Uni Watch Book Club: Gameface

According to sportslogos.net, the 1992 Chiefs patch was a tribute for Director of Player Personnel Whitey Dovell.

UNC link needs fixed

the logo on Mark Collins collor is from Max It, part of the NFL Pro Line apparel from the mid-90’s. Most of the cold weather (turtlenecks, etc.)had that logo.

The navy pants for UNC looked good but felt…..wrong.

Rutgers in the all red get-up looked awful. When will the monchromatic football uniform trend run its course??

Here’s a link to a photo of Michigan’s white pants:
link

I don’t pay attention to football, but UNC’s baseball team has worn a navy jersey, usually an away uni, and has worn navy undershirts with their vest jerseys for years, so it’s nothing new as a UNC alt color.

W/S is actually Wilson Staff.

link

Chiefs photos provided a trip down memory lane. In the ’70s and ’80s, a totally cool team. There was a flleting moment when I thought the Chiefs were overdressed link
but I quickly snapped out of it. The uniform truly is one of the classics. Instantly recognizable, understated (KC never did succumb to the ’80s wide pant stripe trend) and they’ve kept the striped socks. Terrific. Thanks, Paul.

[quote comment=”289179″]I don’t pay attention to football, but UNC’s baseball team has worn a navy jersey, usually an away uni, and has worn navy undershirts with their vest jerseys for years, so it’s nothing new as a UNC alt color.[/quote]
Nike outfits its baseball schools in every combination of uniform imaginable and they usually take any accent color and promote it to primary color. See Miami with both orange and dark green jerseys and Florida St. with their all gold get-up.

My God, how many different uni combinations are there between Miami, FSU and Carolina – like 857?

From a purely nice looking standpoint, UNC looked cool in the navy pants. But, even as a UNC hater, I have to admit “Carolina Blue” is a CLASSIC color for that school, and the navy pants just don’t cut it from that point of view. Why not carolina Blue pants with a navy accent? MUCH better IMO.

Is it just me, or did Rutgers look like 11 Elmo’s out there?

[quote comment=”289189″]From a purely nice looking standpoint, UNC looked cool in the navy pants. But, even as a UNC hater, I have to admit “Carolina Blue” is a CLASSIC color for that school, and the navy pants just don’t cut it from that point of view. Why not carolina Blue pants with a navy accent? MUCH better IMO.

Is it just me, or did Rutgers look like 11 Elmo’s out there?[/quote]
I don’t have a problem with the monochrome red. It’s better than the 11 Grimaces that East Carolina ran out there against WVU.

Methinks Ocho “Mucho Drinko” has finally had a stroke of brilliance! By putting Henry up to this, he circumvents the whole problem with Reebok!

link

a few more…

Iowa
Penn State
Notre Dame
Northwestern (don’t think have purple currently)
Stanford (or do they still have the cardinal set?)
Central Florida?
Florida Atlantic

The picture of Papa Bush shows the olive shade of white of the wall at Shea, although not the outfield.

The other thing about Papa Bush’s attire in the photo, it looks more to me like he is wearing a Pakistani link rather than a skirt, but that may be because I am Pakistani!

[quote comment=”289191″][quote comment=”289189″]From a purely nice looking standpoint, UNC looked cool in the navy pants. But, even as a UNC hater, I have to admit “Carolina Blue” is a CLASSIC color for that school, and the navy pants just don’t cut it from that point of view. Why not carolina Blue pants with a navy accent? MUCH better IMO.

Is it just me, or did Rutgers look like 11 Elmo’s out there?[/quote]
I don’t have a problem with the monochrome red. It’s better than the 11 Grimaces that East Carolina ran out there against WVU.[/quote]

well yeah…but…that ‘scarlet’ red is just…i donno…not quite right…

im sure i’ll get creamed, but link…PROVIDED they only wear it once a season…any more than that and they get a F-

[quote comment=”289197″]The picture of Papa Bush shows the olive shade of white of the wall at Shea, although not the outfield.

The other thing about Papa Bush’s attire in the photo, it looks more to me like he is wearing a Pakistani link rather than a skirt, but that may be because I am Pakistani![/quote]

looks like someone gave him a mets jacket for the photo op, because he’s wearing a trenchcoat underneat

[quote comment=”289195″]a few more…

Iowa
Penn State
Notre Dame
Northwestern (don’t think have purple currently)
Stanford (or do they still have the cardinal set?)
Central Florida?
Florida Atlantic[/quote]
Wow, Ricko, a Florida Atlantic reference. Isn’t that Schnellenberger? I’m impressed.

[quote comment=”289202″]1. I seem to remember Georgia, during the Herschel Walker years wearing either black or red pants.

link

link

link

2. Along with their marron pants and jerseys, Miss. State, under that bull-castrating hombre, Jackie Sherrill, wore a second helmet as well![/quote]

That second picture is a photoshop of DJ Shockley in red pants but yes the Dawgs did wear red pants a few times and the black pants twice I believe last time being the 98 bowl game.

i remember the WS logo on my bears rashaan salaam jersey. that was a wise purchase. but i remember that i got the jersey before he was signed by the team. someone told me that the players jersey couldn’t be sold until he signed, therefore mine was “illegal” anyone know anything about this?

As for the UNC unis last night, I am sure most of you saw this, but there is an extension of the helmet stripe onto the team’s collar in the back. Subtle, but I thought it was pretty cool. I can’t find a pic right off the bat, as there are no good shots of the back of a UNC player in the CSTV gallery.

[quote comment=”289210″]As for the UNC unis last night, I am sure most of you saw this, but there is an extension of the helmet stripe onto the team’s collar in the back. Subtle, but I thought it was pretty cool. I can’t find a pic right off the bat, as there are no good shots of the back of a UNC player in the CSTV gallery.[/quote]

There are a bunch, here:
link

[quote comment=”289208″]i remember the WS logo on my bears rashaan salaam jersey. that was a wise purchase. but i remember that i got the jersey before he was signed by the team. someone told me that the players jersey couldn’t be sold until he signed, therefore mine was “illegal” anyone know anything about this?[/quote]

Sounds like a perfect candidate for this site:
link

Didn’t LSU wear white pants with that white helmet a year ago? And, I seriously think Nike does these incomplete stripes just to piss us off! Grrrr, I hated those halfsies on UNC!

[quote comment=”289215″][quote comment=”289205″]RE: the Wisconsin helmet history, I suspect that they might have picked up the 1962 date from the link, which offers reproductions of the 1962 helmet for sale.

Wisconsin’s first plastic shell was actually white with a single cardinal stripe, as seen in link of Alan Ameche carrying the ball vs. Marquette(!), October 3rd 1953. They appear to have used a cardinal shell with white stripe intermittently with it.

Helmet Hut has a great link of Wisconsin’s helmets. They sell them all, although the page seems to be down, but you can get them (and see pics of each style) from link.

But darn, do I wish the Badgers would bring back a version of link. The perfect marriage to satisfy the old schoolers and the “set yourself apart” crowd.[/quote]

September 3, 2005 vs. Bowling Green:
link

I bought a game-worn complete uniform from the University’s auction after that game. Even the socks (with little red “W”s on them) that so few players actually wore. The Badgers looked great.

I should say that even though the Wisconsin Alumni Association was a little off on their helmet history, selling t-shirts with link more than makes up for it.

Somebody say K-State? The Cats changed their sleeve stripe last year. The TV numbers were moved from the shoulders to the sleeve and the helmet stripe was replicated on the sleeve ribbing. (It’s also on the back collar.) This is not a good shot, but close.
link
UNC adopted the sleeve look this year. BTW, the navy pants didn’t bother me as much as I thought. They would have looked better with a Carolina blue/white/Carolina blue stripe rather than that blob, though.
Regarding different home and road NCAA pants: Having two pair, I think is the exception than the rule, although there are a bunch with separate looks.

And as cool as the socks the football Badgers wore in 2005, they don’t come close to link, part of the basketball Badgers’ 1941 throwbacks last year.

Loved loved loved those Wisconsin “W” helmets at the time. Still do today. Wish they’d go back to them.

Oh, that’s right, I forgot. Wouldn’t be cool. Wouldn’t have any black on them.

[quote comment=”289222″]And as cool as the socks the football Badgers wore in 2005, they don’t come close to link, part of the basketball Badgers’ 1941 throwbacks last year.[/quote]

great stuff today, chance, and thanks for all the “W” pics

i LOVE LOVE LOVE those socks, only the whole look is ruined by the footwear

you’d think, in this day and age, that the sneaker manufacturers would come up with a one-off, retro-looking type sneaker which could be worn only with the throwbacks…surely this would be a financial windfall as all the kids would want a pair…they wouldn’t even need to make it unique to each school…just design a pair that looks and feels ‘old school’ and dole them out to all the participating u’s…

i guess im wishing for too much…

but ya’ll gotta agree…those kicks paired with those socks…looks like shit

[quote comment=”289224″]Loved loved loved those Wisconsin “W” helmets at the time. Still do today. Wish they’d go back to them.

Oh, that’s right, I forgot. Wouldn’t be cool. Wouldn’t have any black on them.[/quote]
[quote comment=”289219″][quote comment=”289211″][quote comment=”289210″]As for the UNC unis last night, I am sure most of you saw this, but there is an extension of the helmet stripe onto the team’s collar in the back. Subtle, but I thought it was pretty cool. I can’t find a pic right off the bat, as there are no good shots of the back of a UNC player in the CSTV gallery.[/quote]
I wanna say K-State has that effect also. Or maybe it was on their sleeves.[/quote]

link

1. Is that a map of Kansas with Manhattan, location of KSU, on the back of the helmet?

2. Ricko, they wouldn’t go back to that old W, because suing other schools who use the motion W is too lucrative!

they have worn the white striped socks with the white pants at least once, too:

link

Had to post this, from Yahoo today:

link

[quote comment=”289226″][quote comment=”289222″]And as cool as the socks the football Badgers wore in 2005, they don’t come close to link, part of the basketball Badgers’ 1941 throwbacks last year.[/quote]

great stuff today, chance, and thanks for all the “W” pics

i LOVE LOVE LOVE those socks, only the whole look is ruined by the footwear

you’d think, in this day and age, that the sneaker manufacturers would come up with a one-off, retro-looking type sneaker which could be worn only with the throwbacks…surely this would be a financial windfall as all the kids would want a pair…they wouldn’t even need to make it unique to each school…just design a pair that looks and feels ‘old school’ and dole them out to all the participating u’s…

i guess im wishing for too much…

but ya’ll gotta agree…those kicks paired with those socks…looks like shit[/quote]
You’re right Phil, they shoulda worn Chucks.

[quote comment=”289231″]I know somebody will know the answer to this question…

Wear can I find some killer green stripped stirrups for our intramural softball team at mississippi state university? Team name is OFF A GOAT. so if some team actually does beat the best dressed team in the league, they’ll have to tell their friends they beat OFF A GOAT…[/quote]

Hey, Matt…still got that link I found a while back? Probably just what he’s looking for.

[quote comment=”289231″]I know somebody will know the answer to this question…

Wear can I find some killer green stripped stirrups for our intramural softball team at mississippi state university? Team name is OFF A GOAT. so if some team actually does beat the best dressed team in the league, they’ll have to tell their friends they beat OFF A GOAT…[/quote]

solid stirrups:
link

green with gold striped stirrups:
link

I know off topic, but on the shea stadium stuff, good picture from 1964
link

The interesting bit is the top of the scoreboard, if I remember right it was originally designed to be a projector of sorts that would show a picture of the batter.

This is one of the only pics that I have seen that looks like they were going to attempt it one day. Now it is not even seen

link

In 1964, it was a big deal, not so much now…..

Hey everyone,
Does anyone know the link that Paul posted awhile back about graphic designer awful uniform concepts for Tennessee and Northwestern? I was ooking through previous entries ad I couldn’t spot it, Thanks!

-Stu

The logo on the Chiefs turtleneck is from “Maxit.”
link

[quote comment=”289245″][quote comment=”289209″]In the NFL we still have the 49ers, Colts, Steelers, Raiders, Lions and Packers as the only NFL teams that use 1 set of pants. Do the Chiefs still use red pants occasionally?

Cowboys and Giants, as we know, are special cases with different versions of essentially the same colored pants.[/quote]

despite a few recent appearances, the browns’ orange pants haven’t been a part of their regular uniform since the early 80s.

did the chiefs really have red pants? hope they didn’t go with monochrome or else they might look like link.[/quote]
I didn’t count the Browns becuase of those brown britches they wore in the pre-season. They could still break ’em out during the regular season as a slump-buster or something.

[quote comment=\”289245\”][quote comment=\”289209\”]In the NFL we still have the 49ers, Colts, Steelers, Raiders, Lions and Packers as the only NFL teams that use 1 set of pants. Do the Chiefs still use red pants occasionally?

Cowboys and Giants, as we know, are special cases with different versions of essentially the same colored pants.[/quote]

despite a few recent appearances, the browns’ orange pants haven’t been a part of their regular uniform since the early 80s.

did the chiefs really have red pants? hope they didn’t go with monochrome or else they might look like this.[/quote]

oh geez… i can’t believe i forgot about this.

[quote comment=”289180″]I still love the Bruins bear logo, but they should’ve made that a gold jersey. Having an alternate that is the same color as the home jersey is really just incredibly boring.[/quote]

Remember the link we went with a gold jersey? No thanks.

I think the navy UNC pants are pretty snazzy. Although a thinner stripe that went all the way down the leg would be preferred.

And to Ray: I’m also a fan and don’t think the black A’s alts aren’t that bad. Team name in forest outlined white is horrible, but white with black/gold double outline looks pretty cool:

link

my nomination for worst jersey in the history of sports:

link

[quote/]The Chiefs DO have red pants. They look great. The Chiefs look is unchanged for decades.[/quote]

Oh yeah! I recall link now. Very nice. Wow… the ol’ brain’s not working today.

For whomever asked about hockey standings yesterday (sorry, I forgot to quote you and didn’t grab the name)…

Wins – Losses – OT Losses – Shootout Wins

Both teams get a point for making it to the shootout, and the additional point comes from winning the shootout.

And it’s not attendance, LW! >:o| (LOL… I nearly bust a gut laughing at that comment). ;o)

[quote comment=”289261″][quote comment=”289260″]For whomever asked about hockey standings yesterday (sorry, I forgot to quote you and didn’t grab the name)…

Wins – Losses – OT Wins – Shootout Wins

Both teams get a point for making it to the shootout, and the additional point comes from winning the shootout.

And it’s not attendance, LW! >:o| (LOL… I nearly bust a gut laughing at that comment). ;o)[/quote]

It helps if I actually think about what I am writing. By the way, SO wins only really matter for goalies.

Otherwise, it’s W-L-OT/SO wins.[/quote]

you had it right the first time, teebz…the 3rd number is OT LOSSES (for which your get a point)…since an overtime WIN is counted as 2 points, yes?

(at least im pretty sure about that…see link)

[quote comment=”289262″][quote comment=”289261″][quote comment=”289260″]For whomever asked about hockey standings yesterday (sorry, I forgot to quote you and didn’t grab the name)…

Wins – Losses – OT Wins – Shootout Wins

Both teams get a point for making it to the shootout, and the additional point comes from winning the shootout.

And it’s not attendance, LW! >:o| (LOL… I nearly bust a gut laughing at that comment). ;o)[/quote]

It helps if I actually think about what I am writing. By the way, SO wins only really matter for goalies.

Otherwise, it’s W-L-OT/SO wins.[/quote]

you had it right the first time, teebz…the 3rd number is OT LOSSES (for which your get a point)…since an overtime WIN is counted as 2 points, yes?

(at least im pretty sure about that…see link)[/quote]

Which brings up the point that if games that go to OT are worth 3 points (2 for the win, 1 for the loss), then why don’t they award a team 3 points for an out right win?

[quote comment=”289264″]Which brings up the point that if games that go to OT are worth 3 points (2 for the win, 1 for the loss), then why don’t they award a team 3 points for an out right win?[/quote]

i’ve often thought that too…but that would totally screw up the point system that’s been in effect forever…but i agree (with the concept)…

W=3 points
OT W=2 points
OT L=1 point
L=0 points

makes it worthwhile to win in regulation, no?

[quote comment=”289256″]my nomination for worst jersey in the history of sports:

link

Well, of COURSE it is. You don’t wear a WHITE dinner-jacket-hockey-jersey in WINTERTIME. What, nobody in Canada ever read a James Bond novel?

Let us all lift our noses at such a declasse sartorical selection.

(Teebz, get that pinky up higher when you sip your tea. Yes, there. Ah, much better.)

—Ricko

[quote comment=”289262″][quote comment=”289261″][quote comment=”289260″]For whomever asked about hockey standings yesterday (sorry, I forgot to quote you and didn’t grab the name)…

Wins – Losses – OT Wins – Shootout Wins

Both teams get a point for making it to the shootout, and the additional point comes from winning the shootout.

And it’s not attendance, LW! >:o| (LOL… I nearly bust a gut laughing at that comment). ;o)[/quote]

It helps if I actually think about what I am writing. By the way, SO wins only really matter for goalies.

Otherwise, it’s W-L-OT/SO wins.[/quote]

you had it right the first time, teebz…the 3rd number is OT LOSSES (for which your get a point)…since an overtime WIN is counted as 2 points, yes?

(at least im pretty sure about that…see link)[/quote]

Eff it all. Work has been in the crapper today, and I’m pissed about the alternate jerseys. I need a coffee. Or a beer. Or both.

damn i should read all the comments first

Except that roller hockey is played in the summer, Ricko. I know inline skating is new-age to your generation and all, but… ;o)

My bad. Saw the jersey and thought “White tux? In winter?!?!” and because I’d lifted back of hand to forehead in anquish over such a fashion faux pas—and could no longer look upon such a thing—I failed to notice the wheeled footwear.

(Although I do remember thinking the lighting was pretty damn bright for an ice arena).

So, I must humbly–and with much chagrin– withdraw my concurrance that it is the worst jersey of all tiime. Actually, it’s kinda fun.

(Still need to keep your pinky up higher, though; U-W is a class joint)

[quote comment=”289274″]
(Still need to keep your pinky up higher, though; U-W is a class joint)[/quote]

Done and done. I’ll be attending High Snobbery 101 in the next semester. LOL

[quote comment=”289241″]I can’t believe people like the red out Texans unis. It’s like Santa in a Titans helmet.[/quote]

Why not? Just because you don’t like it everyone else is supposed to abhor it as well?

[quote comment=”289241″]NFL teams that only wear one color pants off the top of my head:

Raiders
Packers
Steelers
Giants
Colts
49ers
Lions[/quote]

G-Men wear two different striped pants for home and road.

…Marc Swanson sent along a few old football photos. “This one is a team photo of the 1934 Pittsburgh Pirates,…

While this is one of the greatest team photos in history and while this shot may have been taken in 1934 (training camp?), this uni was NOT worn in 1934. It was actually game worn in the second half of the 1933 season, the Pirates/Steelers’ first season. The Pirates wore a plain yellow (primary) or black (secondary) jersey in 1934. The first half of ’33, the Pirates wore the “city seal” jersey.

Source: Microfilm of the Pgh Sun-Telegraph and Pgh Post-Gazette.

[quote comment=”289275″][quote comment=”289273″][quote comment=”289266″][quote comment=”289264″]Which brings up the point that if games that go to OT are worth 3 points (2 for the win, 1 for the loss), then why don’t they award a team 3 points for an out right win?[/quote]

i’ve often thought that too…but that would totally screw up the point system that’s been in effect forever…but i agree (with the concept)…

W=3 points
OT W=2 points
OT L=1 point
L=0 points

makes it worthwhile to win in regulation, no?[/quote]
No, I have a great idea for the NHL. 2 for a win, 0 for a loss, and 1 for a tie. They can also call the conferences the Campbell and Prince of Wales, the divisions could be the Norris, Adams, Patrick, and Smythe, one last thing the commissioner could be called anything but Gary Bettman.[/quote]

The point system will never change now. The shootout is too popular, and it keeps fans in their seats (and buying concessions) for much longer.

I actually devised a system in which the NHL could return to its original conference and divisional setups without losing a lot of bang for their buck. If you want to read it, it’s here – link. I can actually solve four problems simply by changing the divisional alignment back to four divisions.[/quote]

I wish there were no shootouts, but that’s never going to happan, so here is my point system.

Should be 2 points for a win (regulation, overtime regardless, a win is a win)

0 points for a loss (do not reward losing)

1 point for shootout win (you should have won in the 65 minutes of ACTUAL HOCKEY earlier. Not in a BREAKAWAY contest. Stupidest way to award a winner.)

Also would love to see the teams and divisons named after hockey history, more tradition the better.

[quote comment=”289281″][quote]New Jersey, Vancouver, and San Jose would be screwed.[/quote]

and that’s a problem because…?[/quote]

Because, as commish, you’re responsible for making 30 teams happy. Especially one run by Lou Lamoriello. ;o)

[quote comment=”289271″][quote comment=”289190″][quote comment=”289172″]Here’s the link to the UNC/Rutgers photo gallery:
link

They did look a bit off, however they didn’t go half-assed about it…Check out their Navy accented cleats!

Here’s what I think is an interesting question:

With USC playing TOSU tomorrow evening, we are in store for both a classic battle between two great football teams both athletically and aesthetically.

Simple yet elegant…about the only people who wouldn’t like those two are Marty Met and Mike Belotti.

As we saw with UNC and their “alternate” third color pants last night, there are precious few teams who still wear one pair of pants for both home and road games, USC and TOSU being two of them.

Question #1: How many schools still use only one pair of pants?

Question #2: Of these schools, like Michigan or USC, have they, at any time, worn different colored pants, for example…Michigan in Blue?[/quote]

I’m sure there ar many teams that still wear one pair of pants. One is Louisiana Tech.
Home:
link

Road:
link

And they used to wear blue pants:
link

Tech actually has quite a long running tradition with the current helmet logo and striped jerseys, they go back to the Bradshaw days and before:
link

Other schools with one pair of pants off the top of my head:
Texas
Oklahoma
LSU
Auburn
Alabama
Georgia
Kansas
Kansas St
Army
Navy
Mississippi St (?)
Ole Miss[/quote]

Notre Dame only wears gold pants[/quote]

Georgia actually wore white pants between 1964 and 1979. Vince Dooley switched from the Silver Britches (which had been in place since the late 1930s) to white pants when he showed up. The year he switched back, 1980, the Dawgs won it all.

LSU wore purple pants at Kentucky one year (’95, I think). They lost, so those pants haven’t seen the light of day since that one game.

[quote comment=”289285″][quote comment=”289259″][quote comment=”289256″]my nomination for worst jersey in the history of sports:

link

That jersey was worn for some special holiday celebration as a promotional jersey.

There have been a ton of ice hockey teams who wear tuxedo-styled jerseys on New Year’s Eve as a promotion.[/quote]

Actually, that is Mission Hockey’s (hockey equipment manufacturer) factory inline team. The goalie is a personal friend of mine and a former employee of Mission.[/quote]

No way! I’d kill for one of those jerseys. Any chance they’re still making them?

[quote comment=”289288″][quote comment=”289285″][quote comment=”289259″][quote comment=”289256″]my nomination for worst jersey in the history of sports:

link

That jersey was worn for some special holiday celebration as a promotional jersey.

There have been a ton of ice hockey teams who wear tuxedo-styled jerseys on New Year’s Eve as a promotion.[/quote]

Actually, that is Mission Hockey’s (hockey equipment manufacturer) factory inline team. The goalie is a personal friend of mine and a former employee of Mission.[/quote]

No way! I’d kill for one of those jerseys. Any chance they’re still making them?[/quote]

They were made by ProJoy Sportswear.

The Mission ones were never released (have their logo and is all white) but the Tuxedo jersey is available on ProJoy’s website.

“the Tuxedo jersey is available on ProJoy’s website.”

Well, thank goodness, they make one with a black jacket.

[quote comment=”289287″][quote comment=”289282″]
1 point for shootout win (you should have won in the 65 minutes of ACTUAL HOCKEY earlier. Not in a BREAKAWAY contest. Stupidest way to award a winner.)

Also would love to see the teams and divisons named after hockey history, more tradition the better.[/quote]

The shootout will not go away. It provides the finality of a winner in a deadlocked regular season game, as well as bringing fans a spectacle that keeps them in the building. Besides, who’da thunk that link? It’s exciting for fans. Awarding an extra point is no big deal. If they ever try to do it in the playoffs, though, I’ll burn the NHL offices down myself.

Besides, if soccer can do it to decide the World Cup and international hockey can do it to decide Olympic and Wold Championship outcomes, why can’t the NHL do it for the regular season?[/quote]

Just because another league does it doesn’t make it ok. One of the reasons I hate the shootout is because I feel it’s only a matter of time before the commish tries to put in the playoffs.

Deciding the outcome of a game which includes offense, defense, goaltending, PP, SH, hitting, etc, and settle it by ignoring all but two of those aspects (offense and goaltending) is ludicrus.

As one of the biggest fans of the NHL that I know, my biggest fears for the future of my favorite sports league is shootout in the playoffs and bigger nets.

[quote comment=”289293″]Speaking of hockey and excitement generated thereby…

When the WHA was being formed we were sitting in a league meeting looking at prototypes for a DayGlo orange puck and a navy blue puck. Steve Arnold, the league’s Player Recruitment Director and my best friend in pro sports and later owner of the WFL Houston Texans, leaned forward and said, “Why don’t we go to a SQUARE puck?”

A room full of millionaires turned to him with a collective look of, “Mr. Arnold, this is NO time for levity.”

I, meanwhile, was doing everyting possible to keep Diet Coke from shooting out my nose.

The point? Pro sports owners, generally speaking, have NO sense of humor.

—Ricko[/quote]

Ricko, did you know that the Quebec Nordiques used a blue puck that matched the colour of their jerseys for the first season they played in WHA?

They are extremely rare to find on Ebay, but I have seen a few.

[quote comment=”289296″][quote comment=”289293″]Speaking of hockey and excitement generated thereby…

When the WHA was being formed we were sitting in a league meeting looking at prototypes for a DayGlo orange puck and a navy blue puck. Steve Arnold, the league’s Player Recruitment Director and my best friend in pro sports and later owner of the WFL Houston Texans, leaned forward and said, “Why don’t we go to a SQUARE puck?”

A room full of millionaires turned to him with a collective look of, “Mr. Arnold, this is NO time for levity.”

I, meanwhile, was doing everyting possible to keep Diet Coke from shooting out my nose.

The point? Pro sports owners, generally speaking, have NO sense of humor.

—Ricko[/quote]

Ricko, did you know that the Quebec Nordiques used a blue puck that matched the colour of their jerseys for the first season they played in WHA?

They are extremely rare to find on Ebay, but I have seen a few.[/quote]

Have a dark blue one with a WHA decal in a box somewhere. That the one? Also have a puck from first WHA All-Star Game in Quebec. Probably in the same box. Might be one they gave to media reps during first Russia-NHL series in there, too.

[quote comment=”289294″]
Just because another league does it doesn’t make it ok. One of the reasons I hate the shootout is because I feel it’s only a matter of time before the commish tries to put in the playoffs.

Deciding the outcome of a game which includes offense, defense, goaltending, PP, SH, hitting, etc, and settle it by ignoring all but two of those aspects (offense and goaltending) is ludicrus.

As one of the biggest fans of the NHL that I know, my biggest fears for the future of my favorite sports league is shootout in the playoffs and bigger nets.[/quote]

If you’re an NHL owner, do you care more about making money or splitting two points? Money is the only thing that matters. Over the course of the season, I guarantee you that Edmonton and Dallas (shootout kings last season) made a ton of money in the extra time because they went to the shootout so often.

Again, if Bettman tries to put it in the playoffs, I’ll burn the NHL offices down. It’s that simple.

And as ludicrous as it seems, the World Cup – the biggest sporting event in the world next to the Olympics – has been decided by penalty kicks. They require no tactics or defensive ability whatsoever.

Canada lost to the Czech Republic in the hockey semi-finals of the 1998 Nagano Olympics on a shootout.

Team Sweden, on a famous Forsberg goal, defeated Team Canada in a shootout for World Championship gold.

It’s a regular season NHL game. They are nowhere close to being as important as those three events. The fans like it, and keeps them in the seats. As an owner, that’s the entire idea, isn’t it?

Not sure, but I think those are all the pucks the league tested and decided against using. The Noridques took them all to use as long as they lasted.

Have a vague recollection that that is what happened to those blue pucks we had for some preseason games. Just haven’t thought about it in years.

[quote comment=”289257″]
as a followup to last night’s uw comments, here is another picture of the link (but with white jerseys) [/quote]

Man, those are super sweet. As a die hard Vikes fan, I would love a return to those unis!

I actually don’t hate the current jerseys at all, but the current pants are hideous. Especially when they wear the white jerseys and white pants.

[quote comment=”289303″][quote comment=”289298″]
Have a dark blue one with a WHA decal in a box somewhere. That the one? Also have a puck from first WHA All-Star Game in Quebec. Probably in the same box. Might be one they gave to media reps during first Russia-NHL series in there, too.[/quote]

Those would most likely be them. They did use them in games, so they might be the innovators. :o)[/quote]

That’s three different pucks I was talking about. But, yeah, the first one of those blue babies.

[quote comment=”289291″][quote comment=”289267″][quote comment=”289227″][quote comment=”289190″][quote comment=”289172″]Here’s the link to the UNC/Rutgers photo gallery:
link

They did look a bit off, however they didn’t go half-assed about it…Check out their Navy accented cleats!

Here’s what I think is an interesting question:

With USC playing TOSU tomorrow evening, we are in store for both a classic battle between two great football teams both athletically and aesthetically.

Simple yet elegant…about the only people who wouldn’t like those two are Marty Met and Mike Belotti.

As we saw with UNC and their “alternate” third color pants last night, there are precious few teams who still wear one pair of pants for both home and road games, USC and TOSU being two of them.

Question #1: How many schools still use only one pair of pants?

Question #2: Of these schools, like Michigan or USC, have they, at any time, worn different colored pants, for example…Michigan in Blue?[/quote]

I’m sure there ar many teams that still wear one pair of pants. One is Louisiana Tech.
Home:
link

Road:
link

And they used to wear blue pants:
link

Tech actually has quite a long running tradition with the current helmet logo and striped jerseys, they go back to the Bradshaw days and before:
link

Other schools with one pair of pants off the top of my head:
Texas
Oklahoma
LSU
Auburn
Alabama
Georgia
Kansas
Kansas St
Army
Navy
Mississippi St (?)
Ole Miss[/quote]

Miss. State has white and red pants (which are cool, b/c they wear striped white socks with the dark pants – that’s rare in college)

white pants:
link

red pants:
link

Dude, seriously, red?[/quote]

Dude, seriously, who cares what effin color I call it?[/quote]

I do, for one. And since you’re obviously an Auburn fan, you should know the colors of another school in the same conference. It would be one thing to call Alabama’s color red, but Mississippi State’s is closer to purple than red if you’re not gonna call it the correct color.

[quote comment=”289307″][quote comment=”289301″]
I digress, Teebz, you have mentioned several times of the popularity of the overtime system, but I don’t know if that reflects your personal feeling, does it?[/quote]

I don’t mind the shootout. It provides players a chance to show off some moves that are generally impossible to pull off in a real game. Personally, I don’t care if they keep it or kill it. It’s for the fans, and that’s what matters when we’re talking about 82 regular season games.

Again, we’re talking the Malik goal I posted earlier. Malik had zero goals that season, and he pulls that out? Phenomenal. And link… seriously, Vokoun is still looking for the puck.

For the playoffs, however, I want quadruple OT and games that go until 3am. I want the excitement of sudden death when playoff games mean living to play another day or dying on the next shot.

That’s excitement. That’s playoff hockey.[/quote]

Funny, that’s sense of ambivalence was in there, I didn’t just imagine it. You are correct about playoff overtime, absolutely nothing in sport compares.

Just heard my Red Sox are interested in the Japanese pitcher Tazawa. I don’t know about
him but I love his socks: link . (Plus they’re at least somewhat similar to the Yaz era socks:
link).

[quote comment=”289309″][quote comment=”289297″]would you ever pay to see someone fight over a pens sweater?

link[/quote]

WHERE’S THE NFSW TAG?????????
Dammit Phil![/quote]

how is that NSFW? (as opposed to “NFSW”)…where do you work, a nunnery?

[quote comment=”289300″]

If you’re an NHL owner, do you care more about making money or splitting two points? Money is the only thing that matters. Over the course of the season, I guarantee you that Edmonton and Dallas (shootout kings last season) made a ton of money in the extra time because they went to the shootout so often.

And as ludicrous as it seems, the World Cup – the biggest sporting event in the world next to the Olympics – has been decided by penalty kicks. They require no tactics or defensive ability whatsoever.

[/quote]
I doubt they made much extra money on shootout, no one is going to the concession stands during them. Play 20 minutes of OT then its a tie, you get 20 minutes of sudden death hockey and people will still go to the concessions. Plus once they hit the 3rd period they stop selling bee so that a major limit on concession sales. in OT/SO’s

As for the world cup even soccer fans hate when its decided on a SO

[quote comment=”289316″][quote comment=”289300″]

If you’re an NHL owner, do you care more about making money or splitting two points? Money is the only thing that matters. Over the course of the season, I guarantee you that Edmonton and Dallas (shootout kings last season) made a ton of money in the extra time because they went to the shootout so often.

And as ludicrous as it seems, the World Cup – the biggest sporting event in the world next to the Olympics – has been decided by penalty kicks. They require no tactics or defensive ability whatsoever.

[/quote]
I doubt they made much extra money on shootout, no one is going to the concession stands during them. Play 20 minutes of OT then its a tie, you get 20 minutes of sudden death hockey and people will still go to the concessions. Plus once they hit the 3rd period they stop selling bee so that a major limit on concession sales. in OT/SO’s

As for the world cup even soccer fans hate when its decided on a SO[/quote]

I agree with you on the merits of why it should be discontinued, especially in other sports, but for a sport trying to find any niche that it can to keep people coming back, the shootout has done that.

And Edmonton fans loved it last year. Mathieu Garon was a cult hero in Oiltown.

[quote comment=”289314″][quote comment=”289309″][quote comment=”289297″]would you ever pay to see someone fight over a pens sweater?

link[/quote]

WHERE’S THE NFSW TAG?????????
Dammit Phil![/quote]

how is that NSFW? (as opposed to “NFSW”)…where do you work, a nunnery?[/quote]

You already know the answer to that, Phil!!!
I’m just looking out for the UW public, and a ‘lil
bit o’ CYA!

[quote comment=”289300″][quote comment=”289294″]
Just because another league does it doesn’t make it ok. One of the reasons I hate the shootout is because I feel it’s only a matter of time before the commish tries to put in the playoffs.

Deciding the outcome of a game which includes offense, defense, goaltending, PP, SH, hitting, etc, and settle it by ignoring all but two of those aspects (offense and goaltending) is ludicrus.

As one of the biggest fans of the NHL that I know, my biggest fears for the future of my favorite sports league is shootout in the playoffs and bigger nets.[/quote]

If you’re an NHL owner, do you care more about making money or splitting two points? Money is the only thing that matters. Over the course of the season, I guarantee you that Edmonton and Dallas (shootout kings last season) made a ton of money in the extra time because they went to the shootout so often.

Again, if Bettman tries to put it in the playoffs, I’ll burn the NHL offices down. It’s that simple.

And as ludicrous as it seems, the World Cup – the biggest sporting event in the world next to the Olympics – has been decided by penalty kicks. They require no tactics or defensive ability whatsoever.

Canada lost to the Czech Republic in the hockey semi-finals of the 1998 Nagano Olympics on a shootout.

Team Sweden, on a famous Forsberg goal, defeated Team Canada in a shootout for World Championship gold.

It’s a regular season NHL game. They are nowhere close to being as important as those three events. The fans like it, and keeps them in the seats. As an owner, that’s the entire idea, isn’t it?[/quote]

Teebz, don’t get me wrong, don’t want this to come off as argument. I think you and I are two of the biggest hockey fans on this site, us hockey folk have to stick togehter!! lol

BTW, if shootouts go into the playoffs, you hold the torch, I’ll light it, ok? :)

As for shootouts, I understand the owners perspective, money money money money money. But I am not an owner (I wish I was), I am a fan, and as a fan it’s just that in my opinion (which may be different than yours) a shootout is no way to decide a game, no matter how important (reg season or olypmics). Don’t get me wrong they are exciting (i was actually at the game when Malik scored that goal in NY vs WAS, place went nuts. NHL record for shootout rounds BTW), but I was dissapointed to see a gold medal rewarded in a shootout. Makes the perviously played hockey almost seem meaningless.

As we head into another NFL weekend, let me just say this about dark-over-dark:

If the Redskins ever come out in all burgundy (and I imagine they will someday), I sure hope they’re wearing their white socks with the two-color stripes. That might be an exceptionally fine-looking monochomatic.

However, if they wear the burgundy socks for the unitard look with them then, no, not so much.

—Ricko

After this, I’m done…I’ve met my quota for the month…TODAY!

I found some Orlando Magic PS type pics:
link

[quote comment=”289324″]As we head into another NFL weekend, let me just say this about dark-over-dark:

If the Redskins ever come out in all burgundy (and I imagine they will someday), I sure hope they’re wearing their white socks with the two-color stripes. That might be an exceptionally fine-looking monochomatic.

However, if they wear the burgundy socks for the unitard look with them then, no, not so much.

—Ricko[/quote]

Don’t count on the white socks. The reason they disappear from time-to-time is player influence (Portis & S. Taylor) and at least I don’t think Portis is going anywhere. It’s obviously a popular thing with players these days. With Gibbs gone, persevering any semblance of tradition is up to a coach who described the team’s colors as “maroon & black”.

In 2005, Portis & Taylor wanted to wear some goofy socks and the compromise was the white jersey/white pants combo which allowed them to wear the burgundy over white socks.

Although you wouldn’t call the 1979 to 2000’s unis “classic”, they are clearly associated with their sustained glory and monochrome would be just another erosion of that.

I’m not against change, however. If they had to change, here’s close to what I like to see them do:
link
More “hip” color shades, although as a uniform it most closely resembles the Otto Graham era, which was by no means successful.

The man who invented Cooperalls has passed away

link

[quote comment=”289328″][Don’t count on the white socks. The reason they disappear from time-to-time is player influence (Portis & S. Taylor) and at least I don’t think Portis is going anywhere. It’s obviously a popular thing with players these days. With Gibbs gone, persevering any semblance of tradition is up to a coach who described the team’s colors as “maroon & black”.

In 2005, Portis & Taylor wanted to wear some goofy socks and the compromise was the white jersey/white pants combo which allowed them to wear the burgundy over white socks.[/quote]

they didn’t need white pants link

…or just act link

link always gave a clean look

and i kinda liked link throwback…link

surprisingly, i never liked the link combos…link

and for anyone who thinks the monochrome might look good…link

[quote comment=”289322″]
Teebz, don’t get me wrong, don’t want this to come off as argument. I think you and I are two of the biggest hockey fans on this site, us hockey folk have to stick togehter!! lol[/quote]

Absolutely! The hockey wing of Uni Watch isn’t visited by many, but us die-hards love it. ;o)

[quote comment=”289322″]BTW, if shootouts go into the playoffs, you hold the torch, I’ll light it, ok? :)[/quote]

I’ll meet you there with the gasoline, Jim. LOL

[quote comment=”289322″]As for shootouts, I understand the owners perspective, money money money money money. But I am not an owner (I wish I was), I am a fan, and as a fan it’s just that in my opinion (which may be different than yours) a shootout is no way to decide a game, no matter how important (reg season or olypmics). Don’t get me wrong they are exciting (i was actually at the game when Malik scored that goal in NY vs WAS, place went nuts. NHL record for shootout rounds BTW), but I was dissapointed to see a gold medal rewarded in a shootout. Makes the perviously played hockey almost seem meaningless.[/quote]

Totally agree. I think for major events, it should come down to team-vs-team for playoffs, gold medals, etc. Awarding a gold medal for having three players shoot at your goalie isn’t very teamlike.

But in 82 regular season games, you gotta give fans something to look forward to besides a tie. The shootout is that thing. Lots of people hate it, and I respect that. For me, it makes no difference which way it goes. I grew up with ties, so no big deal. But for attracting and keeping new fans, this is all they know. And they seem to like it. :o)

[quote comment=”289332″][quote comment=”289328″][Don’t count on the white socks. The reason they disappear from time-to-time is player influence (Portis & S. Taylor) and at least I don’t think Portis is going anywhere. It’s obviously a popular thing with players these days. With Gibbs gone, persevering any semblance of tradition is up to a coach who described the team’s colors as “maroon & black”.

In 2005, Portis & Taylor wanted to wear some goofy socks and the compromise was the white jersey/white pants combo which allowed them to wear the burgundy over white socks.[/quote]

they didn’t need white pants link

…or just act link

link always gave a clean look

and i kinda liked link throwback…link

surprisingly, i never liked the link combos…link

and for anyone who thinks the monochrome might look good…link[/quote]
Thought for sure the ‘Act goofy’ link was going to be this or something like it…
link

[quote comment=”289335″][quote comment=”289332″][quote comment=”289328″][Don’t count on the white socks. The reason they disappear from time-to-time is player influence (Portis & S. Taylor) and at least I don’t think Portis is going anywhere. It’s obviously a popular thing with players these days. With Gibbs gone, persevering any semblance of tradition is up to a coach who described the team’s colors as “maroon & black”.

In 2005, Portis & Taylor wanted to wear some goofy socks and the compromise was the white jersey/white pants combo which allowed them to wear the burgundy over white socks.[/quote]

they didn’t need white pants link

…or just act link

link always gave a clean look

and i kinda liked link throwback…link

surprisingly, i never liked the link combos…link

and for anyone who thinks the monochrome might look good…link[/quote]

My favorite link by far.[/quote]

No huge arguement here.

For Chance & Phil, yes the unique styled numbers would be great, I do like the colored numbers out lined in white though.

It was cool to see the 70-71 throwbacks last year but, TOO MUCH YELLOW (notice I didn’t say gold). Especially with the shiny pants, you’ve practically eliminated the team’s primary color.

Phil, nice Reggie Branch (1989 at NYG) photo you found. To show you how nutty I am about this stuff, that photo is from one of the two greatest years in that uniforms history.

Since ’79 when the “mod” look was introduced the unis were made by Russell. They look (to the untrained eye) pretty much the same. There were variations, the introduction of open mesh in 1982, vinyl press-on number on the mesh in the mid-eighties. But in 1988 & 1989 they ditched the mesh for a really smart nylon(?). No more dropped necklines, really nice bold numbers, they are by far the best looking sets they ever had. It was also the introduction of cuffed sleeves for linemen, but it was not overdone, looked great.

An oddity was the last game of the 1989 season in Seattle. The entire team wore Sand-Knit jersey which were worn for the entire 1990 season. They were so much different from the Russell’s, different shoulder fabric, super narrow lettering for NOB. Not bad, but not like the 88-89’s.

[quote comment=”289338″][quote comment=”289335″][quote comment=”289332″][quote comment=”289328″][Don’t count on the white socks. The reason they disappear from time-to-time is player influence (Portis & S. Taylor) and at least I don’t think Portis is going anywhere. It’s obviously a popular thing with players these days. With Gibbs gone, persevering any semblance of tradition is up to a coach who described the team’s colors as “maroon & black”.

In 2005, Portis & Taylor wanted to wear some goofy socks and the compromise was the white jersey/white pants combo which allowed them to wear the burgundy over white socks.[/quote]

they didn’t need white pants link

…or just act link

link always gave a clean look

and i kinda liked link throwback…link

surprisingly, i never liked the link combos…link

and for anyone who thinks the monochrome might look good…link[/quote]

My favorite link by far.[/quote]

No huge arguement here.

For Chance & Phil, yes the unique styled numbers would be great, I do like the colored numbers out lined in white though.

It was cool to see the 70-71 throwbacks last year but, TOO MUCH YELLOW (notice I didn’t say gold). Especially with the shiny pants, you’ve practically eliminated the team’s primary color.

Phil, nice Reggie Branch (1989 at NYG) photo you found. To show you how nutty I am about this stuff, that photo is from one of the two greatest years in that uniforms history.

Since ’79 when the “mod” look was introduced the unis were made by Russell. They look (to the untrained eye) pretty much the same. There were variations, the introduction of open mesh in 1982, vinyl press-on number on the mesh in the mid-eighties. But in 1988 & 1989 they ditched the mesh for a really smart nylon(?). No more dropped necklines, really nice bold numbers, they are by far the best looking sets they ever had.

It was also the introduction of cuffed sleeves for linemen, but it was not overdone, looked great.

An oddity was the last game of the 1989 season in Seattle. The entire team wore Sand-Knit jersey which were worn for the entire 1990 season. They were so much different from the Russell’s, different shoulder fabric, super narrow lettering for NOB. Not bad, but not like the 88-89’s.[/quote]

1987: link (Doug’s # screened, Jacoby’s vinyl)
1989: link

“The rumor is that the players want to go all black next time with black helmets, jerseys, & pants with no stripes.”

Of course they do. They think football should be like a frickin’ video game.

Said this yesterday…when reality, to be more appealing, needs to be more like Virtual Reality, something seriously strange is going on with the way we look at life.

—Ricko

[quote comment=”289340″][quote comment=”289338″][quote comment=”289335″][quote comment=”289332″][quote comment=”289328″][Don’t count on the white socks. The reason they disappear from time-to-time is player influence (Portis & S. Taylor) and at least I don’t think Portis is going anywhere. It’s obviously a popular thing with players these days. With Gibbs gone, persevering any semblance of tradition is up to a coach who described the team’s colors as “maroon & black”.

In 2005, Portis & Taylor wanted to wear some goofy socks and the compromise was the white jersey/white pants combo which allowed them to wear the burgundy over white socks.[/quote]

they didn’t need white pants link

…or just act link

link always gave a clean look

and i kinda liked link throwback…link

surprisingly, i never liked the link combos…link

and for anyone who thinks the monochrome might look good…link[/quote]

My favorite link by far.[/quote]

No huge arguement here.

For Chance & Phil, yes the unique styled numbers would be great, I do like the colored numbers out lined in white though.

It was cool to see the 70-71 throwbacks last year but, TOO MUCH YELLOW (notice I didn’t say gold). Especially with the shiny pants, you’ve practically eliminated the team’s primary color.

Phil, nice Reggie Branch (1989 at NYG) photo you found. To show you how nutty I am about this stuff, that photo is from one of the two greatest years in that uniforms history.

Since ’79 when the “mod” look was introduced the unis were made by Russell. They look (to the untrained eye) pretty much the same. There were variations, the introduction of open mesh in 1982, vinyl press-on number on the mesh in the mid-eighties. But in 1988 & 1989 they ditched the mesh for a really smart nylon(?). No more dropped necklines, really nice bold numbers, they are by far the best looking sets they ever had.

It was also the introduction of cuffed sleeves for linemen, but it was not overdone, looked great.

An oddity was the last game of the 1989 season in Seattle. The entire team wore Sand-Knit jersey which were worn for the entire 1990 season. They were so much different from the Russell’s, different shoulder fabric, super narrow lettering for NOB. Not bad, but not like the 88-89’s.[/quote]

1987: link (Doug’s # screened, Jacoby’s vinyl)
1989: link
Let’s try again
1989: link
Also the compromise of 2005:
link

I was looking for Tarkenton in purple pants and came up with this, which I’ve never seen before.
link

[quote comment=”289346″]I was looking for Tarkenton in purple pants and came up with this, which I’ve never seen before.
link

There’s a painting of Tarkenton in purple pants in the SI cover vault. By Bob Peak, I think.

See if this works…

link

I get the sad Mr. Met on a rain check, but who puts him on a window?
link

I will tell you this…having seen those white jerseys and purple pants from the stands at Met Stadium many, many, many times…especially on a bright sunny afternoon, they looked absolutely GREAT.

I know, I know, they’re purple. But I cannot lie.

—Ricko

[quote comment=”289354″]I will tell you this…having seen those white jerseys and purple pants from the stands at Met Stadium many, many, many times…especially on a bright sunny afternoon, they looked absolutely GREAT.

I know, I know, they’re purple. But I cannot lie.

—Ricko[/quote]

The one saving grace of the new Vikings unis was the return to purple pants with the white jersey. Too bad they never wear them anymore. :( I hate the white/white look of the new unis worse than when they went all purple last year.

I would like them to return fully to the unis of the 60’s.

[quote comment=”289355″][quote comment=”289263″]OK, this has nothing do do with athletic aesthetics, this logo is terrific.

link

I’d like to see a logo column here on McCain (looks poorly done) vs. Obama’s (looks sleek) logos. No political bias implied with those comments, either.[/quote]

Great, I think you covered the topic just fine so let’s keep UW in the “Arena” arena.

[quote comment=”289357″][quote comment=”289335″]

My favorite link by far.[/quote]

One of my top 3 to 5 favorite NFL looks of all time. Man, i thought those unis were sweet. Love that color of burgandy, looked great with the gold.[/quote]

Trouble is, that’s a “throwback” to a uni that never existed. No such logo even on sleeve stripes. Sleeve stripes should be pattern shown on socks. Pants striping wrong; the three stipes were of equal width. Wasn’t even a long-time look; wore the spear helmets with that “Packer” look for only one season. And it’s the wrong color. The Lombardi-era uni it supposedly recreates was most definitely burgundy, almost flirting with cardinal. This error-laden “throwback” was maroon, wayyyyyy too dark.

Not saying it’s bad looking. But it IS fictional…as far as it being of any historical veracity. It was, quite simply, a one-year promotional jersey/uni.

—Ricko

[quote comment=”289360″][quote comment=”289357″][quote comment=”289335″]

My favorite link by far.[/quote]

One of my top 3 to 5 favorite NFL looks of all time. Man, i thought those unis were sweet. Love that color of burgandy, looked great with the gold.[/quote]

Trouble is, that’s a “throwback” to a uni that never existed. No such logo even on sleeve stripes. Sleeve stripes should be pattern shown on socks. Pants striping wrong; the three stipes were of equal width. Wasn’t even a long-time look; wore the spear helmets with that “Packer” look for only one season. And it’s the wrong color. The Lombardi-era uni it supposedly recreates was most definitely burgundy, almost flirting with cardinal. This error-laden “throwback” was maroon, wayyyyyy too dark.

Not saying it’s bad looking. But it IS fictional…as far as it being of any historical veracity. It was, quite simply, a one-year promotional jersey/uni.

—Ricko[/quote]

Was never meant to be a throwback. It was a special edition for thier 70th Ann. season.

[quote comment=”289362″][quote comment=”289360″][quote comment=”289357″][quote comment=”289335″]

My favorite link by far.[/quote]

One of my top 3 to 5 favorite NFL looks of all time. Man, i thought those unis were sweet. Love that color of burgandy, looked great with the gold.[/quote]

Trouble is, that’s a “throwback” to a uni that never existed. No such logo even on sleeve stripes. Sleeve stripes should be pattern shown on socks. Pants striping wrong; the three stipes were of equal width. Wasn’t even a long-time look; wore the spear helmets with that “Packer” look for only one season. And it’s the wrong color. The Lombardi-era uni it supposedly recreates was most definitely burgundy, almost flirting with cardinal. This error-laden “throwback” was maroon, wayyyyyy too dark.

Not saying it’s bad looking. But it IS fictional…as far as it being of any historical veracity. It was, quite simply, a one-year promotional jersey/uni.

—Ricko[/quote]

Was never meant to be a throwback. It was a special edition for thier 70th Ann. season.[/quote]

I know. And I never could figure out their thinking. If it’s commemorating something shouldn’t it have some historical aspect? It was like, “Hey, it’s our 70th anniversary; let’s make up a uniform we’ve never worn.” How is that commemorative? They use a color the team has never worn (maroon) to celebrate its past? How is that anything but fuzzy thinking?

Again, not saying it’s bad looking. But it’s a lousy job of celebrating a team’s traditons. The only thing even close to historically accurate is the helmet. Socks are close, but the wrong color.

Almost like if the Yankees’ had commemorated the last season in Yankee Stadium this year by wearing Royal Blue instead of Navy, and going without pinstripes. It just wouldn’t have made any sense.

[quote comment=”289365″][quote comment=”289364″][quote comment=”289362″][quote comment=”289360″][quote comment=”289357″][quote comment=”289335″]

My favorite link by far.[/quote]

One of my top 3 to 5 favorite NFL looks of all time. Man, i thought those unis were sweet. Love that color of burgandy, looked great with the gold.[/quote]

Trouble is, that’s a “throwback” to a uni that never existed. No such logo even on sleeve stripes. Sleeve stripes should be pattern shown on socks. Pants striping wrong; the three stipes were of equal width. Wasn’t even a long-time look; wore the spear helmets with that “Packer” look for only one season. And it’s the wrong color. The Lombardi-era uni it supposedly recreates was most definitely burgundy, almost flirting with cardinal. This error-laden “throwback” was maroon, wayyyyyy too dark.

Not saying it’s bad looking. But it IS fictional…as far as it being of any historical veracity. It was, quite simply, a one-year promotional jersey/uni.

—Ricko[/quote]

Was never meant to be a throwback. It was a special edition for thier 70th Ann. season.[/quote]

I know. And I never could figure out their thinking. If it’s commemorating something shouldn’t it have some historical aspect? It was like, “Hey, it’s our 70th anniversary; let’s make up a uniform we’ve never worn.” How is that commemorative? They use a color the team has never worn (maroon) to celebrate its past? How is that anything but fuzzy thinking?

Again, not saying it’s bad looking. But it’s a lousy job of celebrating a team’s traditons. The only thing even close to historically accurate is the helmet. Socks are close, but the wrong color.

Almost like if the Yankees’ had commemorated the last season in Yankee Stadium this year by wearing Royal Blue instead of Navy, and going without pinstripes. It just wouldn’t have made any sense.[/quote]

Well, isn’t like what the Phils are doing now? As for never wearing maroon, it may look maroon but it’s no darker than the M&N chance referenced earlier so without getting into a big debate whether or not it matches the exact shade of the 1945 jersey, this uni encompasses several elements of the past. Oddly, when they introduced them in a pre-season presser, the sleeves were different than those that made the field. More like the 69-78 jersey.[/quote]

This jersey link is every bit as dark as this link so assuming that M&N got it right, it really wouldn’t be like the Yanks wearing Royal.

[quote comment=”289367″][quote comment=”289365″][quote comment=”289364″][quote comment=”289362″][quote comment=”289360″][quote comment=”289357″][quote comment=”289335″]

My favorite link by far.[/quote]

One of my top 3 to 5 favorite NFL looks of all time. Man, i thought those unis were sweet. Love that color of burgandy, looked great with the gold.[/quote]

Trouble is, that’s a “throwback” to a uni that never existed. No such logo even on sleeve stripes. Sleeve stripes should be pattern shown on socks. Pants striping wrong; the three stipes were of equal width. Wasn’t even a long-time look; wore the spear helmets with that “Packer” look for only one season. And it’s the wrong color. The Lombardi-era uni it supposedly recreates was most definitely burgundy, almost flirting with cardinal. This error-laden “throwback” was maroon, wayyyyyy too dark.

Not saying it’s bad looking. But it IS fictional…as far as it being of any historical veracity. It was, quite simply, a one-year promotional jersey/uni.

—Ricko[/quote]

Was never meant to be a throwback. It was a special edition for thier 70th Ann. season.[/quote]

I know. And I never could figure out their thinking. If it’s commemorating something shouldn’t it have some historical aspect? It was like, “Hey, it’s our 70th anniversary; let’s make up a uniform we’ve never worn.” How is that commemorative? They use a color the team has never worn (maroon) to celebrate its past? How is that anything but fuzzy thinking?

Again, not saying it’s bad looking. But it’s a lousy job of celebrating a team’s traditons. The only thing even close to historically accurate is the helmet. Socks are close, but the wrong color.

Almost like if the Yankees’ had commemorated the last season in Yankee Stadium this year by wearing Royal Blue instead of Navy, and going without pinstripes. It just wouldn’t have made any sense.[/quote]

Well, isn’t like what the Phils are doing now? As for never wearing maroon, it may look maroon but it’s no darker than the M&N chance referenced earlier so without getting into a big debate whether or not it matches the exact shade of the 1945 jersey, this uni encompasses several elements of the past. Oddly, when they introduced them in a pre-season presser, the sleeves were different than those that made the field. More like the 69-78 jersey.[/quote]

I absolutely adored these:
link

Not too much yellow, not enough burgundy?

I would be with you as a “stand alone” design, but I need more burgundy.

[quote]I need more burgundy.[/quote]

don’t we all, larry…don’t we all

[quote comment=”289351″][quote comment=”289349″]How ’bout these. Not very big, but something.

link

link

link

—Ricko[/quote]

Terrific, the scramblin’ wreck from Georgia Tech, one of my favorites.[/quote]
Hey, great nickname. Too bad Tarkenton went to Georgia.

[quote comment=”289372″][quote comment=”289351″][quote comment=”289349″]How ’bout these. Not very big, but something.

link

link

link

—Ricko[/quote]

Terrific, the scramblin’ wreck from Georgia Tech, one of my favorites.[/quote]
Hey, great nickname. Too bad Tarkenton went to Georgia.[/quote]

My bad. I’ll slink away.

Hanley Ramirez is STILL wearing his All-Star sticker on his helmet.

[quote comment=”289373″]
Know one thing I remember about those purple pants? The difference in fabric from front to back. The front was all satin and shiny, and the back was flat, opaque stretch fabric. They almost looked two-tone. A lot of team’s pants were like that, but it was really apparent on the Vikings because of the color.

—Ricko[/quote]

I’ve noticed that about ’60s-era unis. Do you know what the purpose of that was? My recollection is the LA Rams wore two-fabric pants into the ’80s. Was that for the same reason?

[quote comment=”289379″][quote comment=”289378″][quote comment=”289373″]
Know one thing I remember about those purple pants? The difference in fabric from front to back. The front was all satin and shiny, and the back was flat, opaque stretch fabric. They almost looked two-tone. A lot of team’s pants were like that, but it was really apparent on the Vikings because of the color.

—Ricko[/quote]

I’ve noticed that about ’60s-era unis. Do you know what the purpose of that was? My recollection is the LA Rams wore two-fabric pants into the ’80s. Was that for the same reason?[/quote]

I think it was because they wanted the satin finish, but that fabric didn’t stetch. That meant the back half of the pants absolutely HAD to stretch or they’d be useless.

—Ricko[/quote]

That’s also from my recollections of wearing pants like that: satin front, stretchy back.

(For football, LI Phil, not for disco. Or American Bandstand, either.)

[quote comment=”289380″][quote comment=”289379″][quote comment=”289378″][quote comment=”289373″]
Know one thing I remember about those purple pants? The difference in fabric from front to back. The front was all satin and shiny, and the back was flat, opaque stretch fabric. They almost looked two-tone. A lot of team’s pants were like that, but it was really apparent on the Vikings because of the color.

—Ricko[/quote]

I’ve noticed that about ’60s-era unis. Do you know what the purpose of that was? My recollection is the LA Rams wore two-fabric pants into the ’80s. Was that for the same reason?[/quote]

I think it was because they wanted the satin finish, but that fabric didn’t stetch. That meant the back half of the pants absolutely HAD to stretch or they’d be useless.

—Ricko[/quote]

That’s also from my recollections of wearing pants like that: satin front, stretchy back.

(For football, LI Phil, not for disco. Or American Bandstand, either.)[/quote]

Phil’s deal was Soooooooul Train!

There is no dark blue in the official UNC-CH color schmeme. It’s a shame the football program thinks it’s okay.

Also, more SCATHING reviews of the OKC clipart logo … from people who actually know what they’re talking about (Designers).

link

Did USF add little horns to the collar of its football uniforms?

Since I know how much you all love pink. I’ll take lots of pics of the a’s game tomorrow.
A’s are really getting in to it this year. They changed their whole website to pink.
link