Skip to content
 
Uni Watch

Well, That Was … Umm … Unique

By
ea66ce9fcb414da156481fe13bcedc0d-getty-80682168jm014_cleveland_bro.jpg

Paul’s still gone. This is still Bryan.

Because I sometimes read too fast — apparently in a hurry to get to the point — I miss important details in stories. For example, I didn’t bother to read the story announcing the Browns’ brown pants too closely. Because of that, I thought they’d be in all brown. Ummm … no. God, that would have been horrible.

But was the brown that bad? Well, it depends on what you’re looking for. Brady Quinn, shown above, was wearing brown tights and high whites. I’ve never seen brown tights before, but they obviously exist. Others went with lower whites and more brown showing. That didn’t look so good.

I was prepared for the worst. That had mostly to do with expecting a full turd suit, though. Had those pants included a stripe or two, though — that could have been pretty cool. Same with the socks. Nothing over the top, but just a little bit to break up the brown. And just remember the all brown that was in my head. It could have been worse.

Olympic Oddities: You know those lesser-known sports we talked about last week? Jeremy Brahm checked in with a number of uni-quirks. Italy used a momentary libero against Bulgaria — note the pullover top. Lots of teams will only have one contrasting-color jersey made, so in case of emergency — momentary or not — a pullover will do it. … Kazakhstan’s women’s handball team had name and number plates, front and back. … Team handball has an extra attacker when the goalie is pulled … and there’s a hole in the jersey. Why? … What do you get when you’re a trouble-maker in field hockey? Green triangle, of course. Yellow squares are like going to the penalty box, while a red circle means you’re gone for the rest of the game.

Playing Nice: I owe an apology to Marty Met for being short and not so nice yesterday. In an attempt to end a long-simmering argument before it started (and there was no indication of it starting), I basically told him to lock it up. Not very hospitable of me, and I apologize.

Uni Watch News Ticker: Australia’s A-League is trying to get fans fired up with team NOBs in this ad, courtesy of Jeremy Brahm. Yeah, that looks strange. … Chris Kaman, the American who rediscovered his German roots in time for the Olympics, is missing his swoosh. Good catch by Brian Skokowski. … Remember the ruckus when Penn State said to Nike, “Yes, we’ll take your money in exchange for swooshes for everybody.”? Jesse Weidaw points out the Nittany Lions found plenty of space for the Champion logo prior to the invasion. And one must assume there’s a C on each sleeve, right? … Eddie Royal spent most of Saturday’s Denver-Dallas preseason game with his belt unbuckled. Though, as Rachel Bicicchi points out, he still has his Broncos belt-buckle cover attached. … For those wondering why Australia wears green and gold, rather than the colors of their flag, go here. …The Wilkes-Barre/Scranton Penguins unveiled a new third jersey on Monday. Rob Ullman likes it: “Since it just says “PENGUINS” on the front, has the NHL Pens’ logo on the shoulders (as opposed to the far-inferior AHL version) and doesn’t say “Wilkes-Barre/Scranton” anywhere…it’s essentially just a second alternate jersey for the Pittsburgh Penguins (the first being the powder blue ’67 throwbacks they wore at last year’s Winter Classic, which they’ll wear as alts this season). Anyway, I think I dig it.” Thanks also to Stan Capp. … Yankees pitcher Phil Hughes, on a rehab stay in Scranton, has been pitching with glasses. Good catch by Alan Borock. …Old news here, but the Lakewood (N.J.) Blueclaws were the Bruceclaws for one night in July. Bruuuuuce! Thanks to Neal for the link. … College hockey logo rankings here, though Dan Herr thinks it’s a hack job. … Lots of Olympic flair from the Italian women’s water polo coach here, with thanks to Kevin Soon.

 
  
 
Comments (160)

    Not to fond of those penguin jerseys, with what looks like triple twill ‘PENGUINS’ on the front, looks like they used single twill for the numbers on the front and sleeves. Makes it look like a cheap replica to me. Plus with the two colored sleeves, looks like he’s wear two different length jerseys at once.

    Not a big fan…

    Only post of the day for me…glad it was on hockey. Have to travel for work today. ROAD TRIP!!

    I’m not really sure what to make of the WB Pens jersey. WB has had a large number of third jerseys and one-off alternates through the years. This one looks uninspired and well…cheap. I don’t like where hockey is going with the text and numbers (Dallas and soon to be Atlanta…) on the fronts of the jerseys. It works in college but in the pros it really looks amateur. I won’t even comment on the sacrilege that is using the Penguins original jersey from the 70’s and making slapping on a new logo and patches…

    A few things:

    *Penguins sweaters – are the sleeves black or old Anaheim Ducks purple? Unlike some on the list, I have no beef with purple per se, but I do have a beef with the “gimmick colours” of the early 90’s senseless expansion, and teal & Anaheim Purple are just that.

    *Field hockey’s “green triangle”. I know soccer referees who have oval red cards and rectangle yellow cards so they can feel the proper card without looking in their pocket and not accidentally present the wrong one. I’m betting this is the case here.

    * Hole in extra attacker’s pullover: Could be just a clean way to eliminate a logo and federation crest, both of which are no-nos, apparently, at the Olympics. That thing looks like it’s just a practise bib, or pinney, anyway.

    BTW, what do others call practise bibs used to create different coloured teams? could be an article in practice attire.

    My question is, why do you need to be designated if your team pulled the goalie? The only time we see this in North America is in hockey, and the extra attacker has no need for designation. Must be a case where this player can still “play goal” but is not one of the actual goalies – a more offensive player instead – who still needs to be identified. That’s more of a “subbed goalie” than a pulled one.

    SB

    Me, I liked the brown Browns pants. I’ve always preferred that teams wear dark (or color) pants when they wear white jerseys. Balances better, and they don’t look like they’re out there in their long underwear.

    I may be in the minority there, but it’s my burden to bear, I suppose.

    The Browns pants looked more black than brown on my HD TV. They’re not horrid, but they certainly could use a triple stripe (orange, white, orange) down the side.

    My question is, why do you need to be designated if your team pulled the goalie? The only time we see this in North America is in hockey, and the extra attacker has no need for designation. Must be a case where this player can still “play goal” but is not one of the actual goalies – a more offensive player instead – who still needs to be identified. That’s more of a “subbed goalie” than a pulled one.

    Didn’t the MISL used to have the extra attacker in a different colored jersey in a situation when the goalie was pulled?

    [quote comment=”285227″]The Browns pants looked more black than brown on my HD TV. They’re not horrid, but they certainly could use a triple stripe (orange, white, orange) down the side.[/quote]
    I totally agree with the stripe comment. If they go forward with these…please include stripes. The only dark pants that I like that are stripe free are the Jagwires’ blacks…they look tough. All brown, however, just looks…dirty

    I loved the MISL. Long live Pato Margetic and Karl Heinz-Granitza!

    Cleveland’s brown pants looked almost black to me too on an LCD TV. It seems that some of the “classic” colors have been somewhat darkened over the years (Lakers, Packers, Cubs) so they’re not so flamboyant (Bengals among many others excluded). –link

    Have the Browns worn the brown jersey/orange pants combination at any point since the team was reformed back in ’99?

    That always looked really cool to me, but maybe now it would suffer from the glossiness of the material they make pants from. One of the things I love most about old uniforms was that the fabric was matte.

    One Olympic question. Maybe it’s a simple answer, but why do track and field athletes have to wear the paper pinned to their suits? Watching the 100m I couldn’t help but wonder why they didnt go to the aerodynamic lengths that the swimmers go to. Seems to me that flapping paper, loose fitting tanktops, flowing dreadlocks, etc. would be anti-streamlined. And swimmers don’t wear numbers…why do runners? Is this just a case of “this is how we’ve always done it”?

    [quote comment=”285227″]The Browns pants looked more black than brown on my HD TV. They’re not horrid, but they certainly could use a triple stripe (orange, white, orange) down the side.[/quote]
    I’ll second that with reservations. Brown pants w/ orange-white-orange stripe would have been better than the all-brown look; going back to the white socks w/stripes would have been good, too. If they wanted to break things up, the orange pants of the Kardiac Kids era would have been better (though I like the white face mask); Still, what was so bad with the Brown’s traditional look? As someone pointed out yesterday; if it was good enough for Jim Brown (and Frank Ryan and Paul Warfield) it’s good enough for these guys.

    Not up with the handball rules but I would assume the goaltender has rights that the other players don’t- like in soccer if you pulled your regular goaltender for an extra attacker you would throw a different colored shirt on him to allow him to handle the ball with his hands in your own penalty area.

    In team handball, only the goaltender is allowed to be in the 6 meter area. Defenders are not supposed to even enter when playing defense. The jersey would allow the referee to easily determine the keeper.

    [quote comment=”285233″]Have the Browns worn the brown jersey/orange pants combination at any point since the team was reformed back in ’99?

    That always looked really cool to me, but maybe now it would suffer from the glossiness of the material they make pants from. One of the things I love most about old uniforms was that the fabric was matte.[/quote]
    In December of 2003 on a Monday night, they wore the brown jersey/orange pants combo
    link
    I like this look….other than the shininess. Its the look I grew up with in the late 70’s early 80s. But I wouldnt go to this full time.

    [quote comment=”285239″][quote comment=”285233″]Have the Browns worn the brown jersey/orange pants combination at any point since the team was reformed back in ’99?

    That always looked really cool to me, but maybe now it would suffer from the glossiness of the material they make pants from. One of the things I love most about old uniforms was that the fabric was matte.[/quote]
    In December of 2003 on a Monday night, they wore the brown jersey/orange pants combo
    link
    I like this look….other than the shininess. Its the look I grew up with in the late 70’s early 80s. But I wouldnt go to this full time.[/quote]

    Wow, stripes or not, that actually looks worse than what they wore last night. For whatever reason I’ve always disliked orange as anything but an accent color, use it in stripes or on the helmet, that’s it.

    I don’t understand the tights look when it comes to alternate pants for NFL teams. It almost makes it look like the decision was an afterthought.
    While I like the idea of my Ravens “All Black” uni, I think they ruin it without some sort of stripe to break up the outline.
    I expected better of the Browns, since they have a historic uni that has remained relatively classic.

    RE: Browns survey.

    1 question survey, specific to the Brown pants, brown socks combo.

    Very disappointed. No follow up questions about pants striping, striped socks….nothing.

    I like them if they wear the striped socks, or put a triple stripe on the pants.

    I don’t have a link, but the new Timberwolves jerseys were released yesterday. The team says the new unis are the start of a new era. From the looks of the jerseys, apparently it’s the WNBA era.

    [quote comment=”285230″]

    My question is, why do you need to be designated if your team pulled the goalie? The only time we see this in North America is in hockey, and the extra attacker has no need for designation. Must be a case where this player can still “play goal” but is not one of the actual goalies – a more offensive player instead – who still needs to be identified. That’s more of a “subbed goalie” than a pulled one.

    Didn’t the MISL used to have the extra attacker in a different colored jersey in a situation when the goalie was pulled?[/quote]

    Yes, it’s called the 6th attacker. That guy is still the goalie in defensive situations and therefore able to use his hands in the goal box. He’d have the different jersey so that the ref knows who is the goalie.

    ___

    Also, how can you have a college hockey logo ranking without including the WCHA? The National Champion has come from the WCHA for 6 of the last 9 years, but clearly that conference isn’t that important….

    [quote comment=”285244″]I don’t have a link, but the new Timberwolves jerseys were released yesterday. The team says the new unis are the start of a new era. From the looks of the jerseys, apparently it’s the WNBA era.[/quote]

    Check yesterday’s ticker.

    [quote comment=”285241″][quote comment=”285239″][quote comment=”285233″]Have the Browns worn the brown jersey/orange pants combination at any point since the team was reformed back in ’99?

    That always looked really cool to me, but maybe now it would suffer from the glossiness of the material they make pants from. One of the things I love most about old uniforms was that the fabric was matte.[/quote]
    In December of 2003 on a Monday night, they wore the brown jersey/orange pants combo
    link
    I like this look….other than the shininess. Its the look I grew up with in the late 70’s early 80s. But I wouldnt go to this full time.[/quote]

    Wow, stripes or not, that actually looks worse than what they wore last night. For whatever reason I’ve always disliked orange as anything but an accent color, use it in stripes or on the helmet, that’s it.[/quote]

    i didn’t care much for the brown pants, but they weren’t as bad as i’d thought. i totally agree with the call for a striped sock and/or side stripe (how about solid white?). the browns’ original orange pants were great because they were old school cotton and held onto dirt instead of the hi-sheen, super-clean pants they wear now. teams should only use white or dark colors with that material. bright colors look kinda ridiculous.

    Oof, those WB Penguins jerseys are a schizophrenic mess! The shoulders and sleeves are excellent; remind me of the last Pittsburgh Penguins blue jersey style before they switched the colors to black and gold. The front of the jersey – YECCHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    -Jet

    [quote comment=”285232″]I loved the MISL. Long live Pato Margetic and Karl Heinz-Granitza!

    [/quote]

    Being a life long Chicagoan I still talk about Karl Heinz-Granitza. I actually talked about his this past weekend. Long live the Chicago Sting.

    The problem with the brown pants the Browns wore is that they look unbalanced. They have all that bright orange up on their head and shoulders and then no orange below that to balance things out. Perhaps an orange stripe on the pants or orange stripes on the socks? Either way, I still don’t like it.

    Call me old-fashioned, but I liked the Browns better during the white-on-white Marty Ball era.

    the browns brown pants are terrible. they look unprofessional and unfinished. i hope they don’t stay with this look.

    The Browns new brown pants were terribe, IMHO. I prefer white on white, white on orange, brown on white, or brown on orange for the Browns. And of course all these pants with stripes down the side and striped socks. I just don’t understand this trend toward solid pants with solid tights. Bizarre, and looks so boring and ugly. It’s kind of sad to see an old school team like the Browns come out with an awful new pant like this. You expect it from, say, the Jags, but not the Browns.

    I like the Brown pants look MUCH better than the typical white on white look, which is boring as all get out. It would look better with stripes though. They would look absoultely horrendous with the Brown jerseys though, can you say Mr. Hankey? link

    The best Browns unis ever were the white jersey/oragne pants combo from the Brian Sipe era. Didn’t mind the brown/orange combo either, but the white jerseys looked real good with the orange pants.

    can someone with more (read: any) photoshop skills than i possess possibly do a mock-up of the browns wearing

    1) white top, brown pants, white socks
    2) white top, brown pants with orange/white/orange stripe, white socks
    3) orange top, brown pants, brown tights
    4) brown top, brown pants, white socks
    5) brown top, brown pants, brown socks
    and/or
    6) orange top, orange pants

    below are some templates/pics for reference:

    link
    link
    link
    link (might be good for p-shop model)
    link
    link
    link

    if anyone could do some kind of mockup, that’d be great….yeah…thanks

    As per the Penn State Swoosh/Champion debacle:

    Champion only puts their C on the left sleeve of their gear! I have many sweatshirts and college tees made like this!

    Well, well, well, through 32 posts, two people liked the brown pants and five gave a “they weren’t as bad as I thought/could have been much worse/would have looked better with stripes or striped socks.

    See what I meant about taking a wait-and-see approach.

    Personally, I didn’t care for it. The shiny, spandex material tends to make colors darker than they really are and they looked black to me. It looked better with guys that were wearing their socks properly as per NFL rules.

    I’ll take it over the Ravens blackout anyday. Black shoes make a big difference.

    Not sure if we’ll see it again based on how poorly things started. We may have seen a trivia question 10-20 years from now, like the black Saints helmet.

    I’ve been fearing seeing these brown pants for a few years now. They have been the away pants in the last few editions of Madden. Personally, I hate them. Doesn’t look classy at all. I love the clean look of the white on white. I hope they wear those throwbacks from last year again, now those looked good. Striped socks and numbers on the helmets. I believe the shoulder numbers were different too.

    [quote comment=”285258″]Well, well, well, through 32 posts, two people liked the brown pants and five gave a “they weren’t as bad as I thought/could have been much worse/would have looked better with stripes or striped socks.

    See what I meant about taking a wait-and-see approach.

    Personally, I didn’t care for it. The shiny, spandex material tends to make colors darker than they really are and they looked black to me. It looked better with guys that were wearing their socks properly as per NFL rules.

    I’ll take it over the Ravens blackout anyday. Black shoes make a big difference.

    Not sure if we’ll see it again based on how poorly things started. We may have seen a trivia question 10-20 years from now, like the black Saints helmet.[/quote]

    The Saints had a black helmet?

    Wasn’t it already leaked that the Seattle Sonics were now the OKC Thunder? According to this, they’re still working out the details:

    -Oklahoma City’s long-awaited announcement of its team nickname is not expected to come this week. The official unveiling of the name, colors and logos is, however, expected before the end of the month.

    -Press conferences: The delay in the announcement of the team name, colors and logos has prevented OKC from introducing recent acquisitions Desmond Mason, Joe Smith and Kyle Weaver. The team doesn’t want to officially introduce the players at a press conference until it has jerseys for each player to hold up.

    Link: link

    [quote comment=”285261″]Wasn’t it already leaked that the Seattle Sonics were now the OKC Thunder? According to this, they’re still working out the details:

    -Oklahoma City’s long-awaited announcement of its team nickname is not expected to come this week. The official unveiling of the name, colors and logos is, however, expected before the end of the month.

    -Press conferences: The delay in the announcement of the team name, colors and logos has prevented OKC from introducing recent acquisitions Desmond Mason, Joe Smith and Kyle Weaver. The team doesn’t want to officially introduce the players at a press conference until it has jerseys for each player to hold up.

    Link: link

    [quote comment=\”285261\”]Wasn\’t it already leaked that the Seattle Sonics were now the OKC Thunder? According to this, they\’re still working out the details:

    •Oklahoma City\’s long-awaited announcement of its team nickname is not expected to come this week. The official unveiling of the name, colors and logos is, however, expected before the end of the month.

    •Press conferences: The delay in the announcement of the team name, colors and logos has prevented OKC from introducing recent acquisitions Desmond Mason, Joe Smith and Kyle Weaver. The team doesn\’t want to officially introduce the players at a press conference until it has jerseys for each player to hold up.

    Link: link

    The “Thunder” name was a mistake on the nba.com web site that probably helped a web guy find new work.

    Officially, there is no name for the team yet (take that for what you will). I’m still holding out hope for the OKC Scum Bags. It’s got a nice break like Red Sox and it ends in an s.

    [quote comment=”285262″][quote comment=”285260″]The Saints had a black helmet?[/quote]

    yes

    link

    link[/quote]

    Preseason only, may not have lasted more than one game. All photos I’ve seen are from that particular night game.

    —Ricko

    [quote comment=”285262″][quote comment=”285260″]The Saints had a black helmet?[/quote]

    yes

    link

    link[/quote]

    Yep….and the parallel I drew to the brown pants was that it was a one-time thing done in the preseason. The details around it have escaped me though.. if anyone can offer more, please do.

    [quote comment=”285247″]fresh off his successful relief appearance last evening, brady models link[/quote]
    lmaorofl

    thanks for bringing this back. iirc, this was taken at his sister’s wedding, which begs the question, why didn’t he just wear a nice (brown) suit?

    I didn’t think the brown pants were all that bad last night, but I think more orange in the hosiery department would have been helpful.

    [quote comment=”285225″]A few things:

    *Penguins sweaters – are the sleeves black or old Anaheim Ducks purple? Unlike some on the list, I have no beef with purple per se, but I do have a beef with the “gimmick colours” of the early 90’s senseless expansion, and teal & Anaheim Purple are just that.

    *Field hockey’s “green triangle”. I know soccer referees who have oval red cards and rectangle yellow cards so they can feel the proper card without looking in their pocket and not accidentally present the wrong one. I’m betting this is the case here.
    [/quote]

    The color on the AHL Penguins is dark/navy blue. They wore similarly coloured jerseys in 04-05 and 06-07, and even adopted the slogan “Black and Blue Hockey”.

    The shapes for the cards in field is for easy recognition from across the pitch when trying to determine what colour card a player received, especially for coaches. It makes a huge difference when making substitutions for penalty situations. I wrote link on my blog if anyone wants more info about the game.

    [quote comment=”285268″]I wrote link on my blog if anyone wants more info about the game.[/quote]

    i guess i need to check that out…but a question before i do, teebz…

    how does this differ from link?

    …or would i know that if i read your article? :o)

    [quote comment=”285269″][quote comment=”285268″]I wrote link on my blog if anyone wants more info about the game.[/quote]

    i guess i need to check that out…but a question before i do, teebz…

    how does this differ from link?

    …or would i know that if i read your article? :o)[/quote]

    Great question, Phil, and kudos for knowing about the sport of hurling. I actually touch on how field hockey was derived from hurling in the article. ;o)

    I personally like pants that match the helmet’s color and stripes (e.g., link, link). Although my team (link) does not do that and has two different stripe patterns for link and link on what is essentially the same gray pants, which I just don’t get at all… Has any other team ever had pants of the same color but with different stripes for home and road?

    In honor of our Chinese friends during the Olympics, let’s take a look at favorite Chinese “fake” products…. who needs Converse All Stars when Ball Stars work just as well?

    link

    [quote comment=”285248″]the browns’ original orange pants were great because they were old school cotton and held onto dirt instead of the hi-sheen, super-clean pants they wear now. teams should only use white or dark colors with that material. bright colors look kinda ridiculous.[/quote]

    The point about shiny pants is a good one, and that goes for pants of any color, even white.

    Compare this:

    link

    . . . to this:

    link

    (ignore the red-on-red and focus on the pants)

    . . . and it is no contest. Lose the sheen!

    [quote comment=”285267″]I didn’t think the brown pants were all that bad last night, but I think more orange in the hosiery department would have been helpful.[/quote]

    “They weren’t all that bad” isn’t a yes. If we have to tolerate them, then they suck. Right? Since when is “not awful” acceptable?

    “A ‘D’ is just fine, son. At least u didn’t fail. Oh, and here’s big trophy just for showing up.” Huh?

    I mean, why not just wear brown sweatpants? Looked like a Sunday touch football getup (well, of course not the pads and helmets, duh…you get my point, I hope).

    NFL uniforms are supposed to look better than Sunday touch football.

    Aren’t they? What am I missing?

    —Ricko

    [quote comment=”285269″][quote comment=”285268″]I wrote link on my blog if anyone wants more info about the game.[/quote]

    i guess i need to check that out…but a question before i do, teebz…

    how does this differ from link?

    …or would i know that if i read your article? :o)[/quote]

    ok…that’s F’ED UP…not only did you answer the question in your article, but you had the SAME PICTURE…to wit…from teebz blog:

    [quote]It was thought that the game of field hockey got its modern look from the game of hurling which was also popular in England. Hurling is played on a grass pitch, and players use sticks, called hurleys, to link through an H-shaped goal. Hurling has been deemed “the fastest game on earth”, something that hockey fans can relate to, and has regularly been compared to hockey in terms of how fast the games moves and flows from offence to defence. Hurling is an ancient Gaelic sport, and is played regularly in Ireland to this day.[/quote]

    different source for the pic, but still

    good stuff!

    [quote comment=”285271″]I personally like pants that match the helmet’s color and stripes (e.g., link, link). Although my team (link) does not do that and has two different stripe patterns for link and link on what is essentially the same gray pants, which I just don’t get at all… Has any other team ever had pants of the same color but with different stripes for home and road?[/quote]

    The only problem with the Cowboys is that the pants in that picture most definitely do not match the helmet color. The helmets are silver and those pants have a bluish-tint to them. In fact, I don’t think even the silver pants they wear with the nayv tops matches the helmet color either.

    Wasn’t that something that was the subject of a Page 2 article at one point, how the Cowboys have silver as one of their team colors yet on the uniforms themselves there are three different shades of silver?

    [quote comment=”285275″]
    different source for the pic, but still

    good stuff![/quote]

    I needed a really good picture of someone crushing or about to crush the sliotar, and that one fit the bill precisely. :o)

    [quote comment=”285274″][quote comment=”285267″]I didn’t think the brown pants were all that bad last night, but I think more orange in the hosiery department would have been helpful.[/quote]

    “They weren’t all that bad” isn’t a yes. If we have to tolerate them, then they suck. Right? Since when is “not awful” acceptable?

    “A ‘D’ is just fine, son. At least u didn’t fail. Oh, and here’s big trophy just for showing up.” Huh?

    I mean, why not just wear brown sweatpants? Looked like a Sunday touch football getup (well, of course not the pads and helmets, duh…you get my point, I hope).

    NFL uniforms are supposed to look better than Sunday touch football.

    Aren’t they? What am I missing?

    —Ricko[/quote]
    Ricko, I respect your thoughts on this and knew that’s how you might respond based on yesterday’s posts.

    While I think you’re correct that “they weren’t that bad” isn’t a yes, I feel we can have degrees of like/dislike in uniforms.

    Everything shouldn’t be categorized as “great” or “it sucks” with no in between. It should be something like “great”, “good to OK”, “bland/boring”, “terrible”.

    My overall point is that we shouldn’t make our minds up on something when we only hear concepts and haven’t seen the actual uniform .

    Put me down as someone who hated the brown pants.

    “They don’t look all that bad” sounds to me a lot like “she doesn’t sweat much for a fat girl.”

    I was really dreading seeing the brown pants last night. Almost like wait to see a train wreck feeling while watching the pre-game show. But honestly, I didn’t think they were bad. Stripes would help a lot. I can’t imagine the all brown combo. Add the stripes and either the white or orange jersey works for me. But, then again I am not a fan of the all one color uni trend.

    Anybody notice to the right of the Italian Women’s Water Polo coach? A nice wax job….Grrrrrrowl!

    link

    Being a life long Chicagoan I still talk about Karl Heinz-Granitza. I actually talked about his this past weekend. Long live the Chicago Sting.
    Kevin, I remember fondly the game I saw between the Sting and the Cosmos at Wrigley Field in the summer of ’81. The Beautiful Game traditionalist in me recoils at the memory of the NASL shootout, but the kid in me remembers how much fun it was.

    I do believe you’ll enjoy this clip, if you haven’t already seen it. I remember having to watch the Saturday-night game on Sunday afternoon on “Wide World of Sports.”

    link

    [quote comment=”285276″][quote comment=”285271″]I personally like pants that match the helmet’s color and stripes (e.g., link, link). Although my team (link) does not do that and has two different stripe patterns for link and link on what is essentially the same gray pants, which I just don’t get at all… Has any other team ever had pants of the same color but with different stripes for home and road?[/quote]

    The only problem with the Cowboys is that the pants in that picture most definitely do not match the helmet color. The helmets are silver and those pants have a bluish-tint to them. In fact, I don’t think even the silver pants they wear with the nayv tops matches the helmet color either.

    Wasn’t that something that was the subject of a Page 2 article at one point, how the Cowboys have silver as one of their team colors yet on the uniforms themselves there are three different shades of silver?[/quote]

    Good point. But the Cowboys have a closer match today than they did with those link… Other examples of matching helmet & pants include link and link…

    [quote comment=”285271″]Although my team (link) does not do that and has two different stripe patterns for link and link on what is essentially the same gray pants, which I just don’t get at all… Has any other team ever had pants of the same color but with different stripes for home and road?[/quote]

    Prior to going the throwback – retro route, the G=Men’s pants were the same for home and away:

    link

    link

    link

    I remember when they first switched to that design (in the Shockey pictures), they actually wore blue socks at home and red socks on the road. At some point they went with blue socks at home and blue socks on the road, and then just switched the road unis to the current retro look.

    I guess someone in the front office decided that their home uniforms were the retro Giant design, so why not go with the retro design for the road uniforms as well……

    I loved the brown pants. They just looked bad with the brown socks. How about orange socks?

    I’d go with a single thin orange stripe down the side and then a thicker single stripe within the brown field of the socks.

    my last point on the brown pants…since i had similar comments last night

    (btw…i’ve now had “borrow” 3 consecutive times as my ‘password’)…

    unlike the 1969 black saints helmet, i think we’ll see these brown pants again…and mark my words, we’ll see them again, against the giants, on a monday night (10/13)…when the browns will be wearing….

    wait for it….

    all brown…

    it seems the ‘third pants’ is becoming the rage now (along with the monochrome color)…we saw it with the flaming tacks titans (white, powder, dark blue) and lambs rams (white, gold, dark blue) and the various combos last year, and i’d bet we see the browns with white, orange and brown this year…seems to be the new nfl rage…since they can only wear one different ‘alt’ jersey, they can mix and match 3 different pants with 3 tops and effectively create 9 different unis

    rather than fight this trend, im just going to grudgingly accept it as what the new nfl has become, and hope it goes away after a while…some teams can pull off the monochrome (link imho can, because of the matte finish)…(link link…not so much)

    yeah…like… link

    at least the link haven’t gone back to this…one can only imagine how they’d look in all blue…maybe like link…but not in green

    [quote comment=”285278″][quote comment=”285274″][quote comment=”285267″]I didn’t think the brown pants were all that bad last night, but I think more orange in the hosiery department would have been helpful.[/quote]

    “They weren’t all that bad” isn’t a yes. If we have to tolerate them, then they suck. Right? Since when is “not awful” acceptable?

    “A ‘D’ is just fine, son. At least u didn’t fail. Oh, and here’s big trophy just for showing up.” Huh?

    I mean, why not just wear brown sweatpants? Looked like a Sunday touch football getup (well, of course not the pads and helmets, duh…you get my point, I hope).

    NFL uniforms are supposed to look better than Sunday touch football.

    Aren’t they? What am I missing?

    —Ricko[/quote]
    Ricko, I respect your thoughts on this and knew that’s how you might respond based on yesterday’s posts.

    While I think you’re correct that “they weren’t that bad” isn’t a yes, I feel we can have degrees of like/dislike in uniforms.

    Everything shouldn’t be categorized as “great” or “it sucks” with no in between. It should be something like “great”, “good to OK”, “bland/boring”, “terrible”.

    My overall point is that we shouldn’t make our minds up on something when we only hear concepts and haven’t seen the actual uniform .[/quote]

    Of course there are degrees. I just laugh whenever “well, it didn’t suck” comes up as a definiton of an okay experience.

    And, in all honesty, I wasn’t horrified when I finally saw the Browns pants after I got home from softball last night: Not as bad as expected, just another in a sorry trend of less than big league presentations. In this case especially non-sensical because they were on a team with so long and storied a tradition of basically sticking to a certain look.

    There are uniforms, and there are a “collection of different outfits.” Too many teams are heading toward the latter. Was unique when the late 70’s Pirates did it. Now unique is NOT having to have a chart/guide of all combinations in the locker room so players won’t get confused.

    The Packers in Forest pants, or the Yankees in Navy pants, for example, wouldn’t automatically be an improvement. It would just be change for the sake of change. By that measure, the Red Wings should be opting for some alternate black breezers. I mean, all that red and white, borrrrring.

    Isn’t that the apparent mindset among most teams these days?

    —Ricko
    (as always, enjoying things here at “Collections of Outfits Watch”)

    [quote comment=”285270″][quote comment=”285269″][quote comment=”285268″]I wrote link on my blog if anyone wants more info about the game.[/quote]

    i guess i need to check that out…but a question before i do, teebz…

    how does this differ from link?

    …or would i know that if i read your article? :o)[/quote]

    Great question, Phil, and kudos for knowing about the sport of hurling. I actually touch on how field hockey was derived from hurling in the article. ;o)[/quote]

    One thing you don’t mention is the size of the goal and why do the nets always have that wood board at the bottom?

    Whoever said yesterday that Cleveland’s brown pants would end up making them look like they were going to a dance recital wasn’t too far off.

    Yes, the pants desperately need stripes. But the worst part of dark pants (of which I’m not generally a fan) is when the socks/tights are the same color, giving teams that silly leotard look.

    Last night I thought the Browns looked very NCAA. And that’s not good.

    The author of the College Hockey logo ranking clearly doesn’t get it. Hell, he didn’t even use the school’s proper hockey logos. I know for a fact that UofMich has crossed hockey sticks behind the block M for their logo.

    Well, our favorite artist is at it again

    stirrups in all their glory
    link

    and 1 for the Steeler fans
    link

    (No brown pants to worry about there!)

    Fantastic stuff Rob, great stuff as always

    [quote comment=”285285″][quote comment=”285271″]Although my team (link) does not do that and has two different stripe patterns for link and link on what is essentially the same gray pants, which I just don’t get at all… Has any other team ever had pants of the same color but with different stripes for home and road?[/quote]

    Prior to going the throwback – retro route, the G=Men’s pants were the same for home and away:

    link

    link

    link

    I remember when they first switched to that design (in the Shockey pictures), they actually wore blue socks at home and red socks on the road. At some point they went with blue socks at home and blue socks on the road, and then just switched the road unis to the current retro look.

    I guess someone in the front office decided that their home uniforms were the retro Giant design, so why not go with the retro design for the road uniforms as well……[/quote]

    I get the historical context. But I wish they would just stick to one stripe design for both, preferably the link b/c that more closely resembles the red stripe on their blue helmets. That’s my $0.02.

    [quote comment=”285294″]Well, our favorite artist is at it again

    stirrups in all their glory
    link

    and 1 for the Steeler fans
    link

    (No brown pants to worry about there!)

    Fantastic stuff Rob, great as always[/quote]

    corrected, sorry for the grammer, at work here….

    Another thing about the Browns – even on HD on a plasma, it looks like Cleveland’s colors are black and orange. And honestly it wasn’t just the “brown” pants, because when they wear white jersey/pants it still looks like black and orange striping unless you are up very, very close.

    I became a Browns fan in the 60s, when the uni was all-white both home and away, so naturally I didn’t care for the brown pants, although I’m also in the “not as bad as I thought” category. All-brown would be worse. And if they ARE going to wear brown pants, stripes are a must.

    As someone who has occasionally written “quotes” for people for press release purposes, I found this hilarious (from the Browns’ website link:

    “I think the new brown pants and socks mixed with our traditional jersey and helmet is an exciting new look,” Joshua Cribbs said. “It’s exciting to experience any kind of ‘first’ with this storied franchise, and I’m proud to be a part of it.”

    That is just such an obviously made up quote. “…this storied franchise”? Please. People don’t talk like that.

    [quote comment=”285288″]
    at least the link haven’t gone back to this…one can only imagine how they’d look in all blue…maybe like link…but not in green[/quote]

    Yes, but wearing white helmets, white jersys, AND white pants can look like link or link when you squint your eyes…

    [quote comment=”285288″]rather than fight this trend, im just going to grudgingly accept it as what the new nfl has become, and hope it goes away after a while..[/quote]

    I’ll second that….I don’t like it, but this is clearly what the league as a whole (and sports team design as a whole) is gravitating towards….more jerseys, alternates, and a fixation on dark colors, most notably black.

    As long as my Buckeyes dont ever think of toying with an alternate jersey i’ll be fine.

    [quote comment=”285288″]my last point on the brown pants…since i had similar comments last night

    (btw…i’ve now had “borrow” 3 consecutive times as my ‘password’)…

    unlike the 1969 black saints helmet, i think we’ll see these brown pants again…and mark my words, we’ll see them again, against the giants, on a monday night (10/13)…when the browns will be wearing….

    wait for it….

    all brown…

    it seems the ‘third pants’ is becoming the rage now (along with the monochrome color)…we saw it with the flaming tacks titans (white, powder, dark blue) and lambs rams (white, gold, dark blue) and the various combos last year, and i’d bet we see the browns with white, orange and brown this year…seems to be the new nfl rage…since they can only wear one different ‘alt’ jersey, they can mix and match 3 different pants with 3 tops and effectively create 9 different unis

    rather than fight this trend, im just going to grudgingly accept it as what the new nfl has become, and hope it goes away after a while…some teams can pull off the monochrome (link imho can, because of the matte finish)…(link link…not so much)

    yeah…like… link

    at least the link haven’t gone back to this…one can only imagine how they’d look in all blue…maybe like link…but not in green[/quote]

    Amen, Phil!

    I am NOT a fan of monochrome, never have, never will be!

    Seeing the Jets every week has taught me that!

    In my mind, there are a handful of teams that get it right:

    1. The Giants, no matter what, are gorgeous. Could they use some minor tweaking, yes, but they get it!

    2. Bears

    3. Packers

    4. Browns: When they keep it simple…I did not like last night’s becuase the pants were boring…Ass some braiding, or as someone mentioned, go with the striped socks!

    5.Jets:…no monochrome though!
    6.Colts: sharp, no Faulk blue pants though
    7. Cardinals and Falcons: I don’t mind either, although Deion/Gerald Riggs Falcon red would be better!

    Honorable mention:

    1. Chiefs: DOn’t care for them , but they are sharp.

    2. Redskins: I loved the Spurrier alts, however, their unis are classic. I would love an updated version.

    3. Bucs and Saints: Saints, I love the gold and black combo, stay away from mono…Marques Colston wears it the best, he’s got style!
    Bucs: You can’t go wrong with those pewter pants: Take a look at Derrick Brooks, he looks like a football player.

    Awful:

    1. Bills: Their throwbacks are gorgeous, their normal home and road are the worst in the league.

    2.There are so many teams that just throw colors and graphics together, that it’s hard to rate them: Patriots, Bengals, Titans,Broncos!

    [quote comment=”285288″]

    at least the link haven’t gone back to this…one can only imagine how they’d look in all blue…maybe like link…but not in green[/quote]

    That’s my favorite Colts combo ever. Too bad it was so short lived.

    [quote comment=”285281″]Anybody notice to the right of the Italian Women’s Water Polo coach? A nice wax job….Grrrrrrowl!

    link

    I hope it wasn’t this one:
    link

    If it’s a slideshow, it’s the last pic!

    [quote comment=”285305″][quote comment=”285281″]Anybody notice to the right of the Italian Women’s Water Polo coach? A nice wax job….Grrrrrrowl!

    link

    I hope it wasn’t this one:
    link

    If it’s a slideshow, it’s the last pic![/quote]

    link

    I was on vacation last week so if this got picked up by anyone else I appologize. Picture 9 of the Virginia Tech media day gallery (on their website: link ) shows a helmet similar to the ones used in the early-mid ’70s ( link). The team has been practicing in their standard all maroon helmets, but I was wondering if my Hokies will be going with the white for one game this season. Anybody got the scoop?

    On a totally different topic…

    There has been lots of talk around here in the past about Team Nike and/or Team Adidas taking precedence over the actual team being outfitted. Looks like we can Team Puma to the list. link link link link.

    [quote comment=”285265″][quote comment=”285262″][quote comment=”285260″]The Saints had a black helmet?[/quote]

    yes

    link

    link[/quote]

    Yep….and the parallel I drew to the brown pants was that it was a one-time thing done in the preseason. The details around it have escaped me though.. if anyone can offer more, please do.[/quote]
    From what I understand, the Saints were all prepared to change to black-shelled helmets for the 1969 season and used the design in a preseason game. Problem was, they never got permission from the NFL for the switch so they had to revert back to the gold shells. They never tried black helmets again.

    [quote comment=”285307″]I was on vacation last week so if this got picked up by anyone else I appologize. Picture 9 of the Virginia Tech media day gallery (on their website: link ) shows a helmet similar to the ones used in the early-mid ’70s ( link). The team has been practicing in their standard all maroon helmets, but I was wondering if my Hokies will be going with the white for one game this season. Anybody got the scoop?[/quote]

    One difference I noticed by the way: The map of Virginia now includes the Eastern Shore (the part of Virginia on the other side of the Chesapeake Bay) where the one Don Strock is wearing does not.

    I certainly hope we don’t see those Browns pants again.

    Wouldn’t be the first time they introduced link in the preseason but came to their senses by the regular season.

    The Browns should have placed stripes on the pants like on the helmet. Except, switch the orange and the brown keeping the white in the middle. The socks should have stripes identical to those on the sleeves. There is literally no other way. If you go back to last August’s feature on that rad guy named Marty, you will see that his uniform revisions did just that.

    [quote comment=”285234″]One Olympic question.

    Maybe it’s a simple answer, but why do track and field athletes have to wear the paper pinned to their suits? Watching the 100m I couldn’t help but wonder why they didnt go to the aerodynamic lengths that the swimmers go to. Seems to me that flapping paper, loose fitting tanktops, flowing dreadlocks, etc. would be anti-streamlined. And swimmers don’t wear numbers…why do runners? Is this just a case of “this is how we’ve always done it”?[/quote]
    air resistence is minimal compared to water resistence.

    [quote comment=”285310″][quote comment=”285307″]I was on vacation last week so if this got picked up by anyone else I appologize. Picture 9 of the Virginia Tech media day gallery (on their website: link ) shows a helmet similar to the ones used in the early-mid ’70s ( link). The team has been practicing in their standard all maroon helmets, but I was wondering if my Hokies will be going with the white for one game this season. Anybody got the scoop?[/quote]

    One difference I noticed by the way: The map of Virginia now includes the Eastern Shore (the part of Virginia on the other side of the Chesapeake Bay) where the one Don Strock is wearing does not.[/quote]

    The old Coaches hats do however feature the Eastern Shore on them.

    Also, dig the not so uniform stripes on the Tech pants in this picture: link

    Don Strock has orange outside with maroon inside, the fullback has maroon outside with orange inside (much broader stripes as well) and the tailback has on solid maroon stripe.

    [quote comment=”285292″]Whoever said yesterday that Cleveland’s brown pants would end up making them look like they were going to a dance recital wasn’t too far off.

    Yes, the pants desperately need stripes. But the worst part of dark pants (of which I’m not generally a fan) is when the socks/tights are the same color, giving teams that silly leotard look.

    Last night I thought the Browns looked very NCAA. And that’s not good.[/quote]

    Traditional college football uniforms look superior to the NFL’s.

    In fact, college ball beats the NFL any day. The NFL has always been artificial turf, heavily made-up plastic cheerleaders, high white socks (so ’70s), white shoes, and ugly stadiums, and contrived rivalries. Give me college (or, more accurately, what it used to be before it started copying the NFL and the Arena League) any day — naturally hot co-eds, classic unis with minimal striping, black shoes, grass, traditional stadiums, and real passion and rivalries. Maybe that’s why I don’t watch the NFL until December.

    That said, football in Chicago and Green Bay,a nd their uniforms, still rock, anytime. (You can have the indoor pansies of Minnesota and Detroit.)

    Oops. Marty did not have the socks with stripes on his Brown’s revision.. He was young.

    [quote]The NFL has always been artificial turf, heavily made-up plastic cheerleaders, high white socks (so ’70s), white shoes, and ugly stadiums, and contrived rivalries. Give me college (or, more accurately, what it used to be before it started copying the NFL and the Arena League) any day[/quote]

    so…link?

    So while watching the brown pants (I mean game) last night, I started to think, man are the uniforms in the AFC North pretty bad. Their opponent, in the east, actually pretty darn good. So, as a fan with season tickets, thereby watching uni matchups on a regular basis, which division you would want to be in?

    NFL: NFC East (Old school unis with Cowboys, Skins, Eagles and Giants)
    NHL: Western Central (Hawks, Wings, Jackets)
    MLB: NL Central (Cubbies, Cards, Reds, and Pirates – not the vests)
    NBA: ? Eastern Central maybe (Bulls, Pistons, Pacers)

    On second thought, my midwest bias may be showing through here…

    I actually think the brown pants wouldn’t be that bad if they had an orange and white stripe on them.Also on the white jerseys have an orange outline around the number.This is what I would take the brown jerseys and put an orange number with a white outline around it,and bring back the orange pants with them.Also the gray facemask has to go.Change it to brown.

    [quote comment=”285322″]I actually think the brown pants wouldn’t be that bad if they had an orange and white stripe on them.Also on the white jerseys have an orange outline around the number.This is what I would take the brown jerseys and put an orange number with a white outline around it,and bring back the orange pants with them.Also the gray facemask has to go.Change it to brown.[/quote]

    The Browns tried orage numbers on brown jerseys once – it was link.

    My guess for the triangles would be for the color blind. Websites and software developers need to do similar things for 508 accessibility compliance.

    [quote comment=”285288″]my last point on the brown pants…since i had similar comments last night

    (btw…i’ve now had “borrow” 3 consecutive times as my ‘password’)…

    unlike the 1969 black saints helmet, i think we’ll see these brown pants again…and mark my words, we’ll see them again, against the giants, on a monday night (10/13)…when the browns will be wearing….

    wait for it….

    all brown…

    it seems the ‘third pants’ is becoming the rage now (along with the monochrome color)…we saw it with the flaming tacks titans (white, powder, dark blue) and lambs rams (white, gold, dark blue) and the various combos last year, and i’d bet we see the browns with white, orange and brown this year…seems to be the new nfl rage…since they can only wear one different ‘alt’ jersey, they can mix and match 3 different pants with 3 tops and effectively create 9 different unis

    rather than fight this trend, im just going to grudgingly accept it as what the new nfl has become, and hope it goes away after a while…some teams can pull off the monochrome (link imho can, because of the matte finish)…(link link…not so much)

    yeah…like… link

    at least the link haven’t gone back to this…one can only imagine how they’d look in all blue…maybe like link…but not in green[/quote]

    I liked the Colts in blue pants. I would hate them with the blue jerseys though.

    [quote comment=”285325″][quote comment=”285288″]my last point on the brown pants…since i had similar comments last night

    (btw…i’ve now had “borrow” 3 consecutive times as my ‘password’)…

    unlike the 1969 black saints helmet, i think we’ll see these brown pants again…and mark my words, we’ll see them again, against the giants, on a monday night (10/13)…when the browns will be wearing….

    wait for it….

    all brown…

    it seems the ‘third pants’ is becoming the rage now (along with the monochrome color)…we saw it with the flaming tacks titans (white, powder, dark blue) and lambs rams (white, gold, dark blue) and the various combos last year, and i’d bet we see the browns with white, orange and brown this year…seems to be the new nfl rage…since they can only wear one different ‘alt’ jersey, they can mix and match 3 different pants with 3 tops and effectively create 9 different unis

    rather than fight this trend, im just going to grudgingly accept it as what the new nfl has become, and hope it goes away after a while…some teams can pull off the monochrome (link imho can, because of the matte finish)…(link link…not so much)

    yeah…like… link

    at least the link haven’t gone back to this…one can only imagine how they’d look in all blue…maybe like link…but not in green[/quote]

    I liked the Colts in blue pants. I would hate them with the blue jerseys though.[/quote]
    Among the football jersey, football pants, and socks, I don’t really like it when bordering elements match too well. Makes the players look too much like lo-def blobs. But if I had to pick two matching consecutive pieces, I would opt for white pants and white jerseys and hope that the helmets may be white too. (What can I say? I’m a Jets fan. If Joe Namath won in all-white, it’s good enough for me.)

    Bryan, the penguins wore 1968-1972 throwbacks for the winter classic (and assumably as their 3rd jersey this year).

    In 1967-68, they wore these jerseys link

    Those WBS jerseys are based on the 1976-1979 Penguins jerseys link but the lettering/front numbering is horrible. plain and simple, looks like hell. I hate this look in college, and i hate it more in the pros. i hope someone wakes up soon before all pro hockey teams have NBA-like jerseys

    “I liked the Colts in blue pants. I would hate them with the blue jerseys though.”

    Yeah, if I were a Colts fan I’d sure want them to use 1962 Duke as their model.

    Much better than, say, the look of the team that won that Sudden Death Game in 1958. Unitas, Berry, Moore, Parker, Marchetti…who’d wanna remember and respect THEM. It’s not like they’re in the Hall of Fame or anything.

    [quote comment=”285315″]
    In fact, college ball beats the NFL any day. The NFL has always been artificial turf, heavily made-up plastic cheerleaders, high white socks (so ’70s), white shoes, and ugly stadiums, and contrived rivalries. Give me college (or, more accurately, what it used to be before it started copying the NFL and the Arena League) any day — naturally hot co-eds, classic unis with minimal striping, black shoes, grass, traditional stadiums, and real passion and rivalries. Maybe that’s why I don’t watch the NFL until December.[/quote]

    Ironically, that’s why I don’t watch much College ball: Blown out of proportion rivalries, fake “students” whom rarely, if ever, see the inside of a classroom, uniforms that are either way too busy, or way too minimalistic, and the whole strange bowl-game setup.

    There are things I do enjoy about college ball, though… the Marching/Pep Bands are always easier than blasting the same 5 songs through a tinny PA system, cheerleaders whom are not plastic and show more clothes than skin, and a level of play that is competant, yet still has a lot of human element to it rather than sheer precision.

    I found an answer to my own question on page 16 of this gallery: link . The helmet along with a white throwback jersey from a different time period seen with the helmet (mix and match throwback) will be worn against Furman for the September 6th home opener for White Out day at Virginia Tech, the event is to promote Herma’s Readers a group named in honor of Frank Beamer’s mother who was a teacher to promote literacy.

    I liked the brown pants a little. 2 things would have made them great… a triple strip (orange/white/orange) and the white socks with stripes that they’ve worn with the orange pants.

    [quote comment=”285329″][quote comment=”285315″]
    In fact, college ball beats the NFL any day. The NFL has always been artificial turf, heavily made-up plastic cheerleaders, high white socks (so ’70s), white shoes, and ugly stadiums, and contrived rivalries. Give me college (or, more accurately, what it used to be before it started copying the NFL and the Arena League) any day — naturally hot co-eds, classic unis with minimal striping, black shoes, grass, traditional stadiums, and real passion and rivalries. Maybe that’s why I don’t watch the NFL until December.[/quote]

    Ironically, that’s why I don’t watch much College ball: Blown out of proportion rivalries, fake “students” whom rarely, if ever, see the inside of a classroom, uniforms that are either way too busy, or way too minimalistic, and the whole strange bowl-game setup.

    There are things I do enjoy about college ball, though… the Marching/Pep Bands are always easier than blasting the same 5 songs through a tinny PA system, cheerleaders whom are not plastic and show more clothes than skin, and a level of play that is competant, yet still has a lot of human element to it rather than sheer precision.[/quote]

    Gotta admit, every year I move more and more of my attention toward Saturday. Everything you say is true about overblown or outright manufactured rivalries, etc…but, on balance, about half the games end up giving me something worth watching. The NFL? Maybe only a third of the time, or so it seems.

    Perhaps its the continuity thing. I expect personnel to change rapidly in college football. But in the pros I kinda got used to teams like the Steel Curtain Steelers staying together for a few years. Now players move so much its a little like they’re all in a blender.

    Two examples stand out for me. A few years ago, every team in the then NFC Central had signed or obtained a new starting QB. And a couple seasons later, on one weekend six former Viking QB’s started for NFL teams.

    All these new unis (Minnesota Gophers among them) aren’t making the prospect of Saturday all that interesting this year, though. Lack of continuity in uniforms isn’t much fun, either.

    Point of view is interesting, isn’t it. Some of you see high white socks and think “so 70’s”. I see dark socks in dark shoes–especially high tops–and think, “so 20’s or 30’s”. In my time, somebody who showed up in black socks for touch football or to shoot baskets was a serious, serious spazz. Probably didn’t even OWN pair of white “athletic socks.”

    It all depends on when you started following the game, I think. Those first unis we discover are tough to knock from our “favorites” list.

    hey ricko, minna and anyone else from minny…and anyone else who cares…

    any thoughts about these possible link…imo guess they’d be coinciding with the link for 2010

    i kinda like em

    College football does have its weaknesses, for sure. My favorite sporting event is the Rose Bowl and I would it to see it go, but college needs a playoff. They keep lengthening the season into January anyway, so the arguments against are riddiculous. I would love to see December as wall-to-wall college playoff games, with the championship on New Year’s Day in one of the traditional bowls.

    Enough already from me about football. It’s baseball season!

    [quote comment=”285334″]hey ricko, minna and anyone else from minny…and anyone else who cares…

    any thoughts about these possible link…imo guess they’d be coinciding with the link for 2010

    i kinda like em[/quote]

    Home is OK. The others … woof.

    [quote comment=”285334″]hey ricko, minna and anyone else from minny…and anyone else who cares…

    any thoughts about these possible link…imo guess they’d be coinciding with the link for 2010

    i kinda like em[/quote]

    Those look “fan created”. Don’t know why, just do. Maybe it’s the absense of a belt, and the patch on the right sleeve instead of the left. I’ve heard no buzz about any such thing, but that could just mean I missed it.

    Other than for the blue doubleknit period from roughly ’72 through ’86, the Twins have worn pinstripes, at least at home, for most of their nearly 50 years…and their only World Series appearances were in pins. I’d hate to seen them abandoned.

    And for a lot of us, the whole two-tone hat thing—along with the absence of pins–represents the worst years of the franchise. Some great individual players (Carew, for one), but not much winning.

    Although, we DID have Bombo Rivera back then…

    —Ricko

    [quote comment=”285325″]I liked the Colts in blue pants. I would hate them with the blue jerseys though.[/quote]

    I was there for that. Covered the games they wore the blue pants for. They made, I think, two appearances and then went away.

    The Colts are a classic look. They were more classic before they somehow lost the ability to continue their shoulder stripes around the entire shoulder several years back. But still a classic look.

    Good enough for Johnny U., good enough fro me.

    [quote comment=”285274″][quote comment=”285267″]I didn’t think the brown pants were all that bad last night, but I think more orange in the hosiery department would have been helpful.[/quote]

    “They weren’t all that bad” isn’t a yes. If we have to tolerate them, then they suck. Right? Since when is “not awful” acceptable?

    “A ‘D’ is just fine, son. At least u didn’t fail. Oh, and here’s big trophy just for showing up.” Huh?

    I mean, why not just wear brown sweatpants? Looked like a Sunday touch football getup (well, of course not the pads and helmets, duh…you get my point, I hope).

    NFL uniforms are supposed to look better than Sunday touch football.

    Aren’t they? What am I missing?

    [/quote]

    A sense of proportion?

    [quote comment=”285339″]I’d like to see the Twins in this…

    link

    First two, nice. Sleeveless, pinless alt…no thanks. Put the current Twins wordmark on the homes (cuz I doubt they’d abandon it for the original) but reverse it to Navy with a Red edge and you have nice looking uni that might actually be something they’d do. “Minnesota” in script looks great. That would be nice twist, as would losing the road pins.

    Probably they’ll keep the navy alts, too, but could change the road version to script.

    [quote comment=”285341″][quote comment=”285274″][quote comment=”285267″]I didn’t think the brown pants were all that bad last night, but I think more orange in the hosiery department would have been helpful.[/quote]

    “They weren’t all that bad” isn’t a yes. If we have to tolerate them, then they suck. Right? Since when is “not awful” acceptable?

    “A ‘D’ is just fine, son. At least u didn’t fail. Oh, and here’s big trophy just for showing up.” Huh?

    I mean, why not just wear brown sweatpants? Looked like a Sunday touch football getup (well, of course not the pads and helmets, duh…you get my point, I hope).

    NFL uniforms are supposed to look better than Sunday touch football.

    Aren’t they? What am I missing?

    [/quote]

    A sense of proportion?[/quote]

    Just think NFL shouldn’t look DOWN for ideas on how to dress. Others should look UP to them.

    That’s how it is when you’re an industry leader.

    Or how it should be.

    [quote comment=”285343″][quote comment=”285339″]I’d like to see the Twins in this…

    link

    isn’t that homer basically the same thing as they wore in the link season?[/quote]

    Yup, that’s why I said that wordmark wasn’t likely to return, but adapting the current one to the ’65 look was something I could see them doing.

    [quote comment=”285327″]Bryan, the penguins wore 1968-1972 throwbacks for the winter classic (and assumably as their 3rd jersey this year).

    In 1967-68, they wore these jerseys link

    Those WBS jerseys are based on the 1976-1979 Penguins jerseys link but the lettering/front numbering is horrible. plain and simple, looks like hell. I hate this look in college, and i hate it more in the pros. i hope someone wakes up soon before all pro hockey teams have NBA-like jerseys[/quote]

    That’s my mistake, not Bryan’s…

    Hey all!

    I’m watching the U.S.-Chinese Taipei baseball game, and noticed the CTP helmets have glued on felt decals (like the Cubs), and it’s even more obvious. Pretty neat looking interacting letters actually.

    I can’t find a better pic than this, right now… but it’s on Universal HD as we speak, for a few more innings…

    link

    [quote comment=”285344″][quote comment=”285341″][quote comment=”285274″][quote comment=”285267″]I didn’t think the brown pants were all that bad last night, but I think more orange in the hosiery department would have been helpful.[/quote]

    “They weren’t all that bad” isn’t a yes. If we have to tolerate them, then they suck. Right? Since when is “not awful” acceptable?

    “A ‘D’ is just fine, son. At least u didn’t fail. Oh, and here’s big trophy just for showing up.” Huh?

    I mean, why not just wear brown sweatpants? Looked like a Sunday touch football getup (well, of course not the pads and helmets, duh…you get my point, I hope).

    NFL uniforms are supposed to look better than Sunday touch football.

    Aren’t they? What am I missing?

    [/quote]

    A sense of proportion?[/quote]

    Just think NFL shouldn’t look DOWN for ideas on how to dress. Others should look UP to them.

    That’s how it is when you’re an industry leader.

    Or how it should be.[/quote]

    There is only so much can do when your colors are brown, white and orange. They tried something different; at least it’s in line with their color scheme. I look at it the same way I do the Bears orange jersey and Giants red one, it’s not better than what they normally do, but an it is an interesting change of pace that is not completely out of line with the overall look of the team.

    [quote comment=”285334″]hey ricko, minna and anyone else from minny…and anyone else who cares…

    any thoughts about these possible link…imo guess they’d be coinciding with the link for 2010

    i kinda like em[/quote]

    The road unis could use a third colour to outline the red on grey.

    “Interesting” that the mock ups have stirrups. Dressed to the nines has abandoned them.

    I like the way the current unis underline the “win” part of Twins. That’s worth keeping.
    link

    BTW, I think the twins name is a clever one, being the twin cities and all. Can you imagine that name flying in today’s climate, hwever? The marketing “experts” (re: NOT sports people, nor local people) would either make up or pull some prehistoric nasty creature instead of using a simple, appropriate name for a team.

    SB

    [quote comment=”285346″][quote comment=”285327″]Bryan, the penguins wore 1968-1972 throwbacks for the winter classic (and assumably as their 3rd jersey this year).

    In 1967-68, they wore these jerseys link

    Those WBS jerseys are based on the 1976-1979 Penguins jerseys link but the lettering/front numbering is horrible. plain and simple, looks like hell. I hate this look in college, and i hate it more in the pros. i hope someone wakes up soon before all pro hockey teams have NBA-like jerseys[/quote]

    That’s my mistake, not Bryan’s…[/quote]

    Damn you and your sexy artwork, Rob Ullman.

    [quote]There is only so much can do when your colors are brown, white and orange. They tried something different; at least it’s in line with their color scheme. I look at it the same way I do the Bears orange jersey and Giants red one, it’s not better than what they normally do, but an it is an interesting change of pace that is not completely out of line with the overall look of the team.[/quote]

    agreed…except that there is actually an historical precedent for the link and the link jersey

    the browns have never worn brown pants

    browns fans, however, have, after link

    [quote comment=\”285338\”]New logo for the newly-renamed Red Bull Arena being built in Harrison, NJ for the NY Red Bulls of MLS:

    link

    At first, I thought it looked pretty sharp. Then I looked at the new arena. The crest makes it look like it\’s a circular or at least rounded structure, but it\’s not. It\’s a box. his is as round as it gets:
    link

    Why develop a crest to commemorate a stadium, and use an image that looks NOTHING like the stadium?

    Weird.

    SB

    [quote comment=”285350″][quote comment=”285346″][quote comment=”285327″]Bryan, the penguins wore 1968-1972 throwbacks for the winter classic (and assumably as their 3rd jersey this year).

    In 1967-68, they wore these jerseys link

    Those WBS jerseys are based on the 1976-1979 Penguins jerseys link but the lettering/front numbering is horrible. plain and simple, looks like hell. I hate this look in college, and i hate it more in the pros. i hope someone wakes up soon before all pro hockey teams have NBA-like jerseys[/quote]

    That’s my mistake, not Bryan’s…[/quote]

    Damn you and your sexy artwork, Rob Ullman.[/quote]

    Apparently, about a dozen of us Uni-Watchers are in line for one of Rob’s fantastic creations.

    [quote comment=”285349″][quote comment=”285334″]hey ricko, minna and anyone else from minny…and anyone else who cares…

    any thoughts about these possible link…imo guess they’d be coinciding with the link for 2010

    i kinda like em[/quote]

    The road unis could use a third colour to outline the red on grey.

    “Interesting” that the mock ups have stirrups. Dressed to the nines has abandoned them.

    I like the way the current unis underline the “win” part of Twins. That’s worth keeping.
    link

    BTW, I think the twins name is a clever one, being the twin cities and all. Can you imagine that name flying in today’s climate, hwever? The marketing “experts” (re: NOT sports people, nor local people) would either make up or pull some prehistoric nasty creature instead of using a simple, appropriate name for a team.

    SB[/quote]

    I don’t recall any other name being mentioned at the time. Almost from the moment the move was announced everyone talked about “the Twins.” Calvin Griffith, I think, even may have announced it right away in response to a question about the name “Senators” in Minnesota.

    The question was the “where” part.
    Twin Cities Twins?
    Minneapolis Twins? (no, that would never fly)
    Minneapolis-St.Paul Twins (could be a tad long, huh)
    And finally there was the then-unique solution of using the entire state.
    “Minnesota Twins”. Wow. At the time, incredibly exciting and ground-breaking for a franchise to do such a thing (put TC on the hats, though, to indicate WHERE in Minnesota they played: the Twin Cities).

    Interestingly enough, it took from 1961 until 1987 before it said “MINNESOTA” on chest of the uni (road), or there was an “M” on the hat.

    And what’d they do that year? Win their first World Series.

    Go figure.

    A few funny Olympics pics:

    link

    link

    Point #1:
    What sport is the female in the skimpy bikini involved in? Is it beach volleyball?

    Point#2:
    In pic #1,Kobe is giving her a creepy come hither look, at the same time that Lebron is attempting to discreetlt check her out!

    Point #3:
    Chris Paul just wants to know why bowling isn’t an olympic sport!

    On another note:

    I went to pick up my daughters from a friends’ house today and what did I find on their mantle…but a terrific UW style photograph. It turns out that the friend’s father was a running back at Princeton during the early 70’s(Letterwinner ’73). What is even more cool, is that I’ve known him for some time and he has never once mentioned it!

    Check it out:
    link

    Long, striped sleeves…Claw marks or tiger stripes on the helmets…all very cool!

    [quote comment=”285355″]A few funny Olympics pics:

    link

    link

    Point #1:
    What sport is the female in the skimpy bikini involved in? Is it beach volleyball?

    Point#2:
    In pic #1,Kobe is giving her a creepy come hither look, at the same time that Lebron is attempting to discreetlt check her out!

    Point #3:
    Chris Paul just wants to know why bowling isn’t an olympic sport!

    On another note:

    I went to pick up my daughters from a friends’ house today and what did I find on their mantle…but a terrific UW style photograph. It turns out that the friend’s father was a running back at Princeton during the early 70’s(Letterwinner ’73). What is even more cool, is that I’ve known him for some time and he has never once mentioned it!

    Check it out:
    link

    Long, striped sleeves…Claw marks or tiger stripes on the helmets…all very cool![/quote]

    I just noticed, both teams are wearing dark colored jerseys!

    Team handball has an extra attacker when the goalie is pulled … and there’s a hole in the jersey. Why?

    In handball you get two extra points if you can get the ball through the extra attacker’s jersey hole. The Swiss team used to sew fishing line through the hole to make it impossible but when the referees noticed in the 1972 games the team was not only expelled, but forbidden from participating in the Olympics for a ten year period. Rumor is that Pierre FiLaPointe, the extra attacker who was caught pulling the fishing string trick, gave up his family and job following the Olympics to wander the streets of Europe looking for unicorns. Sad story.

    [quote]when the referees noticed in the 1972 games the team was not only expelled, but forbidden from participating in the Olympics for a ten year period.[/quote]

    so they were banned until the 1982 olympics?

    brilliant

    [quote comment=”285334″]hey ricko, minna and anyone else from minny…and anyone else who cares…

    any thoughts about these possible link…imo guess they’d be coinciding with the link for 2010

    i kinda like em[/quote]

    Those aren’t “leaked” uniforms. They’re bad cut + paste jobs. You can still see white around the sleeves and cap where someone tried to use the fill tool.

    And unlike the Cubs, you wouldn’t see a TM logo on the front of the jersey.

    [quote comment=”285245″][quote comment=”285230″]

    My question is, why do you need to be designated if your team pulled the goalie? The only time we see this in North America is in hockey, and the extra attacker has no need for designation. Must be a case where this player can still “play goal” but is not one of the actual goalies – a more offensive player instead – who still needs to be identified. That’s more of a “subbed goalie” than a pulled one.

    Didn’t the MISL used to have the extra attacker in a different colored jersey in a situation when the goalie was pulled?[/quote]

    Yes, it’s called the 6th attacker. That guy is still the goalie in defensive situations and therefore able to use his hands in the goal box. He’d have the different jersey so that the ref knows who is the goalie.[/quote]

    link

    [quote comment=”285334″]hey ricko, minna and anyone else from minny…and anyone else who cares…

    any thoughts about these possible link…imo guess they’d be coinciding with the link for 2010

    i kinda like em[/quote]
    I like ’em too except for the red bill on the home cap.

    [quote comment=”285283″][quote comment=”285276″][quote comment=”285271″]I personally like pants that match the helmet’s color and stripes (e.g., link, link). Although my team (link) does not do that and has two different stripe patterns for link and link on what is essentially the same gray pants, which I just don’t get at all… Has any other team ever had pants of the same color but with different stripes for home and road?[/quote]

    The only problem with the Cowboys is that the pants in that picture most definitely do not match the helmet color. The helmets are silver and those pants have a bluish-tint to them. In fact, I don’t think even the silver pants they wear with the nayv tops matches the helmet color either.

    Wasn’t that something that was the subject of a Page 2 article at one point, how the Cowboys have silver as one of their team colors yet on the uniforms themselves there are three different shades of silver?[/quote]

    Good point. But the Cowboys have a closer match today than they did with those link… Other examples of matching helmet & pants include link and link…[/quote]

    The OSU Buckeyes use the same stripes on their helmet, jersey and pants.

    Georgia Tech announced a deal with Russell Athletic that will run through 2018. Press release to that link, and direct link to the photo gallery here.

    That’s a lot of mustard color on the unis. Discuss. :-)

    [quote comment=”285365″]Georgia Tech announced a deal with Russell Athletic that will run through 2018. Press release to that link, and direct link to the photo gallery here.

    That’s a lot of mustard color on the unis. Discuss. :-)[/quote]
    OMG those yellow jerseys are disgusting!

    [quote comment=”285307″]I was on vacation last week so if this got picked up by anyone else I appologize. Picture 9 of the Virginia Tech media day gallery (on their website: link ) shows a helmet similar to the ones used in the early-mid ’70s ( link). The team has been practicing in their standard all maroon helmets, but I was wondering if my Hokies will be going with the white for one game this season. Anybody got the scoop?[/quote]
    Those uniforms will be worn during the Furman game (home opener) 2 weeks from now as part of a Lane Stadium White Out…

    [quote comment=”285365″]Georgia Tech announced a deal with Russell Athletic that will run through 2018. Press release to that link, and direct link to the photo gallery here.

    That’s a lot of mustard color on the unis. Discuss. :-)[/quote]
    Woah… Picture #6…

    Did the women’s team seriously change their home unis from white to pink or is that just a ‘special’ uniform…

    If they changed to pink, thats fucking ridiculous

    hmmm…link…

    russia’s rebekka linn?

    when did link change her name and natinoality?

    /remember when russian chicks were fuckin ugly pigs defecting to the ruskies was like, bad?

    White jersey, white pants, white socks—it’s the classic Browns uni….Solid brown pants and solid brown socks are just ugly…

    [quote comment=”285340″][quote comment=”285325″]I liked the Colts in blue pants. I would hate them with the blue jerseys though.[/quote]

    I was there for that. Covered the games they wore the blue pants for. They made, I think, two appearances and then went away.

    The Colts are a classic look. They were more classic before they somehow lost the ability to continue their shoulder stripes around the entire shoulder several years back. But still a classic look.

    Good enough for Johnny U., good enough fro me.[/quote]

    There was a brief period when they added silver on the unis…looked reaaal nice to me.

    [quote comment=”285289″][quote comment=”285278″][quote comment=”285274″][quote comment=”285267″]I didn’t think the brown pants were all that bad last night, but I think more orange in the hosiery department would have been helpful.[/quote]

    “They weren’t all that bad” isn’t a yes. If we have to tolerate them, then they suck. Right? Since when is “not awful” acceptable?

    “A ‘D’ is just fine, son. At least u didn’t fail. Oh, and here’s big trophy just for showing up.” Huh?

    I mean, why not just wear brown sweatpants? Looked like a Sunday touch football getup (well, of course not the pads and helmets, duh…you get my point, I hope).

    NFL uniforms are supposed to look better than Sunday touch football.

    Aren’t they? What am I missing?

    —Ricko[/quote]
    Ricko, I respect your thoughts on this and knew that’s how you might respond based on yesterday’s posts.

    While I think you’re correct that “they weren’t that bad” isn’t a yes, I feel we can have degrees of like/dislike in uniforms.

    Everything shouldn’t be categorized as “great” or “it sucks” with no in between. It should be something like “great”, “good to OK”, “bland/boring”, “terrible”.

    My overall point is that we shouldn’t make our minds up on something when we only hear concepts and haven’t seen the actual uniform .[/quote]

    Of course there are degrees. I just laugh whenever “well, it didn’t suck” comes up as a definiton of an okay experience.

    And, in all honesty, I wasn’t horrified when I finally saw the Browns pants after I got home from softball last night: Not as bad as expected, just another in a sorry trend of less than big league presentations. In this case especially non-sensical because they were on a team with so long and storied a tradition of basically sticking to a certain look.

    There are uniforms, and there are a “collection of different outfits.” Too many teams are heading toward the latter. Was unique when the late 70’s Pirates did it. Now unique is NOT having to have a chart/guide of all combinations in the locker room so players won’t get confused.

    The Packers in Forest pants, or the Yankees in Navy pants, for example, wouldn’t automatically be an improvement. It would just be change for the sake of change. By that measure, the Red Wings should be opting for some alternate black breezers. I mean, all that red and white, borrrrring.

    Isn’t that the apparent mindset among most teams these days?

    —Ricko
    (as always, enjoying things here at “Collections of Outfits Watch”)[/quote]

    The Packers…in Forest Green pants. The Packers…in Forest Green pants. The Packers…in Forest Green pants. Hmmmmmmmm……………

    [quote comment=”285375″]run forest, run[/quote]

    Yes, all the way to Edmonton, where the Eskimos wear that combination.

    After all, the NFL should emulate the CFL whenever possible, right?

    —Ricko

    [quote comment=\”285377\”][quote comment=\”285375\”]run forest, run[/quote]

    Yes, all the way to Edmonton, where the Eskimos wear that combination.

    After all, the NFL should emulate the CFL whenever possible, right?

    —Ricko[/quote]

    yeah, but the Eskies make it work!

    link

    SB

    [quote comment=”285378″][quote comment=\”285377\”][quote comment=\”285375\”]run forest, run[/quote]

    Yes, all the way to Edmonton, where the Eskimos wear that combination.

    After all, the NFL should emulate the CFL whenever possible, right?

    —Ricko[/quote]

    yeah, but the Eskies make it work!

    link

    SB[/quote]

    they also make the link work

    AND…

    they make the link work

    …rather than seeing the pack in all forest…i’d actually like to see them wear link

    …i know…fuckin heresy…but i’d still like to see it, even if only once

    @ #90:
    Obviously, the air resistance is far less than water resistance at the same speed, and also the difference in the orientation of the body to the flow factors into it.

    However, there seems to be a considerable amount of just ignoring the subject as well. Without getting into the calculations: in speed-skating the athletes go through considerable lengths in order to decrease air resistance. They do wind tunnel tests, and skating suits nowadays consist of a variety of different fabrics in order to decrease drag. Their speeds would generally translate to about 7-8s/100m, so that’s very comparable to a 100m sprint speed. So you’d think there would be an effect on the running level as well; Bolt wouldn’t need it, but for anyone else 0.01s could make a difference :).

    Taking this back to Uni Watch: of the big three (Adidas, Puma and Nike) only Nike mentions putting an effort into reducing drag on athletics spikes and shirts, the others only mention reducing weight and enhancing comfort. Can’t say they don’t make an effort, but it’s apparently not a convincing argument. On the other hand, why would you put a lot of effort into reducing the drag on a shirt if you know they are going to cover it with a flappy number.

    For a designer, these numbers must be a nightmare: The cover a huge chunk of the shirt, and often don’t even fit on the women’s tops. No wonder they simply use templates :).

    [quote comment=”285340″][quote comment=”285325″]I liked the Colts in blue pants. I would hate them with the blue jerseys though.[/quote]

    I was there for that. Covered the games they wore the blue pants for. They made, I think, two appearances and then went away.

    The Colts are a classic look. They were more classic before they somehow lost the ability to continue their shoulder stripes around the entire shoulder several years back. But still a classic look.

    Good enough for Johnny U., good enough fro me.[/quote]

    Ditto,

    Why would a classis NFL team like he Colts with a beautiful classic look forfeit that identity to wear blue pants and look like a mid-1980s BYU ripoff?????

    What is point??? I thought thast at the time they did it and I think that now.
    50+ e

    [quote comment=”285379″][quote comment=”285378″][quote comment=\”285377\”][quote comment=\”285375\”]run forest, run[/quote]

    Yes, all the way to Edmonton, where the Eskimos wear that combination.

    After all, the NFL should emulate the CFL whenever possible, right?

    —Ricko[/quote]

    yeah, but the Eskies make it work!

    link

    SB[/quote]

    they also make the link work

    AND…

    they make the link work

    …rather than seeing the pack in all forest…i’d actually like to see them wear link

    …i know…fuckin heresy…but i’d still like to see it, even if only once[/quote]

    Don’t get me wrong. Love the CFL. Wish it was still avail. on TV regularly. Guess it comes down to this: Some teams’ style is the “Collection of Outfits”, others is to stick with classic unis, whether its classic to everyone or classic only to them. What bothers me is when those in the latter category feel compelled to mess around with goofy stuff just because it’s becoming “the thing to do.”

    Brooks Brothers, for example, rightly never stocked Zubaz. They just kept doing what they do, and doing it well. For every Bengals or Texans, it’s GOOD to have a Packers. Or for every Oregon or West Virginia, a Penn State. Contrast is what uniforms are about, both in individual design and compared to the competition.

    Speaking of new stuff…anyone else seen any of the Michigan football practices (getting Big Ten Network here now)? The yellow “sports bra banding”—or whatever we wanna call it—on the new roads is almost worthless cuz is pretty much invisible except on closeups.

    So I guess, relatively speaking, they’re kinda no harm, no foul.

Comments are closed.