sale? Or was that the only one of it’s kind at that store? Is he willing to sell it, because that is my size…[/quote]
I remeber seeing them at Modell’s in Manhattan a while back.
link
Not sure if anyone here watches “You Suck at Photoshop”, but the newest one is very uni-centric. And hilarious:
link
[quote comment=”282222″][quote comment=”282205″][quote comment=”282200″]@ marty
[quote comment=”282195″]Geno Espineli is showing too much white with the stirrups.[/quote]
@mike
[quote comment=”282198″]OK, I can’t take it anymore. I’ve put off this post for sometime, but today is the day after Paul’s link to Geno Espinelli’s “picture-perfect stirrups.” First let me say I’m a big fan of the site and applaud Paul’s pro-stirrup stance since I also hate the pants over the shoes look. That said (and I think Paul may actually agree with me), Paul’s take on the correct way to wear stirrups is just his opinion and not necessarily the “right” way.
Here’s my take on Paul’s preference – Paul probably grew up watching the bulk of his childhood baseball in the 70’s. That’s when Paul’s preferred stirrup look was in fashion. I say in fashion because it really was a fashion statement. Think of all the pictures we’ve seen of players of that era who modified their stirrups to be longer. It was a fashion statement no different than today’s players who want the low look.
If you look back in history, most early sock styles showed very little white. This site even explained at least once that stirrips only existed because the dyed wool socks would be too bulky to wear in one’s shoes so the toes and heels were cut out. Sanitary socks only existed because the dye was toxic and not for any fashion reasons.
You could argue that if sock making “technology” was then what it is today, we never would have had stirrups. If desiginers of the 1800’s had their way, teams would just be wearing full socks like many of today’s players – ironically a fashion look Paul hates!
Just my two cents…[/quote]
all true
that being said…gino espineli’s stirrups are perfect[/quote]
Perfect if you’re Keith Hernandez. Too much white otherwise.[/quote]
Sorry, Marty. Those babies are poifect.[/quote]
They’re OK. They’re nowhere close to perfect. Unless you’re in a time machine and have gone back to 1978.
[quote comment=”282203″]
tall track guy? he’s standing on a huge box. i’m pretty sure that’s bryan clay who is only 5’10” and is, according to his site, the smallest elite decathlete by far.[/quote]
So it sounds like you knew who I was talking about.
[quote comment=”282192″][quote comment=”282149″]Inconsistency at its finest: The Sox wear their beach-blanket throwbacks last week, complete with helmets, which I pointed out to my sisters. But the Negro leauge throwbacks… black socks and black helmets. As one of my sisters said, “No wonder nobody in Chicago likes them. That looks like hell.”[/quote]
The Sox had blue socks w/ a white band on top, if you opened your eyes you’d see it. As for no one liking the Sox in Chicago, that sounds like an ignorant comment from a typical Cub fan.[/quote]
Ok… Any excuses about the helmet?
[quote comment=”282229″][quote comment=”282192″][quote comment=”282149″]Inconsistency at its finest: The Sox wear their beach-blanket throwbacks last week, complete with helmets, which I pointed out to my sisters. But the Negro leauge throwbacks… black socks and black helmets. As one of my sisters said, “No wonder nobody in Chicago likes them. That looks like hell.”[/quote]
The Sox had blue socks w/ a white band on top, if you opened your eyes you’d see it. As for no one liking the Sox in Chicago, that sounds like an ignorant comment from a typical Cub fan.[/quote]
Ok… Any excuses about the helmet?[/quote]
Well if you want to be nitpicky about it, neither team should have worn helmets at all b/c there were no helmets back then. Most of the time when they have these Negro league throwbacks, the teams don’t have special helmets made up for the game. Get over it.
These are perfect stirrups.
link
[quote comment=”282229″][quote comment=”282192″][quote comment=”282149″]Inconsistency at its finest: The Sox wear their beach-blanket throwbacks last week, complete with helmets, which I pointed out to my sisters. But the Negro leauge throwbacks… black socks and black helmets. As one of my sisters said, “No wonder nobody in Chicago likes them. That looks like hell.”[/quote]
The Sox had blue socks w/ a white band on top, if you opened your eyes you’d see it. As for no one liking the Sox in Chicago, that sounds like an ignorant comment from a typical Cub fan.[/quote]
Ok… Any excuses about the helmet?[/quote]
Maybe they figured current helmets were close enough to the Throwback hats that it wasn’t a big deal.
Was just thinking: TV viewers get different perpective from fans at ball park. TV and photographers are so focussed on batter and pitcher that we at home forget that those in attendance are getting a nice long look at nine guys on defense all looking pretty damn good…compared to one hitter with a slightly off-color helmet.
Not defending them, just saying that if we envision the in-person experience it probably was overall pretty effective in creating a sense of history, despite the helmet error.
My intent is not to dog the White Sox, but to call out their equipment manager/uniform decision maker. They pulled out all the stops to make the beach blanket unis look AWESOME.
But then they mail in the helmets on another great looking uniform.(the socks may have been a dark navy, but they looked black on my TV)
If they can get helmets for one-off player honor uniforms, why can’t they give the same treatment to all honor games?
[quote comment=”282231″]These are perfect stirrups.
link
not bad, not bad…why are the 62 amazins wearing the roadies in the polo grounds tho?
link with tom terrific sporting pretty damn near perfect stirrups too…
(don’t give me shit about the “city name” on the roadies…i LIKE it to say “Mets” in script…i agree that the city name should, by tradition, appear on the roadies, but it is my opinion that in this case, it should not…k? thanks)
Memphis had a pretty ugly CFL uniform, but the Birmingham Barracudas were worse, simply for incorporating teal:
link
link
Paul, you may wish to check out this set of photos of a Memphis Mad Dogs’ commemorative t-shirt and keychain I bought during a visit to Memphis in 1995. Don’t ask why I’ve kept these items for 13 years, because I can’t give a coherent answer:
link
No, THESE are perfect stirrups!
link
[quote comment=”282215″]Imagine if Manny Ramirez played in the No-Fun-League. How much in uniform fines would he rack up for “Manny being Manny”. As much as I don’t really like the overly baggy uniform and ridiculous headscarf thing but you have to give MLB credit for not acting like big brother and imposing dress codes (NBA), introducing wide-sweeping uniform changes unsuccessfully (NHL) or fining you for not wearing the required 25 league logos or having them slightly out of place (you know who you are)… I know, I know “uniform” means, well uniform but cmon guys…[/quote]
Nope.
If I had to choose only one sport it’d be baseball, but the NFL has MLB beaten hands-down on this issue.
Okay, now, we have this conversation every time there’s a TBTC game.
It’s the home team that decides what to do and how much to spend doing.
Game was at Detroit.
And if the only thing wrong was the helmets (yeah, would be dif. if red or something), in this case it was one guy in slighty wrong batting against eight guys who looked right (assume catcher also wears a hard hat). Is that so horrific? I’ll bet from the stands—where they could see the whole defense all the time—it still looked pretty good.
link
Fred Smoot Wearing Nike Talaria soccer cleats at Redskins camp.
link
looks like the Seahawks are going to wear the neon shoes again this year
[quote comment=”282239″]http://i33.tinypic.com/116l7ys.jpg
Fred Smoot Wearing Nike Talaria soccer cleats at Redskins camp.[/quote]
Damn, for a second thought that was Big Bird.
[quote comment=”282241″][quote comment=”282239″]http://i33.tinypic.com/116l7ys.jpg
Fred Smoot Wearing Nike Talaria soccer cleats at Redskins camp.[/quote]
Damn, for a second thought that was Big Bird.[/quote]
If regular season he’d get fined. Tape supposed to be same color as shoes. Rules is rules, y’know.
[quote comment=”282242″][quote comment=”282241″][quote comment=”282239″]http://i33.tinypic.com/116l7ys.jpg
Fred Smoot Wearing Nike Talaria soccer cleats at Redskins camp.[/quote]
Damn, for a second thought that was Big Bird.[/quote]
If regular season he’d get fined. Tape supposed to be same color as shoes. Rules is rules, y’know.[/quote]
something tells me them sox aint reg neither
[quote comment=”282243″][quote comment=”282242″][quote comment=”282241″][quote comment=”282239″]http://i33.tinypic.com/116l7ys.jpg
Fred Smoot Wearing Nike Talaria soccer cleats at Redskins camp.[/quote]
Damn, for a second thought that was Big Bird.[/quote]
If regular season he’d get fined. Tape supposed to be same color as shoes. Rules is rules, y’know.[/quote]
something tells me them sox aint reg neither[/quote]
Well, they would be if he were a member of
“Brucie’s Bad Boy Big Banana Dancers”
[quote comment=”282184″][quote comment=”282180″]I remember playing a very obscure football trivia video game in the early ’90s. I still remember one question “How many times does the NFL logo appear on the uniform?” The answer was 3 (helmet, jersey collar, pants hip of course).
With “NFL Equipment” gloves, wristbands, armbands, bandanas, towels, undershirts, towels, and now green dots, I wonder what the answer to that question would be today?[/quote]
Not to be a stickler, but I would argue that the answer to that question would be the same today. The gloves and everything else you name are accessories, not part of the uniform. You have a different answer for nearly every player in the league.[/quote]
The gloves etc might not strictly speaking be part of the uniform, but they all still bear the link logo.
Interesting to read the dates of Minneapolis history and how they all come after 1768.
I’ve sent an email to a collector friend here in town and if I hear back from him, I’ll post his comments on it.
One note, it is a Rawlings jersey and the Twins wore Spalding that year based on an ebay item.
link
[quote comment=”282242″][quote comment=”282241″][quote comment=”282239″]http://i33.tinypic.com/116l7ys.jpg
Fred Smoot Wearing Nike Talaria soccer cleats at Redskins camp.[/quote]
Damn, for a second thought that was Big Bird.[/quote]
If regular season he’d get fined. Tape supposed to be same color as shoes. Rules is rules, y’know.[/quote]
Is that a definite? Rex Grossman wears white tape to the point where it looks like he has spats, but the team uses black cleats. And he did it week-in and week-out. Unless he was getting fined for it week-in and week-out? That’d be pretty harsh.
[quote comment=”282247″][quote comment=”282242″][quote comment=”282241″][quote comment=”282239″]http://i33.tinypic.com/116l7ys.jpg
Fred Smoot Wearing Nike Talaria soccer cleats at Redskins camp.[/quote]
Damn, for a second thought that was Big Bird.[/quote]
If regular season he’d get fined. Tape supposed to be same color as shoes. Rules is rules, y’know.[/quote]
Is that a definite? Rex Grossman wears white tape to the point where it looks like he has spats, but the team uses black cleats. And he did it week-in and week-out. Unless he was getting fined for it week-in and week-out? That’d be pretty harsh.[/quote]
Some guys just pay the fine. And keep paying.
Fred Biletnikoff paid every week for his jersey sleeve hems being sliced open and cut off. Some players have it in their contracts that the team takes care of the fines for such things.
Well, they used to. League may not allow that any more. Just recently was item here about Dwight Smith paying about $5,000 last year in fines for the way he wears his socks and tapes his shoes.
[quote comment=”282248″][quote comment=”282247″][quote comment=”282242″][quote comment=”282241″][quote comment=”282239″]http://i33.tinypic.com/116l7ys.jpg
Fred Smoot Wearing Nike Talaria soccer cleats at Redskins camp.[/quote]
Damn, for a second thought that was Big Bird.[/quote]
If regular season he’d get fined. Tape supposed to be same color as shoes. Rules is rules, y’know.[/quote]
Is that a definite? Rex Grossman wears white tape to the point where it looks like he has spats, but the team uses black cleats. And he did it week-in and week-out. Unless he was getting fined for it week-in and week-out? That’d be pretty harsh.[/quote]
Some guys just pay the fine. And keep paying.
Fred Biletnikoff paid every week for his jersey sleeve hems being sliced open and cut off. Some players have it in their contracts that the team takes care of the fines for such things.
Well, they used to. League may not allow that any more. Just recently was item here about Dwight Smith paying about $5,000 last year in fines for the way he wears his socks and tapes his shoes.[/quote]
I may have the amount wrong, that’s not the point. He paid. And, yes, any tape on shoes in NFL must be same color as the shoes. Rule’s been around since the early 80s at least, if not before.
–Ricko
[quote comment=”282249″]I may have the amount wrong, that’s not the point. He paid. And, yes, any tape on shoes in NFL must be same color as the shoes. Rule’s been around since the early 80s at least, if not before.
–Ricko[/quote]
Sounds cool. What about this other scenario: I’ve seen a few instances, and Jeremy Shockey comes to mind, where the team , in this case, the Giants wear black cleats, but Shockey wears cleats that look predominantly white and then uses a boatload of black tape to cover them up. I’m assuming there’s a fine for that as well?
ricko (and others)
you may be interested in this site, which has been linked here many times…that is, if you weren’t already aware of it…
link
keeps tabs on the bad men
[quote comment=”282250″][quote comment=”282249″]I may have the amount wrong, that’s not the point. He paid. And, yes, any tape on shoes in NFL must be same color as the shoes. Rule’s been around since the early 80s at least, if not before.
–Ricko[/quote]
Sounds cool. What about this other scenario: I’ve seen a few instances, and Jeremy Shockey comes to mind, where the team , in this case, the Giants wear black cleats, but Shockey wears cleats that look predominantly white and then uses a boatload of black tape to cover them up. I’m assuming there’s a fine for that as well?[/quote]
And yes I do realize that Shockey now plays for the New Orleans Saints, before anyone gets up in arms……
[quote comment=”282251″]ricko (and others)
you may be interested in this site, which has been linked here many times…that is, if you weren’t already aware of it…
link
keeps tabs on the bad men[/quote]
Question: If it’s a hot scorching day and Joel Zumaya doesn’t want to wear long sleeves, why would you penalize him for that?
It’s one thing when pitchers wear dangling gold chains or even those old dot-matrix Nike shirts, but tattoos being a distraction? I don’t know……
[quote comment=”282250″][quote comment=”282249″]I may have the amount wrong, that’s not the point. He paid. And, yes, any tape on shoes in NFL must be same color as the shoes. Rule’s been around since the early 80s at least, if not before.
–Ricko[/quote]
Sounds cool. What about this other scenario: I’ve seen a few instances, and Jeremy Shockey comes to mind, where the team , in this case, the Giants wear black cleats, but Shockey wears cleats that look predominantly white and then uses a boatload of black tape to cover them up. I’m assuming there’s a fine for that as well?[/quote]
Shockey may get away with that because he is not daring to look a little different. He is trying to make his shoes look like the other Giants.
However, rules is rules, so who knows.
What I do know is the only organtization I’ve ever encountered that was so chickenshit about such things was the U.S. Army. Although apparently a fat lifer sergeant with an immense belly hanging over his belt isn’t doing a disservice to the uniform.
Gee, I wonder what it is that I don’t have problem with letting guys do a few uniform things differently?
Tell you what, MLB (uniformwise) was pretty dull until Klu cut off his sleeves, Mays tapered his pants and Frank Robinson started lengthening his stirrups. Everybody looked paralyzingly the same.
[quote comment=”282244″][quote comment=”282243″][quote comment=”282242″][quote comment=”282241″][quote comment=”282239″]http://i33.tinypic.com/116l7ys.jpg
Fred Smoot Wearing Nike Talaria soccer cleats at Redskins camp.[/quote]
Damn, for a second thought that was Big Bird.[/quote]
If regular season he’d get fined. Tape supposed to be same color as shoes. Rules is rules, y’know.[/quote]
something tells me them sox aint reg neither[/quote]
Well, they would be if he were a member of
“Brucie’s Bad Boy Big Banana Dancers”[/quote]
No, this is the first Sean Taylor trubute of the year.
Interesting cross-sport promotion this past weekend, similar to what Payne Stewart used to do.
Chez Reavie won the Canadian Open (PGA). One of his sponsors is the Arizona Diamondbacks, and he wears a Diamondbacks logo on his golf shirt.
Interesting article questioning the effectiveness of the “Cross Promotion in Sports”, with photo of the shirt:
link
[quote comment=”282253″][quote comment=”282251″]ricko (and others)
you may be interested in this site, which has been linked here many times…that is, if you weren’t already aware of it…
link
keeps tabs on the bad men[/quote]
Question: If it’s a hot scorching day and Joel Zumaya doesn’t want to wear long sleeves, why would you penalize him for that?
It’s one thing when pitchers wear dangling gold chains or even those old dot-matrix Nike shirts, but tattoos being a distraction? I don’t know……[/quote]
Actually I know there’s a pitcher (and I’m sure someone out there in Uniwatch Land knows his name) who has sleeves on both his arms (tattoos, not undershirts sleeves), and I can understand making him cover up, but the stuff on Zumaya’s arms could hardly be considered comparable. I guess it’s just enforcing the rules.
[quote comment=”282257″]Packers CB Al Harris was fined $5,000 by the NFL for wearing black and yellow tipped shoes during the 10-07-2007 loss to the Chicago Bears. The Packers official playing shoe is white with a green stripe. According to the Wisconsin State Journal, Harris and other members of the Packers secondary wore the yellow-tipped cleats in honor of Charles Woodson’s 31st birthday.[/quote]
So we’ve gone from honoring dead execs and dead players with patches and number decals to honoring dog-killing felons to honoring your buddy’s birthday. Splendid.
[quote comment=”282246″]Interesting to read the dates of Minneapolis history and how they all come after 1768.
I’ve sent an email to a collector friend here in town and if I hear back from him, I’ll post his comments on it.
One note, it is a Rawlings jersey and the Twins wore Spalding that year based on an ebay item.
link
…been looking into the 1768 “Twins” jersey and can’t find anything. No importance in Minnesota, Twin Cities or really upper midwest history, heck we hadn’t even ceded from England yet. Overall, looks like a hoax, but nice touch on the number 5 being Mr. Oldis though.
Speaking of the Jim Perry jersey though, how about the great Minnesota Fighting Saints sweaters for sale there – gotta love that logo in either the reds or blues!
link
Also, the Detroit/ChiSox unis the other day were pretty cool. The Sox ones would have been nice with matching helmets (great cap logo), but they showed that the blue with pinstripes can work unlike their north-side counterparts decades earlier.
link
[quote comment=”282258″][quote comment=”282257″]Packers CB Al Harris was fined $5,000 by the NFL for wearing black and yellow tipped shoes during the 10-07-2007 loss to the Chicago Bears. The Packers official playing shoe is white with a green stripe. According to the Wisconsin State Journal, Harris and other members of the Packers secondary wore the yellow-tipped cleats in honor of Charles Woodson’s 31st birthday.[/quote]
So we’ve gone from honoring dead execs and dead players with patches and number decals to honoring dog-killing felons to honoring your buddy’s birthday. Splendid.[/quote]
Pretty soon…?
“Today my feet are wearing yellow tipped shoes to honor each other for making me so nasty fast.”
didja’ll notice that, while not “official” violations of the uniform code, many fall under the LOOK AT ME classification
anyone see a problem here?
[quote comment=”282257″][quote comment=”282253″][quote comment=”282251″]ricko (and others)
you may be interested in this site, which has been linked here many times…that is, if you weren’t already aware of it…
link
keeps tabs on the bad men[/quote]
Question: If it’s a hot scorching day and Joel Zumaya doesn’t want to wear long sleeves, why would you penalize him for that?
It’s one thing when pitchers wear dangling gold chains or even those old dot-matrix Nike shirts, but tattoos being a distraction? I don’t know……[/quote]
Actually I know there’s a pitcher (and I’m sure someone out there in Uniwatch Land knows his name) who has sleeves on both his arms (tattoos, not undershirts sleeves), and I can understand making him cover up, but the stuff on Zumaya’s arms could hardly be considered comparable. I guess it’s just enforcing the rules.[/quote]
You’re either thinking of Justin “I Heart Billy Koch” Miller or Brandon League.
[quote comment=”282255″][quote comment=”282244″][quote comment=”282243″][quote comment=”282242″][quote comment=”282241″][quote comment=”282239″]http://i33.tinypic.com/116l7ys.jpg
Fred Smoot Wearing Nike Talaria soccer cleats at Redskins camp.[/quote]
Damn, for a second thought that was Big Bird.[/quote]
If regular season he’d get fined. Tape supposed to be same color as shoes. Rules is rules, y’know.[/quote]
something tells me them sox aint reg neither[/quote]
Well, they would be if he were a member of
“Brucie’s Bad Boy Big Banana Dancers”[/quote]
No, this is the first Sean Taylor trubute of the year.[/quote]
Are there levels of violation according to the uni-police in the no fun league?
The reason I ask is because some of you were saying how some guys just pay the fine and play with the violation. however, was it Taylor or Portis that the league basically said “come on with messed up socks and you’re ejected”
[quote comment=”282261″]didja’ll notice that, while not “official” violations of the uniform code, many fall under the LOOK AT ME classification
anyone see a problem here?[/quote]
Better to be honest enough to make it a personal preference, as in “I like the way it looks, or the way it feels” than start trumping up half-assed “tributes” and “political statements.”
There is a fundamental “look at me” element in most professional athletes. It just manifests itself differently from individual to individual. I’d rather watch a guy in Mike McKenzie dreadlocks and white kneehighs play than see DeAngelo Hall melt down, or some putz celebrate a sack when his team is behind by 21 points in the fourth quarter. Or a solo homer with his team down by nine.
But, hey, that’s just my preference in what bothers me and what doesn’t.
[quote comment=”282183″]link
…i mean…what HOF ceremony would be complete otherwise?[/quote]
FUNNY story about that guy…My father spoke at the baseball symposium in cooperstown 2 months ago and before dinner on the last day we (and everyone else involved with the event) played a old time rules game of baseball. As the game was wrapping up, out came this guy dressed up like CAsey. The other team let him bat. Casey promptly did what he does so well and struck out.
[quote comment=”282245″][quote comment=”282184″][quote comment=”282180″]I remember playing a very obscure football trivia video game in the early ’90s. I still remember one question “How many times does the NFL logo appear on the uniform?” The answer was 3 (helmet, jersey collar, pants hip of course).
With “NFL Equipment” gloves, wristbands, armbands, bandanas, towels, undershirts, towels, and now green dots, I wonder what the answer to that question would be today?[/quote]
Not to be a stickler, but I would argue that the answer to that question would be the same today. The gloves and everything else you name are accessories, not part of the uniform. You have a different answer for nearly every player in the league.[/quote]
The gloves etc might not strictly speaking be part of the uniform, but they all still bear the link logo.[/quote]
I understand Chance but you’re missing the point. The trivia question was talking about the uniform NOT optional pieces of equipment.
Nothing in the rules state that a player MUST wear gloves, wristbands, towels, etc. however helmet, jersey and pants are essential and required elements of the uniform.
[quote comment=”282262″]You’re either thinking of Justin “I Heart Billy Koch” Miller or Brandon League.[/quote]
and just in case you didn’t pick up on the billy koch thang, link
I so there were a few that were doubting Ricko regarding some of those Pirates’ mix-and-match combos and if I recall correctly the pins pants matched with solid tops was one that was questioned. Go 2/3 down this site link and check out Dave Pagan in the yellow jersey, white pins pants, black stirrups.
Ricko, you got a status on pics of some of those other combos?
They’re skewed more navy than the flag’s PMS 281. The Polo logo is awfully large and it would’ve been nicer to see the Olympic logo on the chest pocket. Still, I prefer link over the Nike performance designs or the previous Roots designs (a Canadian company dressing the US Olympians, huh?)
[quote comment=”282259″]
…been looking into the 1768 “Twins” jersey and can’t find anything. No importance in Minnesota, Twin Cities or really upper midwest history, heck we hadn’t even ceded from England yet. [/quote]
Except for what I said in post #55. Jonathan Carver appears to have received the land that would become St. Paul in 1766 and he moved back East permanently in 1768 so presumably he sold his land to someone else at that time.
[quote comment=”282265″]link[/quote]
That’s the guy I met at Fan fest a couple weeks ago in NYC.
[quote comment=”282169″]”…do these people have the NFL logo tattooed on their dicks or what?”
lol[/quote]
There are a few things the mind cannot grasp. One, like how big is the galaxy? Two, how did Barry Zito get so bad so fast. And three- how much pain would the procedure mentioned above cause? Off the charts, I’d guess.
RE: 1768 and Minnesota. I found this:
It was in 1768 that the Mdewakanton Dakota, having been driven out of their center at Kathio near Mille Lacs Lake some 30 years earlier, decided on a major campaign against the Ojibway in one final effort to take back their land, win honor, and get revenge. War parties were formed in the many Dakota villages of Southern and Central Minnesota in early summer. They met at St. Anthony Falls around the time of the solstice. Between 400 and 500 warriors started up the Mississippi, traveling three and four to a boat in 130-150 birch bark canoes…
Read it all here:
link
Again, I can’t believe such an event would be worthy of a tribute 200 years later?
[quote comment=”282154″]What an odd eBay scam. Minneapolis (along with the state of Minnesota) is only celebrating its sesquicentennial this year, having achieved statehood (and cityhood) in 1858. Certainly not 1768.
Nice looking flannel, though.[/quote]
I believe that it is VERY UNFAIR to call this item an Ebay Scam …..
The jersey came from somewhere !!! It would have cost MUCH MORE than the $250.00 sale price to manufacture this jersey. Given the tag and the fabric it would be IMPOSSIBLE to scam the item and create it for a sale.
My educated guess that the Ebay seller – who I do not know – is selling the jersey in good faith as a gamer.
I believe that it PROBABLY WAS a 1968 gamer – maybe for the Twins, maybe for a local minor league team in Minn., as I saw a very similar style full uniform on sale through Ebay 2-3 years ago worn by the minor league Denver Bears celebrating a similar anniversary, with the date of the year on the chest. That uniform had a very similar styling and would have cost thousands to manufacture.
Nonetheless, this 1768 jersey is a very RARE piece probably worth every penny – finding the provenance of the jersey should be the least of anyone’s problems.
I’m guessing the Ojibway wore the 1768 jerseys and the Mdewakantons wore their visiting alternates.
[quote comment=”282148″]Here’s a jersey I bet not a lot of people have…
link
It’s a crappy fake. Not even the correct Flames logo. I hope your post wasn’t a pathetic attempt to peddle your wares.
[quote comment=”282195″]Geno Espineli is showing too much white with the stirrups.[/quote]
I agree, the Giants need some cream-colored sanitaries to go with their home uni. There is just too much of a clash between the cream and white.
[quote comment=”282266″][quote comment=”282245″][quote comment=”282184″][quote comment=”282180″]I remember playing a very obscure football trivia video game in the early ’90s. I still remember one question “How many times does the NFL logo appear on the uniform?” The answer was 3 (helmet, jersey collar, pants hip of course).
With “NFL Equipment” gloves, wristbands, armbands, bandanas, towels, undershirts, towels, and now green dots, I wonder what the answer to that question would be today?[/quote]
Not to be a stickler, but I would argue that the answer to that question would be the same today. The gloves and everything else you name are accessories, not part of the uniform. You have a different answer for nearly every player in the league.[/quote]
The gloves etc might not strictly speaking be part of the uniform, but they all still bear the link logo.[/quote]
I understand Chance but you’re missing the point. The trivia question was talking about the uniform NOT optional pieces of equipment.
Nothing in the rules state that a player MUST wear gloves, wristbands, towels, etc. however helmet, jersey and pants are essential and required elements of the uniform.[/quote]
Taking a look at any given player, some might question if there actually is a rule stating a player must wear extra “NFL Equipment” paraphernalia.
[quote comment=”282278″][quote comment=”282266″][quote comment=”282245″][quote comment=”282184″][quote comment=”282180″]I remember playing a very obscure football trivia video game in the early ’90s. I still remember one question “How many times does the NFL logo appear on the uniform?” The answer was 3 (helmet, jersey collar, pants hip of course).
With “NFL Equipment” gloves, wristbands, armbands, bandanas, towels, undershirts, towels, and now green dots, I wonder what the answer to that question would be today?[/quote]
Not to be a stickler, but I would argue that the answer to that question would be the same today. The gloves and everything else you name are accessories, not part of the uniform. You have a different answer for nearly every player in the league.[/quote]
The gloves etc might not strictly speaking be part of the uniform, but they all still bear the link logo.[/quote]
I understand Chance but you’re missing the point. The trivia question was talking about the uniform NOT optional pieces of equipment.
Nothing in the rules state that a player MUST wear gloves, wristbands, towels, etc. however helmet, jersey and pants are essential and required elements of the uniform.[/quote]
Taking a look at any given player, some might question if there actually is a rule stating a player must wear extra “NFL Equipment” paraphernalia.[/quote]
OK, I quit trying to explain the difference between uniforms and accessories/equipment.
[quote comment=”282279″][Taking a look at any given player, some might question if there actually is a rule stating a player must wear extra “NFL Equipment” paraphernalia.[/quote]
fair point (douggie, i don’t think joe d is questioning the definition of a uni)…
is there some kind of rule or reg stating that IF a player wears sweatbands, armbands, gloves, etc. etc., that somewhere on those pieces of optional equipment, a NFL logo must appear? sure seems like it…
i think that’s joe’s point
are those optional accoutrements part of the uni? of course not
so…there are STILL 3 parts of the actual uni where the NFL logo must appear; there MAY be other pieces of optional equipment (NOT the actual uni) where the NFL logo may or may not be required
…i thinks that’s what is being said…but who the fuck knows…
General question, please answer if you know:
What are the specifications for the Yankees’ black armband? I.e.: how thick is it, and of what material is it made?
[quote comment=”282280″][quote comment=”282279″][Taking a look at any given player, some might question if there actually is a rule stating a player must wear extra “NFL Equipment” paraphernalia.[/quote]
fair point (douggie, i don’t think joe d is questioning the definition of a uni)…
is there some kind of rule or reg stating that IF a player wears sweatbands, armbands, gloves, etc. etc., that somewhere on those pieces of optional equipment, a NFL logo must appear? sure seems like it…
i think that’s joe’s point
are those optional accoutrements part of the uni? of course not
so…there are STILL 3 parts of the actual uni where the NFL logo must appear; there MAY be other pieces of optional equipment (NOT the actual uni) where the NFL logo may or may not be required
…i thinks that’s what is being said…but who the fuck knows…[/quote]
Yeah Phil, that’s what I’ve been trying to say… since before lunch time!!!!
Whether or not there is a rule that wristbands must have that logo, which I’m inclined to to think there is since there aren’t any nike, adidas or UA logos on wristbands, is a valid debate for another day. All I’ve been attempting to say is that the basic premise of the trivia quesiton did NOT change.
[quote]All I’ve been attempting to say is that the basic premise of the trivia quesiton did NOT change.[/quote]
well duh ;)
i wonder if there will be
a justifiable shitloadany outcry against nfl logo creep like there surely would be if those optional pieces of equipment were…oh…i don’t know…nike?
[quote comment=”282235″]Memphis had a pretty ugly CFL uniform, but the Birmingham Barracudas were worse, simply for incorporating teal:
link
link
Paul, you may wish to check out this set of photos of a Memphis Mad Dogs’ commemorative t-shirt and keychain I bought during a visit to Memphis in 1995. Don’t ask why I’ve kept these items for 13 years, because I can’t give a coherent answer:
link
The best part of that road trip story is that you were driving an AMC!
/first car:81 AMC Spirit
[quote comment=”282268″]I so there were a few that were doubting Ricko regarding some of those Pirates’ mix-and-match combos and if I recall correctly the pins pants matched with solid tops was one that was questioned. Go 2/3 down this site link and check out Dave Pagan in the yellow jersey, white pins pants, black stirrups.
Ricko, you got a status on pics of some of those other combos?[/quote]
Had a lot of trouble finding…
Black hat, Pins jersey (Black sleeves), Gold pants, Black stirrups
that showed the hat. Found several of players in batters box, but had to send Paul a B&W of Johnny Ray playing second.
Saw many highlights of that uni back when I was cataloging them at the time, but defensive or pitching photos sure hard to find.
Also found three variations (not counting Tanner in Japan Tour photo recently at U-W), only one of which is game action. Others are a posed pre-game and a straight PR-type photo of Pops and Mr. Rogers.
Yes, THAT Mr. Rogers.
Thanks for finding that photo of Pagan, btw. Helped a lot.
–Ricko
[quote comment=”282285″][quote comment=”282268″]I so there were a few that were doubting Ricko regarding some of those Pirates’ mix-and-match combos and if I recall correctly the pins pants matched with solid tops was one that was questioned. Go 2/3 down this site link and check out Dave Pagan in the yellow jersey, white pins pants, black stirrups.
Ricko, you got a status on pics of some of those other combos?[/quote]
Had a lot of trouble finding…
Black hat, Pins jersey (Black sleeves), Gold pants, Black stirrups
that showed the hat. Found several of players in batters box, but had to send Paul a B&W of Johnny Ray playing second.
Saw many highlights of that uni back when I was cataloging them at the time, but defensive or pitching photos sure hard to find.
Also found three variations (not counting Tanner in Japan Tour photo recently at U-W), only one of which is game action. Others are a posed pre-game and a straight PR-type photo of Pops and Mr. Rogers.
Yes, THAT Mr. Rogers.
Thanks for finding that photo of Pagan, btw. Helped a lot.
–Ricko[/quote]
No problem. That kind of fell in my lap. I wasn’t looking for any pics, just clicked a link on a blog post about Goose Gossage and the HOF and it took me to that site…scrolled down nd was like JACKPOT!
[quote comment=”282283″][quote]All I’ve been attempting to say is that the basic premise of the trivia quesiton did NOT change.[/quote]
well duh ;)
i wonder if there will be
a justifiable shitloadany outcry against nfl logo creep like there surely would be if those optional pieces of equipment were…oh…i don’t know…nike?[/quote]
Probably not. It’s probably a good thing that the equipment logo is on all wristbands. It keeps things consistant. NFL probably doesn’t want ten different logos on guys.
I don’t tend to have any issues with the concept or theory of logo creep. I do break the issue of logos other than a team’s logo on a uniform in one of three categories:
A. Corporate sponsorship logos. Look I know it’s been done in Europe for soccer for years, but that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about it creeping into our four major sports. I’m not going to knock leagues like MLS, WNBA, AFL, CFL and minor league hockey. They gotta get every dollar they can. If MLB, NFL, NBA or NHL did this, it’d be a money grab and I’d hate it. I’d hate it like Paul hates purple.
B. Supplier logos – I don’t have the problem with this that a lot of folks do. So long as it isn’t obnoxious or distracting, it’s fine by me. No need to dwell, e’ve been there and done that.
C. League logo – it really puzzles me why this type of logo on a uni would bother anyone. The team is part of the league so the branding is fine with me. Is it totally necessary? Hardly. But I’m not going to cry a river over it.
[quote comment=”282274″][quote comment=”282154″]What an odd eBay scam. Minneapolis (along with the state of Minnesota) is only celebrating its sesquicentennial this year, having achieved statehood (and cityhood) in 1858. Certainly not 1768.
Nice looking flannel, though.[/quote]
I believe that it is VERY UNFAIR to call this item an Ebay Scam …..
The jersey came from somewhere !!! It would have cost MUCH MORE than the $250.00 sale price to manufacture this jersey. Given the tag and the fabric it would be IMPOSSIBLE to scam the item and create it for a sale.
My educated guess that the Ebay seller – who I do not know – is selling the jersey in good faith as a gamer.
I believe that it PROBABLY WAS a 1968 gamer – maybe for the Twins, maybe for a local minor league team in Minn., as I saw a very similar style full uniform on sale through Ebay 2-3 years ago worn by the minor league Denver Bears celebrating a similar anniversary, with the date of the year on the chest. That uniform had a very similar styling and would have cost thousands to manufacture.
Nonetheless, this 1768 jersey is a very RARE piece probably worth every penny – finding the provenance of the jersey should be the least of anyone’s problems.[/quote]
Nick, are you the person selling the jersey?
[quote comment=”282288″][quote comment=”282274″][quote comment=”282154″]What an odd eBay scam. Minneapolis (along with the state of Minnesota) is only celebrating its sesquicentennial this year, having achieved statehood (and cityhood) in 1858. Certainly not 1768.
Nice looking flannel, though.[/quote]
I believe that it is VERY UNFAIR to call this item an Ebay Scam …..
The jersey came from somewhere !!! It would have cost MUCH MORE than the $250.00 sale price to manufacture this jersey. Given the tag and the fabric it would be IMPOSSIBLE to scam the item and create it for a sale.
My educated guess that the Ebay seller – who I do not know – is selling the jersey in good faith as a gamer.
I believe that it PROBABLY WAS a 1968 gamer – maybe for the Twins, maybe for a local minor league team in Minn., as I saw a very similar style full uniform on sale through Ebay 2-3 years ago worn by the minor league Denver Bears celebrating a similar anniversary, with the date of the year on the chest. That uniform had a very similar styling and would have cost thousands to manufacture.
Nonetheless, this 1768 jersey is a very RARE piece probably worth every penny – finding the provenance of the jersey should be the least of anyone’s problems.[/quote]
Nick, are you the person selling the jersey?[/quote]
I rather doubt that jersey has anythng to do with the Twins, although I suppose it’s possible. More likely it’s a replica of a 19th or early 20th century team that wore the founding date of its home town, and was worn more to commemorate that team than some historical moment. St. Paul celebrated its Bicentennial in 1975, I know.
I’ve lived in Minnesota all my life and if 1768 has some kind of significance it doesn’t extend much beyond one particular community a lot older, and smaller, than Minneapolis or St. Paul
There’s a book I’ve seen on the history of Minnesota baseball. If I can find it somewhere I’ll look though for some kind of “clue.”
The real issue, though, is if it really dates to 1968, and was worn in Organized Baseball. That probably would make it the first TBTC jersey ever.
–Ricko
[quote comment=”282288″][quote comment=”282274″][quote comment=”282154″]What an odd eBay scam. Minneapolis (along with the state of Minnesota) is only celebrating its sesquicentennial this year, having achieved statehood (and cityhood) in 1858. Certainly not 1768.
Nice looking flannel, though.[/quote]
I believe that it is VERY UNFAIR to call this item an Ebay Scam …..
The jersey came from somewhere !!! It would have cost MUCH MORE than the $250.00 sale price to manufacture this jersey. Given the tag and the fabric it would be IMPOSSIBLE to scam the item and create it for a sale.
My educated guess that the Ebay seller – who I do not know – is selling the jersey in good faith as a gamer.
I believe that it PROBABLY WAS a 1968 gamer – maybe for the Twins, maybe for a local minor league team in Minn., as I saw a very similar style full uniform on sale through Ebay 2-3 years ago worn by the minor league Denver Bears celebrating a similar anniversary, with the date of the year on the chest. That uniform had a very similar styling and would have cost thousands to manufacture.
Nonetheless, this 1768 jersey is a very RARE piece probably worth every penny – finding the provenance of the jersey should be the least of anyone’s problems.[/quote]
Nick, are you the person selling the jersey?[/quote]
Or this?
link
Attempts to inform the seller just how far from reality his claims were went unheeded.
[quote comment=”282275″]I’m guessing the Ojibway wore the 1768 jerseys and the Mdewakantons wore their visiting alternates.[/quote]
…hilarious! Was that game in the Lakota League Central?
I’m with Ricko on this though – it for some uber-obscure reason it is associated with the Twins (again 1968 would be more logical) it would have to be the first TBTC baseball uni, which would now make it a turnback the turnbacks jersey. I’m sure that Dr. Emmit Brown and Marty McFly were involved.
Cheers to the Twins win over the ChiSox tonight – some guys were arguing in the bar about when the Twins started wearing the navy blue unis with “Twins” across the chest in lieu of the “Minnesota” similar to the road grays. I couldn’t come up with the answer…
[quote comment=”282156″]So I popped open my Hockey News this week, and the contents page showed Brian Rolston’s nameplate being applied,”
Uggghhhhh! Looks like the names are pre-fabricated on a transfer paper then applied to a nameplate that appears to be already attached to the jersey…this makes no sense! Not only does this defeat the purpose of a nameplate, it saddens me that the names are not placed by hand any more. Where is the pride in the craft?[/quote]
Thanks to RBK taking over the jerseys, they now sell two types of customization on the replica jerseys. They have the authentic sewn numbers and letters, and the heat pressed. It’s stupid, and it looks like crap. No worries, though, the on-ice and authentics will still be all sewn.
[quote comment=”282284″][quote comment=”282235″]Memphis had a pretty ugly CFL uniform, but the Birmingham Barracudas were worse, simply for incorporating teal:
link
link
Paul, you may wish to check out this set of photos of a Memphis Mad Dogs’ commemorative t-shirt and keychain I bought during a visit to Memphis in 1995. Don’t ask why I’ve kept these items for 13 years, because I can’t give a coherent answer:
link
The best part of that road trip story is that you were driving an AMC!
/first car:81 AMC Spirit[/quote]
1983 AMC Concord, broken A/C, AM-only radio, driving through Iowa and Missouri and Arkansas and Tennessee in August. I discovered new places to sweat on my body.
[quote comment=”282291″][quote comment=”282275″]I’m guessing the Ojibway wore the 1768 jerseys and the Mdewakantons wore their visiting alternates.[/quote]
…hilarious! Was that game in the Lakota League Central?
I’m with Ricko on this though – it for some uber-obscure reason it is associated with the Twins (again 1968 would be more logical) it would have to be the first TBTC baseball uni, which would now make it a turnback the turnbacks jersey. I’m sure that Dr. Emmit Brown and Marty McFly were involved.
Cheers to the Twins win over the ChiSox tonight – some guys were arguing in the bar about when the Twins started wearing the navy blue unis with “Twins” across the chest in lieu of the “Minnesota” similar to the road grays. I couldn’t come up with the answer…[/quote]
Twins have two different Navy gamers. “Twins” (red w/white edge) at home, “MINNESOTA” (white w/red edge) on the road.
I think they’re one of the few with both home & road alts. Maybe the only ones? Dunno for sure.
I’m just now getting a look at those fantastic Negro League throwbacks by the White Sox and Tigers. Light pinstripes on a dark uniform look great and I wish more teams would do it.
The low-riding number problem is out in full force, thuogh. Check out the massive space above link.
And the Detroit players have to blouse their jerseys out in the back to prevent the number from riding far too low.
How hard can this be? Measure four or five inches from the top of the collar. This is discrimination against non-immense athletes! Anyone got any photos of the backs of the 5’3″ Freddie Patek or Craig Grebeck? I bet even they didn’t look as badly-centered as today’s players.
[quote comment=”282236″]No, THESE are perfect stirrups!
link
Those are outstanding!!
[quote comment=”282152″][quote comment=”282151″]from the link section of your fielding 101 manual:
legs bent? check
glove open? check
top hand ready to trap errant hop? check
eyes closed? check
wait…what?[/quote]
All this effort for a foul ball? check
wait… what? Damn it![/quote]
Well, other than this looks like it was a throw to third base after a passed ball instead of a foul ground ball, these comments are spot on. And the fielder has his pants cuffs clear down under his heels so he’s obviously not concerned about looking good on the field, so having his eyes closed in the picture shouldn’t be a big deal.
[quote comment=”282294″][quote comment=”282291″][quote comment=”282275″]I’m guessing the Ojibway wore the 1768 jerseys and the Mdewakantons wore their visiting alternates.[/quote]
…hilarious! Was that game in the Lakota League Central?
I’m with Ricko on this though – it for some uber-obscure reason it is associated with the Twins (again 1968 would be more logical) it would have to be the first TBTC baseball uni, which would now make it a turnback the turnbacks jersey. I’m sure that Dr. Emmit Brown and Marty McFly were involved.
Cheers to the Twins win over the ChiSox tonight – some guys were arguing in the bar about when the Twins started wearing the navy blue unis with “Twins” across the chest in lieu of the “Minnesota” similar to the road grays. I couldn’t come up with the answer…[/quote]
Twins have two different Navy gamers. “Twins” (red w/white edge) at home, “MINNESOTA” (white w/red edge) on the road.
I think they’re one of the few with both home & road alts. Maybe the only ones? Dunno for sure.[/quote]
…yea, that’s what was being discuss only no one knew when the home alt (blue w/ Twins) came about…
[quote comment=”282291″][quote comment=”282275″]I’m guessing the Ojibway wore the 1768 jerseys and the Mdewakantons wore their visiting alternates.[/quote]
…hilarious! Was that game in the Lakota League Central?
I’m with Ricko on this though – it for some uber-obscure reason it is associated with the Twins (again 1968 would be more logical) it would have to be the first TBTC baseball uni, which would now make it a turnback the turnbacks jersey. I’m sure that Dr. Emmit Brown and Marty McFly were involved.
Cheers to the Twins win over the ChiSox tonight – some guys were arguing in the bar about when the Twins started wearing the navy blue unis with “Twins” across the chest in lieu of the “Minnesota” similar to the road grays. I couldn’t come up with the answer…[/quote]
The alts were introduced in 1997 with the road blue “Minnesota” and the home RED “Twins”. The Red Alts were a dismal failure, only being worn twice and were replaced the following year, 1998, by the blue home “Twins” version.
[quote comment=”282288″][quote comment=”282274″][quote comment=”282154″]What an odd eBay scam. Minneapolis (along with the state of Minnesota) is only celebrating its sesquicentennial this year, having achieved statehood (and cityhood) in 1858. Certainly not 1768.
Nice looking flannel, though.[/quote]
I believe that it is VERY UNFAIR to call this item an Ebay Scam …..
The jersey came from somewhere !!! It would have cost MUCH MORE than the $250.00 sale price to manufacture this jersey. Given the tag and the fabric it would be IMPOSSIBLE to scam the item and create it for a sale.
My educated guess that the Ebay seller – who I do not know – is selling the jersey in good faith as a gamer.
I believe that it PROBABLY WAS a 1968 gamer – maybe for the Twins, maybe for a local minor league team in Minn., as I saw a very similar style full uniform on sale through Ebay 2-3 years ago worn by the minor league Denver Bears celebrating a similar anniversary, with the date of the year on the chest. That uniform had a very similar styling and would have cost thousands to manufacture.
Nonetheless, this 1768 jersey is a very RARE piece probably worth every penny – finding the provenance of the jersey should be the least of anyone’s problems.[/quote]
Nick, are you the person selling the jersey?[/quote]
Jose –
No I am not the person selling the jersey. I have no idea who the person is. It is just very difficult to believe that such a jersey, with vintage material and tagging, could be a fraud. Perhaps it is a minor league or club team jersey, but my doubts that it is such stem from the expense involved with producing the jersey.
– Nick
Apparently, Erin Andrew’s attire at last Wednesdays Cubs-Brewers game has become a link.
Deadspin has a picture. Erin Andrews is a good reporter who also happens to be very eye-catching, but it’s never good when the reporter becomes the news.
Maybe that can be a future uniwatch topic…the clothes of sideline reporters through the years.