Dressed for Success Mindless Corporate Conformity

The Buffalo Bills/CFL link is interesting. I always thought the white uniform is a rip-off (probably unintential) of the Montreal Alouettes white uniform. A few differences here and there, but very similar overall.

In my opinion – most CFL uniforms today – have a bad case of “the clutters” – and a simplification is overdue.

i.e. If the NFL was to ever copy a CFL uniform – the current batch is pretty poor. CFL uniforms in general have not been that inspiring. In hindsight I did like the Ottawa Rough Riders (1970’s) vintage. They had this great big capital R as their helmut logo, which seemed very simple, but it just looked tough and strong – as a football logo should.

Montreal in the 1960’s was interesting – a red version of the Philadelphia Eagles of that era.

Down with Adidas!

On the topic of wedding rings and hockey, as a goalie I used to switch my wedding ring to my right (stick) hand so that a slapshot wouldn’t get smashed permanently onto my left (catching) hand during a game! Now I just leave it at home when I go to the rink.

I’m surprised that any NHL player gets away with wearing anything on his hands under his gloves–other than goalies, who sometimes wear golf gloves on their catching hands. Reminds me of the Hansons “puttin’ on the foil” before a game in “Slapshot.”

[quote comment=”305775″]The Buffalo Bills/CFL link is interesting. I always thought the white uniform is a rip-off (probably unintential) of the Montreal Alouettes white uniform. A few differences here and there, but very similar overall.

In my opinion – most CFL uniforms today – have a bad case of “the clutters” – and a simplification is overdue.

i.e. If the NFL was to ever copy a CFL uniform – the current batch is pretty poor. CFL uniforms in general have not been that inspiring. In hindsight I did like the Ottawa Rough Riders (1970’s) vintage. They had this great big capital R as their helmut logo, which seemed very simple, but it just looked tough and strong – as a football logo should.

Montreal in the 1960’s was interesting – a red version of the Philadelphia Eagles of that era.[/quote]

Always liked those Hamilton Tiger-Cats striped sleeves of 60s-80s, and the royal-gold Blue Bombers of that era, too (Dieter Brock n’them).

Hard to believe the Bills marketing staff said, “Let’s look like the CFL.” That’s a pretty huge piece of guesswork on the part of Wikipedia “expert”, I think, attempting to find some reason for the “why” of a team’s god-awful uniforms. The CFL is no threat to the NFL; no reason to emulate it or engineer anything down to its level. Much more likely, the NFL is quite rightly thinking that its players and product are enough to make it popular in Canada.

The uniforms are almost certainly simply the result of someone with zip taste. Nothing more than that.

Such things happen. Just look at most of Cincinnati’s combinations or Houston’s battle red popsicles for indisputable visual evidence.

—Ricko

I am noticing more instances of white jerseys being worn at home in NHL games. Is the plan to just ooze back to white at home? Forgive me if this has been discussed already, I’ve been away for a while.

[quote comment=”305784″]Was Peter King serious when he wrote in yesterday’s column that the Texans should adopt those red uniforms sll the time. If so, Peter’s taste is well awful. I don’t mind the red uniform with white pants, but the all red is horrible.[/quote]

I’m just hoping someone wrote to tell him that they are not “new” uniforms.. Battle Red began last season.

The whole gear thing has gotten out of control. When I competed in running I was always proud of beating people with more expensive gear (and it was a relatively minor differential in running compared to other sports). Take cycling for example, I think the reason so many douchebags love Lance (besides the fact that he would corporate shill for kitten torture) is that he epitomizes the technolust that a large segment of the cycling population aspire to (where no large amount of money is ridiculous to change your position less than a millimeter). Anyway, I had a friend who was a bike mechanic and a great athlete. It was very entertaining to see him (“Breaking Away” style) roll past some decked out cyclist in $5-$6 in gear on a 20 year Schwinn while where tennis shoes.

Your not gonna bench more or run the trend mill any faster with a logo on.

Most hockey players take off their wedding rings because if they do get into a fight and they throw a punch with that hand, they can receive a gross miscounduct penalty. You cannot have anything on your hands, tape on your wrist is the only acceptable hand garb allowed.
If Sykora would get into a fight, he would have to drop his gloves, take off his ring, and then begin the ultimate act of male bonding.

“That was particularly interesting in light of a note I’d recently received from another reader, who wishes to remain nameless:”

Does the person really want to remain nameless, or does he simply not want his name published here?

Ok…this is in regards to worst uni matchup…I will give you a couple.
– Buffalo Bills vs. Cincinnati Bengals
– Vikings vs. Seahawks
– Falcons vs. Cardinals

Best uni matchup… CHIEFS vs RAIDERS

I know I will be ridiculed so I will add more.

Giants vs Redskins

Redskins vs Cowboys

Steelers vs Colts

Jets vs Giants

Jets vs Dolphins

I dont like NE unis, or Broncos (well as a Chiefs fan I just flat out hate the Broncos)

Can the Steelers win another championship with the help of borderline calls going our way?

link

I don’t really have an issue with them stipulating what you can and cannot wear in the varsity athletic facilities. To me it’s the same idea as working in a corporate office and them telling you what the dress code is, whether it be business attire, or making you wear a company uniform.

It looks as though the team playing against Escondido High has ripped off the Houston Texans logo for use on their helmets.

link

I used to work for Nike (Shipping and receiving) while I was in school. Toolbags all over that company. My regional boss (since laid off), had a HUGE Nike swoosh tattoo on his ankle/leg. Douchebag!

Anyway, I left, when I decided I didn’t want to sell my soul to the devil anymore (and when my “free sneaker” quote was spent on the newest Jordans).

Here’s how I feel about it:

link

[quote comment=”305792″]”Again, this commitment to branding came in an environment that was completely closed off to the public, and where Adidas therefore derives almost literally zero advertising benefit”

Working in a marketing and communications dept. myself I have to disagree with this. The advertising benefit that they are getting is that they are creating brand loyalty at the base level. They are hoping that it becomes second nature to these guys to want to throw on Adidas gear when they are about to do something athletic. A couple of years later when these guys are either playing/coaching or running camps they will be more inclined to stay with Adidas.

It happens in corporate America all of the time. Almost all medical companies supply product to colleges for their teachers to use…why…to create brand loyalty with the students. It’s the same thing.

It may seem a bit much to post the signs around the gym, but the concept Adidas is using is nothing out of the ordinary.[/quote]

I work in marketing as well and i have to agree with the above statement. It is exactly consistent with everything i learned both in school and on the job, and it is part of what a marketing professional’s job is. Still, i have to admit there is a sense of “this is taking it too far” and it does seem a little over the top.

Maybe I feel this way because the industry i am in we don’t/can’t really need to go to this extent of marketing/branding (we are in a more of a niche market that serves institutions, not individuals or the general public). I also think my uni-purist also has an affect on this as well.

My question is who was the guy at Notre Dame that made the athlete change? Was it a team official or a rep from Adidas? Either way, that is pretty intense and over bearing. On the other hand, if i was employed by Adidas as a marketer and getting paid good money, i would stand in that locker room with a cattle prod zapping anyone not following regulation dress.

[quote comment=”305781″][quote comment=”305775″]The Buffalo Bills/CFL link is interesting. I always thought the white uniform is a rip-off (probably unintential) of the Montreal Alouettes white uniform. A few differences here and there, but very similar overall.

In my opinion – most CFL uniforms today – have a bad case of “the clutters” – and a simplification is overdue.

i.e. If the NFL was to ever copy a CFL uniform – the current batch is pretty poor. CFL uniforms in general have not been that inspiring. In hindsight I did like the Ottawa Rough Riders (1970’s) vintage. They had this great big capital R as their helmut logo, which seemed very simple, but it just looked tough and strong – as a football logo should.

Montreal in the 1960’s was interesting – a red version of the Philadelphia Eagles of that era.[/quote]

Always liked those Hamilton Tiger-Cats striped sleeves of 60s-80s, and the royal-gold Blue Bombers of that era, too (Dieter Brock n’them).

Hard to believe the Bills marketing staff said, “Let’s look like the CFL.” That’s a pretty huge piece of guesswork on the part of Wikipedia “expert”, I think, attempting to find some reason for the “why” of a team’s god-awful uniforms. The CFL is no threat to the NFL; no reason to emulate it or engineer anything down to its level. Much more likely, the NFL is quite rightly thinking that its players and product are enough to make it popular in Canada.

The uniforms are almost certainly simply the result of someone with zip taste. Nothing more than that.

Such things happen. Just look at most of Cincinnati’s combinations or Houston’s battle red popsicles for indisputable visual evidence.

—Ricko[/quote]
I’ll believe it. Especially because at the same time of the Buffalo Bills’ switch, the Seattle Seahawks (remember, Seattle is close to Vancouver) adopted their all blues. Their white jerseys also look like a CFL team, the way they have dark blue sleeves (not just undersleeves) on them.

[quote comment=”305778″]At my college they didn’t have restrictions on sponsered gear in the weight room, but they did have a restriction where you couldn’t wear other colleges gear. They said it was unfair to the athletes training to workout while seeing students wearing their competitor’s name / logo.[/quote]

I played for a NAIA school. They could pretty much care less what we wore into the gym. We were asked to wear the school colors (burgandy and gold) or gear but nobody ever enforced it unless we lost. If we lost, Coach made us wear all school logoed gear until we won.

[quote comment=”305797″]Can the Steelers win another championship with the help of borderline calls going our way?

link
Great shirt, and a better story behind it:

link

“She came up with the idea for the shirt about three weeks ago as a personal fundraiser, of sorts. She needed money to try to resurrect her Dog & Pony Show Theater Company and for the Goodman Furnace Pressure Valve Memorial Fund. (Yes, she needed a new $650 valve for her furnace.)”

[quote comment=”305812″][quote comment=”305805″][quote comment=”305792″]”Again, this commitment to branding came in an environment that was completely closed off to the public, and where Adidas therefore derives almost literally zero advertising benefit”

Working in a marketing and communications dept. myself I have to disagree with this. The advertising benefit that they are getting is that they are creating brand loyalty at the base level. They are hoping that it becomes second nature to these guys to want to throw on Adidas gear when they are about to do something athletic. A couple of years later when these guys are either playing/coaching or running camps they will be more inclined to stay with Adidas.

It happens in corporate America all of the time. Almost all medical companies supply product to colleges for their teachers to use…why…to create brand loyalty with the students. It’s the same thing.

It may seem a bit much to post the signs around the gym, but the concept Adidas is using is nothing out of the ordinary.[/quote]

I work in marketing as well and i have to agree with the above statement. It is exactly consistent with everything i learned both in school and on the job, and it is part of what a marketing professional’s job is.[/quote]

The question is not whether you were taught this in school or whether it constitutes standard marketing procedure. Lots of standard-procedure things are wrong and inappropriate. This is one of them.[/quote]

I agree 100 percent. I think another question is who is at fault. Is it the company that is leaning on the school to do it or is it the school’s fault for letting it happen and just looking at the dollars coming in. I would like to get an athletes perspective on it, seeing if they would mind or if they really don’t and just like all the free gear and facilities (I assume it is company dollars that built that weight room).

[quote comment=”305816″][quote comment=”305812″][quote comment=”305805″][quote comment=”305792″]”Again, this commitment to branding came in an environment that was completely closed off to the public, and where Adidas therefore derives almost literally zero advertising benefit”

Working in a marketing and communications dept. myself I have to disagree with this. The advertising benefit that they are getting is that they are creating brand loyalty at the base level. They are hoping that it becomes second nature to these guys to want to throw on Adidas gear when they are about to do something athletic. A couple of years later when these guys are either playing/coaching or running camps they will be more inclined to stay with Adidas.

It happens in corporate America all of the time. Almost all medical companies supply product to colleges for their teachers to use…why…to create brand loyalty with the students. It’s the same thing.

It may seem a bit much to post the signs around the gym, but the concept Adidas is using is nothing out of the ordinary.[/quote]

I work in marketing as well and i have to agree with the above statement. It is exactly consistent with everything i learned both in school and on the job, and it is part of what a marketing professional’s job is.[/quote]

The question is not whether you were taught this in school or whether it constitutes standard marketing procedure. Lots of standard-procedure things are wrong and inappropriate. This is one of them.[/quote]

I agree 100 percent. I think another question is who is at fault. Is it the company that is leaning on the school to do it or is it the school’s fault for letting it happen and just looking at the dollars coming in. I would like to get an athletes perspective on it, seeing if they would mind or if they really don’t and just like all the free gear and facilities (I assume it is company dollars that built that weight room).[/quote]

The sad part is that the two parties involved (the school & Adidas) are fine with it and probably sleep very well at night, meanwhile we are the ones discussing the points that never entered into their minds. Like all things in corporate America / business, it just comes down to the money.

Does anyone have a list of the MLB teams who have and WILL STILL be announcing new uniforms/hats or just tweaks?

[quote comment=”305815″][quote comment=”305784″]Was Peter King serious when he wrote in yesterday’s column that the Texans should adopt those red uniforms sll the time. If so, Peter’s taste is well awful. I don’t mind the red uniform with white pants, but the all red is horrible.[/quote]
The thing is, that’s the least of the issues in that MMQB column yesterday. King is an absolute hack. He must get paid by the amount of characters he types.

That PK has an opinion on the all-red, I don’t mind (truth be told, I don’t mind the look that much).

However, I gives a shit about the line at Starbucks or what shampoo the hotels he stays in stock.

I can’t figure what’s that “column” is supposed to be. It’s like a hodgepodge of a print column, a blog and twitter posts.[/quote]

I disagree. Almost any column writer will inject a bit of their personal lives into their writing. King’s column almost always has good information, quotes, and analysis. He thoughtfully segregates his travel stories, etc. from the football stuff so it is easy to skip the parts one doesn’t want to read.

Just my opinion. Also, in my opinion, the battle reds are awful. Red tops with white pants or blue tops with white pants look much better.

[quote comment=”305822″][quote comment=”305815″][quote comment=”305784″]Was Peter King serious when he wrote in yesterday’s column that the Texans should adopt those red uniforms sll the time. If so, Peter’s taste is well awful. I don’t mind the red uniform with white pants, but the all red is horrible.[/quote]
The thing is, that’s the least of the issues in that MMQB column yesterday. King is an absolute hack. He must get paid by the amount of characters he types.

That PK has an opinion on the all-red, I don’t mind (truth be told, I don’t mind the look that much).

However, I gives a shit about the line at Starbucks or what shampoo the hotels he stays in stock.

I can’t figure what’s that “column” is supposed to be. It’s like a hodgepodge of a print column, a blog and twitter posts.[/quote]

I disagree. Almost any column writer will inject a bit of their personal lives into their writing. King’s column almost always has good information, quotes, and analysis. He thoughtfully segregates his travel stories, etc. from the football stuff so it is easy to skip the parts one doesn’t want to read.

Just my opinion. Also, in my opinion, the battle reds are awful. Red tops with white pants or blue tops with white pants look much better.[/quote]
I don’t know, I guess it’s a fine line between a column (print or electronic) and a blog.

For instance, I think Paul is more informal on UW than on a Page 2 column.

I dislike King and my opinion of his stuff wouldn’t change, but I think SI would do better giving him a blog where he could post daily tidbits. Even though I dislike him, I would find it interesting to see what he’s up to during the week. Both football and non-football related.

MMQB could be relegated to analysis/quotes of the week, rankings, awards and the normal football stuff. Then the column could be less than seven webpages!

Question: does MMQB appear in print in SI or only online?

[quote]let’s just cut to the chase, shall we?[/quote]

i think the above and this should be the go to pics for adidas and rbk respectively (suggestions being accepted for swoosh & UA)

[quote comment=”305823″]Interesting uni-related article over on Puck Daddy…

link
I know Seth, the guy that runs Empty Netters. I think that a lot of our Hockey Wingers (of which I aspire to be a member of some day!) would enjoy. There is a lot of crossover with jersey stuff. He gets photos of oddball jerseys (I’ve forwarded some to him) and posts them. It’s also an excellent hockey blog, not just Pens but definitely biased towards the Pens.

One thing I pointed out to him and I’m hoping to get some shots of next game I’m at is a guy that sits near me and apparently wears five jerseys to every game and his rotation is different each game (at least the ones I’ve been to). I was at a shootout when they wore the third jersey and he had a jersey for the OT and the shootout. In between periods he peels one off and puts it in a bag under his seat. Dude must spend every spare dollar on jerseys. And he doesn’t just have the easy ones like Crosby, Malkin, Fleury, etc. He had Sabourin, Satan and Pessonen (a guy that’s been up and down between Pgh and Scranton all season) in the light blue.

[quote comment=”305776″]As for wedding bands for hockey players, my exposure to this in my leagues (FAR from NHL levels) is that guys take them off for fear of the sweat making them slip off and then losing them.

As for NHL players, I imagine fighters take them off because it’d be like having a mini set of brass knuckles on. Seeing Petr Sykora is not a rough player and rarely ever (I’ve never seen him) takes his gloves off in play, I can see why he’d leave it on. Thing is, you would only know if someone is wearing a ring when they take their gloves off in play, and the only ones who do this would be fighters and they would take the ring off in respect for the face they are about the bash in :)[/quote]
Here’s my take on the wearing of rings:
1. Rings are not to be worn because of the chance you may be in a fight.
2. Even in rec leagues (where there shouldn’t be fighting) no rings – I had a teammate who was slashed in the hand and his finger swelled so much that we had to cut his ring off.

Also, what if you’re a student who can’t afford to buy a pair of ADIDAS shoes or a $30 t-shirt with an ADIDAS logo on it, you don’t get to work out on campus?

Or does this only apply to athletes?

Either way this is the worst logo creep related story I’ve ever read.

[quote comment=”305828″][quote comment=”305823″]Interesting uni-related article over on Puck Daddy…

link
I know Seth, the guy that runs Empty Netters. I think that a lot of our Hockey Wingers (of which I aspire to be a member of some day!) would enjoy. There is a lot of crossover with jersey stuff. He gets photos of oddball jerseys (I’ve forwarded some to him) and posts them. It’s also an excellent hockey blog, not just Pens but definitely biased towards the Pens.

One thing I pointed out to him and I’m hoping to get some shots of next game I’m at is a guy that sits near me and apparently wears five jerseys to every game and his rotation is different each game (at least the ones I’ve been to). I was at a shootout when they wore the third jersey and he had a jersey for the OT and the shootout. In between periods he peels one off and puts it in a bag under his seat. Dude must spend every spare dollar on jerseys. And he doesn’t just have the easy ones like Crosby, Malkin, Fleury, etc. He had Sabourin, Satan and Pessonen (a guy that’s been up and down between Pgh and Scranton all season) in the light blue.[/quote]

That’s very silly. Is he there to watch the game or have people notice him? (This admittedly said as someone who doesn’t wear home sweater when at games.)

So the contention is that this whole “dark pants-monochrome, etc.” thing (Jets, Bengals, Dolphins and others all changed at roughly the same time as Seahawks and Bills) is because the NFL looked to the CFL for ways to improve its on-the-field image?

I suppose its possible. After all, far too many major college football programs apparently are going for the “high school” look. Great, let’s make the lowest common denominator the ideal. Why set a standard when we can lower it.

And, just a guess here, but I don’t think Berman necessarily meant that as a compliment to the Bills unis.

—Ricko

[quote comment=”305826″][quote]let’s just link, shall we?[/quote]

i think the above and link should be the go to pics for adidas and rbk respectively (suggestions being accepted for swoosh & UA)[/quote]

Nike:

link

How I felt, working for Nike:

link

[quote comment=”305798″][quote comment=”305792″]”Again, this commitment to branding came in an environment that was completely closed off to the public, and where Adidas therefore derives almost literally zero advertising benefit”

Working in a marketing and communications dept. myself I have to disagree with this. The advertising benefit that they are getting is that they are creating brand loyalty at the base level. They are hoping that it becomes second nature to these guys to want to throw on Adidas gear when they are about to do something athletic. A couple of years later when these guys are either playing/coaching or running camps they will be more inclined to stay with Adidas.

It happens in corporate America all of the time. Almost all medical companies supply product to colleges for their teachers to use…why…to create brand loyalty with the students. It’s the same thing.

It may seem a bit much to post the signs around the gym, but the concept Adidas is using is nothing out of the ordinary.[/quote]

Other aspects of unis in the coporate world (beyond branding and a sense of community) include some practial elelments:

1. Many employees, unfortunately many of the younger ones, are clueless about how to dress for the workplace (“Why I gotta tuck in my shirt?”). Unis eliminate superiors appearing to pick on certain individuals, creating the desired atmosphere without carping or nitpicking. Not to mention that work ceases to be a “dressing contest”.

2. It’s like giving employees a raise. No more spending for “work wardrobe”. They need their basics and they’re set. Park Nicollet Medical Centers here went to (sorry, Paul) purple golf shirts, jackets and sweaters with khaki slacks as standard attire several years ago. Whenever I’m there, I always ask the employees I’m dealing with how they like it. I have yet to get a negative response. They love it. Makes getting ready for work easier and saves them money.

I know a printing firm with a couple hundred employees who moved to the same thing last suumer, supplying everyone a couple burgundy shirts and a $20 Target Gift Card (toward khaki slacks) for starters. They now have a small “line” of corporate apparel employees can buy at cost (including windbreakers and mongrammed blue denin shirts). You can’t believe how much more “cleaned up” the atmosphere around the place is. Looks, and is, far more professional than before. Owner says morale is WAY up, too, despite the sagging economy.

—Ricko[/quote]

Or they could just hire Terry Tate!

The only problem with the Bills-CFL theory is that the timing doesn’t work.

As mentioned, the Bills changed their uniforms in 2002. Reebok didn’t rebrand the CFL until the 2005 season.

The current CFL look (piping and patches everywhere) was new in 2005. Prior to that most teams had pretty conventional looking uniforms.

the buffalo bills wikipedia entry was not properly cited, as previously noted, so i deleted that part. this site is a great place for discussing whether or not the bills (and maybe seahawks) unis look like CFL unis, and also for guessing if there was a reason for that. but until there is a legit source, it isn’t appropriate to have it on wikipedia. if you do find a source, post it here or pop in into wikipedia.

So to go off topic from your flamewar and back to How I Met Your Mother. Being from MN I got amusement out of being made fun of on national TV. All the Vikes jersey’s were quite sharp. However I have one huge beef.

THE VIKINGS DIDN’T LOSE THE 1999 NFC CHAMPIONSHIP GAME TO ATLANTA, IT WAS 1998!

Can anyone explain how a major network, that televises NFL games, could screw that fact up? They said “1999 NFC vs the Falcons” like 100 times in the episode too (obviously making fun of our obsession over that loss, which is accurate). It pissed my wife and I off to no end.

//end rant

[quote comment=”305844″]the buffalo bills wikipedia entry was not properly cited, as previously noted, so i deleted that part. this site is a great place for discussing whether or not the bills (and maybe seahawks) unis look like CFL unis, and also for guessing if there was a reason for that. but until there is a legit source, it isn’t appropriate to have it on wikipedia. if you do find a source, post it here or pop in into wikipedia.[/quote]

Honestly I think it’s all due to designers/suppliers having more input than ever before. Typically it was head coaches, GM’s and equipment guys (maybe a PR guy once in a while) who provided the input, and they were far more likely to stay with traditional—and often more economical—choices.

But with the big money being thrown around, and the high visibility, and the emphasis on merchandising…that’s changed.

I wonder how many NFL head coaches, off the record, would tell you they HATE the crap their team is wearing.

[quote comment=”305846″]So to go off topic from your flamewar and back to How I Met Your Mother. Being from MN I got amusement out of being made fun of on national TV. All the Vikes jersey’s were quite sharp. However I have one huge beef.

THE VIKINGS DIDN’T LOSE THE 1999 NFC CHAMPIONSHIP GAME TO ATLANTA, IT WAS 1998!

Can anyone explain how a major network, that televises NFL games, could screw that fact up? They said “1999 NFC vs the Falcons” like 100 times in the episode too (obviously making fun of our obsession over that loss, which is accurate). It pissed my wife and I off to no end.

//end rant[/quote]

1998 season, playoff games played in 1999.

Too many people don’t understand the distinction – Wikipedia is full of playoff pages dated link as though the NFL was hockey.

[quote comment=”305849″][quote comment=”305846″]So to go off topic from your flamewar and back to How I Met Your Mother. Being from MN I got amusement out of being made fun of on national TV. All the Vikes jersey’s were quite sharp. However I have one huge beef.

THE VIKINGS DIDN’T LOSE THE 1999 NFC CHAMPIONSHIP GAME TO ATLANTA, IT WAS 1998!

Can anyone explain how a major network, that televises NFL games, could screw that fact up? They said “1999 NFC vs the Falcons” like 100 times in the episode too (obviously making fun of our obsession over that loss, which is accurate). It pissed my wife and I off to no end.

//end rant[/quote]

The game was in January ’99…and Minny fans need to get over it. They would have gotten crushed in that Super Bowl anyway.[/quote]

Oh, now, Johnny F, every team has those moments that won’t go away. “Wide right,” for instance (even “Losman rolls right…” from two days ago). Or how ’bout that fumble, y’know, when Joe Pisarcik… And Herman Edwards…

(just givin’ you shit).

I don’t have a problem with athletes having to wear specified clothing in the gym, mainly because they are given all of their sports apparel for free. If they are supplied with gym clothes, they can wear those. Its not like they have to buy certain items to wear.

re: the Bills unis. I actually liek the current Bills white unis. They aren’t over the top nor ate they too modern. Are they as nice as the throwback unis? No, but there are way worse unis in the NFL.

[quote comment=”305845″][quote]“One has to question why an Illinois corporation, residing in California, and reconditioning in Mexico, would file a patent lawsuit in Madison, Wisconsin,”[/quote]

wonder if a certain university based in wisconsin, who have some experience with patent infringement, may have something to do with it?

/any lawyers out there know if this state looks more kindly upon suits of this type?

 

EDIT: not implying that UW (the University of Wisconsin, not uni watch) has anything to do with it…only that wisconsin courts may be the best spot in the nation in which to file a patent infringement suit[/quote]

I’m a lawyer (Canadian, not US) but I have been involved in some IP litigation there

Wisconsin federal court has a reputation for a “rocket docket”, a great place for plaintiffs to file and get matters heard quickly. Speed is usually of the essence in IP litigation.

link

[quote comment=”305853″]scott norwood was the football gods’ way of evening things after the “real” fumble (joe pisarcik)[/quote]

Bingo.

[quote comment=”305852″][quote comment=”305849″][quote comment=”305846″]So to go off topic from your flamewar and back to How I Met Your Mother. Being from MN I got amusement out of being made fun of on national TV. All the Vikes jersey’s were quite sharp. However I have one huge beef.

THE VIKINGS DIDN’T LOSE THE 1999 NFC CHAMPIONSHIP GAME TO ATLANTA, IT WAS 1998!

Can anyone explain how a major network, that televises NFL games, could screw that fact up? They said “1999 NFC vs the Falcons” like 100 times in the episode too (obviously making fun of our obsession over that loss, which is accurate). It pissed my wife and I off to no end.

//end rant[/quote]

The game was in January ’99…and Minny fans need to get over it. They would have gotten crushed in that Super Bowl anyway.[/quote]

Oh, now, Johnny F, every team has those moments that won’t go away. “Wide right,” for instance (even “Losman rolls right…” from two days ago). Or how ’bout that fumble, y’know, when Joe Pisarcik… And Herman Edwards…

(just givin’ you shit).[/quote]

Getting back to the epsiode, one of the extras was wearing a Vikings’ jersey with the name “Smulders” on the back. Of course, that’s the last name of the actress who plays Robin! Clever touch!

[quote comment=”305839″][quote comment=”305832″]Also, what if you’re a student who can’t afford to buy a pair of ADIDAS shoes or a $30 t-shirt with an ADIDAS logo on it, you don’t get to work out on campus?

Or does this only apply to athletes?

Either way this is the worst logo creep related story I’ve ever read.[/quote]
I think it only applies to athletes who have the “official wear” supplied to them by Adidas.[/quote]
i think its a stupid rule, but considering all the stuff D1 athletes get free, they probably still wouldn’t have to do laundry for a month. remember the catalog Paul posted a while ago from Mizzou showing all the clothes the football players could get for free? if i was the company giving away all this free stuff(i know it doesn’t hurt their bottom line) i’d want to make sure its being worn. and i’m sure most of the athletes don’t complain b/c after a year on campus those are probably the only clothes they own. hell, after playing high school sports pretty much all my shirts had my school name on it, i don’t see it as much different than that.

I think that silly marketing shit like this just adds to the white noise of logos. Theyre everywhere on everything, I barely even notice them anymore.

Also stories like this make me not want to purchase the company in questions product, they do the reverse and make me not only, not want to buy their shit, but actively make me hate said company.

Irrational? Sure…but so is this crap.

[quote comment=”305857″][quote comment=”305852″][quote comment=”305849″][quote comment=”305846″]So to go off topic from your flamewar and back to How I Met Your Mother. Being from MN I got amusement out of being made fun of on national TV. All the Vikes jersey’s were quite sharp. However I have one huge beef.

THE VIKINGS DIDN’T LOSE THE 1999 NFC CHAMPIONSHIP GAME TO ATLANTA, IT WAS 1998!

Can anyone explain how a major network, that televises NFL games, could screw that fact up? They said “1999 NFC vs the Falcons” like 100 times in the episode too (obviously making fun of our obsession over that loss, which is accurate). It pissed my wife and I off to no end.

//end rant[/quote]

The game was in January ’99…and Minny fans need to get over it. They would have gotten crushed in that Super Bowl anyway.[/quote]

Oh, now, Johnny F, every team has those moments that won’t go away. “Wide right,” for instance (even “Losman rolls right…” from two days ago). Or how ’bout that fumble, y’know, when Joe Pisarcik… And Herman Edwards…

(just givin’ you shit).[/quote]

Damn it Ricko. Hahahaha. Just giving the Minny guy some N.Y. treatment. I should remind Mr. Viking that my beloved NY Giants handed him a playoff game in 1997. Friggin’ sure-handed Chris Calloway dropping that onside kick!

And let’s be realistic, that Broncos team would have crushed the Vikings. Lord knows the Vikings history in Super Bowls isn’t something to get excited about.

Maybe I should lay off… I mean, Minnesota fans don’t exactly have much to be excited about.[/quote]

Baseball has given Minnesotans a couple nice moments.

And I always figured you gotta GET to four Super Bowls in order to lose them. So by that yardstick we’ve had a lot more fun than, say, Seattle or Cleveland or Detroit or New Orleans or…well, it’s a pretty long list, actually.

As to Denver crushing Vikings…who can say. Just know that Viking team was exciting to watch, and it would have been nice if the Air Show had run a little longer.

[quote comment=”305868″]Peter King about Singletary’s cross:

RELIGION AND FOOTBALL. From Steve, of Hopkinton, Mass.: “Watching the Miami-San Francisco game Sunday, I was surprised to see Mike Singletary’s attire. I know sweatshirts are approved (as long as they are made by Reebok) but the huge cross around his neck? I know this is a man expressing his deep beliefs but is this the acceptable standard? What is someone wants to display some other item reflecting his personal beliefs?”

Good question. The league tells me Singletary’s personal jewelry is not an issue (he’s been wearing the cross throughout his coaching career) and I’d be surprised if they told him to tone it down. I think the only way they’d meddle with religious crosses is if they obscured the logos on the sideline clothing. Don’t laugh.[/quote]

ha ha.. I just came here to post that! glad I refreshed first.

[quote comment=”305868″]Peter King about Singletary’s cross:

RELIGION AND FOOTBALL. From Steve, of Hopkinton, Mass.: “Watching the Miami-San Francisco game Sunday, I was surprised to see Mike Singletary’s attire. I know sweatshirts are approved (as long as they are made by Reebok) but the huge cross around his neck? I know this is a man expressing his deep beliefs but is this the acceptable standard? What is someone wants to display some other item reflecting his personal beliefs?”

Good question. The league tells me Singletary’s personal jewelry is not an issue (he’s been wearing the cross throughout his coaching career) and I’d be surprised if they told him to tone it down. I think the only way they’d meddle with religious crosses is if they obscured the logos on the sideline clothing. Don’t laugh.[/quote]

Slap a fuckin reebok logo on that thing. They could have swoosh yarmuckles and under armor prayer mats.

Its an untapped market.

Could you imagine if Goodell (or whoever) were to tell Singletary that only reebok branded crosses were allowed? I’d do that for a dollar.

The question is not whether you were taught this in school or whether it constitutes standard marketing procedure. Lots of standard-procedure things are wrong and inappropriate. This is one of them.

No argument, and Adidas completely earns D-Bag honors, but don’t let Notre Dame (or whoever) off the hook. Regardless of marketing or whatever, this is a business arrangement and the school has a clear choice about dancing with the devil. Adidas hardly has a gun to their head; the school simply wants the dough. Larger question might be why they think they need it — and why that need extends to propagandizing their players and coaches.

[quote comment=”305873″]Could you imagine if Goodell (or whoever) were to tell Singletary that only reebok branded crosses were allowed? I’d do that for a dollar.[/quote]
Hasn’t the league already done this, sort of. Jon Kitna got fined for wearing a cap with a religious slogan on it and Big Ben was fined or told to stop writing “PFJ” (play for Jesus) on his cleats.

Not exactly apples and oranges but there is precendent for the league to at least say “thumbs down” to religious expression.

[quote comment=”305870″]
White said he picked his new name from a character in the 1985 movie “Teen Wolf,’’ starring Michael J. Fox.[/quote]
That’s the best inspiration for a name change since Homer Simpson changed his name to Max Power.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I actually paid to see that movie in a theater when it came out. I swear that the only time I laughed was when my friend tapped me on the shoulder to show me the joint he had just rolled.

[quote comment=”305872″][quote comment=”305871″][quote comment=”305868″]Peter King about Singletary’s cross:

RELIGION AND FOOTBALL. From Steve, of Hopkinton, Mass.: “Watching the Miami-San Francisco game Sunday, I was surprised to see Mike Singletary’s attire. I know sweatshirts are approved (as long as they are made by Reebok) but the huge cross around his neck? I know this is a man expressing his deep beliefs but is this the acceptable standard? What is someone wants to display some other item reflecting his personal beliefs?”

Good question. The league tells me Singletary’s personal jewelry is not an issue (he’s been wearing the cross throughout his coaching career) and I’d be surprised if they told him to tone it down. I think the only way they’d meddle with religious crosses is if they obscured the logos on the sideline clothing. Don’t laugh.[/quote]

Slap a fuckin reebok logo on that thing. They could have swoosh yarmuckles and under armor prayer mats.

Its an untapped market.[/quote]

link[/quote]

and a fucking MASSIVE swoosh on a pole to indicate Qibla ofc

[quote comment=”305882″]the whole argument over the atheltes only being allowed to wear the official gear in a restricted gym is just stupid. the company gives the players the gear for free, it gives the school money and gear, and it does these things on condition that it gets special treatment over other apparel providers. if you think the athletes would trade getting a lot of free gear and access to a restricted gym for not “selling their souls” to an apparel company youre out of your mind.
speaking as a student at an adidas school, most of the athletes only ever wear their free gear to class. they do this not because theyre required to but because it is comfortable, it is free, and they have a shit ton of it. no one at the colleges cares, and im sorry but i feel like the schools should worry about what their student-athletes think over whether or not it may be a gimick of corporate advertising.[/quote]

Gotta cultivate the next crop of consumers somehow.

weirdest all star link
An I’m talking about the two guys in the middle.

[quote comment=”305883″][quote comment=”305882″]the whole argument over the atheltes only being allowed to wear the official gear in a restricted gym is just stupid. the company gives the players the gear for free, it gives the school money and gear, and it does these things on condition that it gets special treatment over other apparel providers. if you think the athletes would trade getting a lot of free gear and access to a restricted gym for not “selling their souls” to an apparel company youre out of your mind.
speaking as a student at an adidas school, most of the athletes only ever wear their free gear to class. they do this not because theyre required to but because it is comfortable, it is free, and they have a shit ton of it. no one at the colleges cares, and im sorry but i feel like the schools should worry about what their student-athletes think over whether or not it may be a gimick of corporate advertising.[/quote]

Gotta cultivate the next crop of consumers somehow.[/quote]

hey if i went to maryland and they were giving me all kinds of under armour gear for free i wouldnt complain if they made me wear it all day every day. that stuff is comfy and wayyyyyyyy out of a a college-kid’s budget.

Very interesting find at the beginning of todays entry, as it spurs me to mention a conversation I had recently…

A few weeks back, prior to the Oregon State/University of Oregon Civil War game, I spoke with Todd Jacob who is the equipment manager for the baseball team. Among other questions, I asked him why the team continued to wear the Wilson manufactured unis after the introduction of the current OS logo and the new unis that went with it. Todd informed me that it’s the choice of Pat Casey — the baseball team’s head coach. Pat makes the decision on what the team wears each season, which is why we saw a mix and match of Wilson and Nike gear the past few years.

Which leads me to another point that Todd confirmend for me. Even though we rant and rave scream and puke at the ugly unis we see more and more (*cough* Ducks *cough*), the head coach has more say in it than you might think. If you hate those mechanical wings on the shoulders, blame the only NCAA head football coach with a font named after him.

So, back to the authorized gear topic, even though the entire athletic dept adopted the new OS identity (and all of the Nike adorned gear) the baseball team and the volleyball team retained their seperate contracts with Wilson and Asics, respectfully. As for Diadora, I’m guessing thats the soccer squad? Todd and I never discussed that…

[quote comment=”305885″]weirdest all star link
An I’m talking about the two guys in the middle.[/quote]

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with Japan?

[quote]I used to work for Nike (Shipping and receiving) while I was in school. Toolbags all over that company. My regional boss (since laid off), had a HUGE Nike swoosh tattoo on his ankle/leg. Douchebag![/quote]

ekin right of passage

Ah, Nike is expanding into a link. Explanation link (scroll down)

[quote comment=”305812″]
The question is not whether you were taught this in school or whether it constitutes standard marketing procedure. Lots of standard-procedure things are wrong and inappropriate. This is one of them.[/quote]

Most of the time the complaints/arguments seem to be focused on corporate logos invading “public space” (uniforms, courts, fields, anyplace in the public eye). There are plenty of good points to back up this view.
…but now it looks like we’re complaining about logos invading private spaces where pretty much no one will see them? I don’t see the point in complaining about this, unless you’re one of the people being forced to wear the stuff. If the student-athletes aren’t complaining, and they’re the only ones affected…then who cares.

[quote comment=”305873″]Not exactly apples and oranges but there is precendent for the league to at least say “thumbs down” to religious expression.[/quote]
I’m going to have to disagree. The league fined those players not because of RELIGIOUS expression, but EXPRESSION itself. Kitna was supposed to be wearing a licensed hat and as far as Big Ben, players get fined all the time for putting their own messages on their uniforms.

Kita would have been fined had he been wearing an MLB hat as well because it’s not licensed by the NFL.

[quote comment=”305899″][quote comment=”305873″]Not exactly apples and oranges but there is precendent for the league to at least say “thumbs down” to religious expression.[/quote]
I’m going to have to disagree. The league fined those players not because of RELIGIOUS expression, but EXPRESSION itself. Kitna was supposed to be wearing a licensed hat and as far as Big Ben, players get fined all the time for putting their own messages on their uniforms.

Kita would have been fined had he been wearing an MLB hat as well because it’s not licensed by the NFL.[/quote]
His cross-wearing is a personal statement, not much different than a player writing something on his shoes.

[quote comment=”305898″][quote comment=”305894″]I don’t see much wrong with a university saying, “All athletic department athletes and personnel must use only athletic department issued clothing and equipment while in the locker rooms and training facilities.”

Done that way, any logos, trademarks, et al, would simply come along for the ride.

And, hey, be honest, if you’re a coach or AD at U of Minnesota, say, trying to build tradition and camaraderie, etc., do you really wanna walk into your weight room and see one of your players in kelly green shorts, another in an orange tanktop and a third wearing a powder blue headband?

I would think they’d make such “attire” demands even in the absence of any corporate merchandising connections.

—Ricko[/quote]

It just seems heavy handed. Sure theyre giving stuff out for free, but at what cost?

If a guy in green shorts ruins your workout, you probably arent that good to begin with.[/quote]

What you mean, “What cost?” You think the athletes are so impressionable they’ll be scarred by being exposed to marketing concepts they’ve understood since they were 11 years old?

My point was that requiring athletes to wear athletic department issued gear isn’t unreasonable. Theoretically, if your program has the positive vibe you’re after they should WANT to wear it, anyway.

And, as I said, by requiring the gear, you don’t ever have to mention logos, etc. If it’s issued gear, those marks should be wherever they’re supposed to be, and you’ve just made the commercial aspect a non-issue.

Hello? Players get how it works.

[quote comment=”305903″][quote comment=”305898″][quote comment=”305894″]I don’t see much wrong with a university saying, “All athletic department athletes and personnel must use only athletic department issued clothing and equipment while in the locker rooms and training facilities.”

Done that way, any logos, trademarks, et al, would simply come along for the ride.

And, hey, be honest, if you’re a coach or AD at U of Minnesota, say, trying to build tradition and camaraderie, etc., do you really wanna walk into your weight room and see one of your players in kelly green shorts, another in an orange tanktop and a third wearing a powder blue headband?

I would think they’d make such “attire” demands even in the absence of any corporate merchandising connections.

—Ricko[/quote]

It just seems heavy handed. Sure theyre giving stuff out for free, but at what cost?

If a guy in green shorts ruins your workout, you probably arent that good to begin with.[/quote]

What you mean, “What cost?” You think the athletes are so impressionable they’ll be scarred by being exposed to marketing concepts they’ve understood since they were 11 years old?

My point was that requiring athletes to wear athletic department issued gear isn’t unreasonable. Theoretically, if your program has the positive vibe you’re after they should WANT to wear it, anyway.

And, as I said, by requiring the gear, you don’t ever have to mention logos, etc. If it’s issued gear, those marks should be wherever they’re supposed to be, and you’ve just made the commercial aspect a non-issue.

Hello? Players get how it works.[/quote]

These players are given a free education in return for them being walking billboards and moneymakers for the school.

The NCAA says it is unethical if student atheltes draw a salary, because theyre supposed to be amateurs playing for the love of the game. Then out of the opposite sides of their mouth they tell them to wear some conglomerations corporate mark, because theyre making a lot of money by doing so.

They want it both ways.

Fuck them all!

[quote comment=”305905″]These players are given a free education in return for them being walking billboards and moneymakers for the school.

The NCAA says it is unethical if student atheltes draw a salary, because theyre supposed to be amateurs playing for the love of the game. Then out of the opposite sides of their mouth they tell them to wear some conglomerations corporate mark, because theyre making a lot of money by doing so.

They want it both ways.

Fuck them all![/quote]
Ahh yes, the pay athletes argument…

They get free room and board at a school that’ll cost a regular student ~$5K(in state, public) to ~$30K(Duke) per semester to attend. They get daily spending allowances. They get free merchandise, free travel, and a free education. They graduate debt-free.

Yea, they are paid. They are paid in the form of a scholarship that puts them in a significantly better opportunity long-term than the average student. They might not receive the money directly, but they receive the money.

[quote comment=”305907″][quote comment=”305905″]These players are given a free education in return for them being walking billboards and moneymakers for the school.

The NCAA says it is unethical if student atheltes draw a salary, because theyre supposed to be amateurs playing for the love of the game. Then out of the opposite sides of their mouth they tell them to wear some conglomerations corporate mark, because theyre making a lot of money by doing so.

They want it both ways.

Fuck them all![/quote]
Ahh yes, the pay athletes argument…

They get free room and board at a school that’ll cost a regular student ~$5K(in state, public) to ~$30K(Duke) per semester to attend. They get daily spending allowances. They get free merchandise, free travel, and a free education. They graduate debt-free.

Yea, they are paid. They are paid in the form of a scholarship that puts them in a significantly better opportunity long-term than the average student. They might not receive the money directly, but they receive the money.[/quote]

Thou shalt not disregard thine marketing agreement, no matter how much of an asshole it makes you look like.

a) Coaches have been demanding “issue-only” gear since long before logo-ed endorsements. It’s just saying, “Wear team gear around the training facilities.” This, by virtually no measure, is harmful to the athletes.

b) Better to ponder this: If everyone is so worried about the tender psyches of these athletes, why do we put them in position to have millions watch them screw up? How do you think the Texas DB who booted that easy interception against Texas Tech is feeling these days? My guess: He’ll wake up dreaming about that sumbitch for the rest of his life. And I’ll bet there’ve been more than a couple times since that Saturday night that he’s wanted to just walk out in front of freeway traffic.

But, y’know, let’s just hope that seeing Nike logos in the weight room doesn’t stick with him.

[quote comment=\”305910\”]The Buffalo Bisons have updated their webpage with their new Mets-color scheme. The logo will officially be unveiled tonight.

link

I think this logo and color scheme is an improvement over the previous. Green, red, black, and gold were a terrible change for a team that looked classy in navy and red. The smiling Buster Bison was awful. The charger bison is much better. I will wait to pass judgment on the uniforms until I see them.[/quote]

Heavy on the black, of course….

[quote comment=”305911″]a) Coaches have been demanding “issue-only” gear since long before logo-ed endorsements. It’s just saying, “Wear team gear around the training facilities.” This, by virtually no measure, is harmful to the athletes.

b) Better to ponder this: If everyone is so worried about the tender psyches of these athletes, why do we put them in position to have millions watch them screw up? How do you think the Texas DB who booted that easy interception against Texas Tech is feeling these days? My guess: He’ll wake up dreaming about that sumbitch for the rest of his life. And I’ll bet there’ve been more than a couple times since that Saturday night that he’s wanted to just walk out in front of freeway traffic.

But, y’know, let’s just hope that seeing Nike logos in the weight room doesn’t stick with him.[/quote]

Its not about scarring the athletes. Its about cultivating corporate apologists like you that suck the soul from everything they touch.

[quote comment=”305915″][quote comment=”305911″]a) Coaches have been demanding “issue-only” gear since long before logo-ed endorsements. It’s just saying, “Wear team gear around the training facilities.” This, by virtually no measure, is harmful to the athletes.

b) Better to ponder this: If everyone is so worried about the tender psyches of these athletes, why do we put them in position to have millions watch them screw up? How do you think the Texas DB who booted that easy interception against Texas Tech is feeling these days? My guess: He’ll wake up dreaming about that sumbitch for the rest of his life. And I’ll bet there’ve been more than a couple times since that Saturday night that he’s wanted to just walk out in front of freeway traffic.

But, y’know, let’s just hope that seeing Nike logos in the weight room doesn’t stick with him.[/quote]

Its not about scarring the athletes. Its about cultivating corporate apologists like you that suck the soul from everything they touch.[/quote]

Just reality. Tell me, what color is the sky in your world?

[quote comment=”305909″][quote comment=”305907″][quote comment=”305905″]These players are given a free education in return for them being walking billboards and moneymakers for the school.

The NCAA says it is unethical if student atheltes draw a salary, because theyre supposed to be amateurs playing for the love of the game. Then out of the opposite sides of their mouth they tell them to wear some conglomerations corporate mark, because theyre making a lot of money by doing so.

They want it both ways.

Fuck them all![/quote]
Ahh yes, the pay athletes argument…

They get free room and board at a school that’ll cost a regular student ~$5K(in state, public) to ~$30K(Duke) per semester to attend. They get daily spending allowances. They get free merchandise, free travel, and a free education. They graduate debt-free.

Yea, they are paid. They are paid in the form of a scholarship that puts them in a significantly better opportunity long-term than the average student. They might not receive the money directly, but they receive the money.[/quote]

Thou shalt not disregard thine marketing agreement, no matter how much of an asshole it makes you look like.[/quote]

Just FYI, the majority of student athletes aren’t on a full ride. A quick internet search gives total number of NCAA athletes as over 400,000 students in 2006-2007 and 126,000 who receive scholarship (which include partial scholarships, which are probably more common than full rides).

Matt Powers — I’ve been negotiating an agreement this week with a company called mPower Software Services, so I’ve been getting a lot of e-mails with “mPower” as the subject line. I have to admit that each time I open one, I think of you and wonder if it is going to be about helmets and sneakers. The little things that get us throught the day . . .

[quote comment=”305824″][quote comment=”305822″][quote comment=”305815″][quote comment=”305784″]Was Peter King serious when he wrote in yesterday’s column that the Texans should adopt those red uniforms sll the time. If so, Peter’s taste is well awful. I don’t mind the red uniform with white pants, but the all red is horrible.[/quote]
The thing is, that’s the least of the issues in that MMQB column yesterday. King is an absolute hack. He must get paid by the amount of characters he types.

That PK has an opinion on the all-red, I don’t mind (truth be told, I don’t mind the look that much).

However, I gives a shit about the line at Starbucks or what shampoo the hotels he stays in stock.

I can’t figure what’s that “column” is supposed to be. It’s like a hodgepodge of a print column, a blog and twitter posts.[/quote]

I disagree. Almost any column writer will inject a bit of their personal lives into their writing. King’s column almost always has good information, quotes, and analysis. He thoughtfully segregates his travel stories, etc. from the football stuff so it is easy to skip the parts one doesn’t want to read.

Just my opinion. Also, in my opinion, the battle reds are awful. Red tops with white pants or blue tops with white pants look much better.[/quote]
I don’t know, I guess it’s a fine line between a column (print or electronic) and a blog.

For instance, I think Paul is more informal on UW than on a Page 2 column.

I dislike King and my opinion of his stuff wouldn’t change, but I think SI would do better giving him a blog where he could post daily tidbits. Even though I dislike him, I would find it interesting to see what he’s up to during the week. Both football and non-football related.

MMQB could be relegated to analysis/quotes of the week, rankings, awards and the normal football stuff. Then the column could be less than seven webpages!

Question: does MMQB appear in print in SI or only online?[/quote]
Agree, Kek, that a blog format would be easier to read.

[quote comment=”305919″][quote comment=”305909″][quote comment=”305907″][quote comment=”305905″]These players are given a free education in return for them being walking billboards and moneymakers for the school.

The NCAA says it is unethical if student atheltes draw a salary, because theyre supposed to be amateurs playing for the love of the game. Then out of the opposite sides of their mouth they tell them to wear some conglomerations corporate mark, because theyre making a lot of money by doing so.

They want it both ways.

Fuck them all![/quote]
Ahh yes, the pay athletes argument…

They get free room and board at a school that’ll cost a regular student ~$5K(in state, public) to ~$30K(Duke) per semester to attend. They get daily spending allowances. They get free merchandise, free travel, and a free education. They graduate debt-free.

Yea, they are paid. They are paid in the form of a scholarship that puts them in a significantly better opportunity long-term than the average student. They might not receive the money directly, but they receive the money.[/quote]

Thou shalt not disregard thine marketing agreement, no matter how much of an asshole it makes you look like.[/quote]

Just FYI, the majority of student athletes aren’t on a full ride. A quick internet search gives total number of NCAA athletes as over 400,000 students in 2006-2007 and 126,000 who receive scholarship (which include partial scholarships, which are probably more common than full rides).[/quote]
Even a partial scholly can be quite significant for a college student, especially when you add up how much the compensation is.

I mean, even a kid on a partial baseball scholarship at Duke, or out of state to UNC, Virginia, Michigan, etc is likely being compensated more overall than a player of equal skill playing A or AA baseball in the minors…

Just because they aren’t receiving a paycheck doesn’t mean they aren’t getting paid (i.e. compensated for their services)

[quote comment=”305920″][quote comment=”305915″][quote comment=”305911″]a) Coaches have been demanding “issue-only” gear since long before logo-ed endorsements. It’s just saying, “Wear team gear around the training facilities.” This, by virtually no measure, is harmful to the athletes.

b) Better to ponder this: If everyone is so worried about the tender psyches of these athletes, why do we put them in position to have millions watch them screw up? How do you think the Texas DB who booted that easy interception against Texas Tech is feeling these days? My guess: He’ll wake up dreaming about that sumbitch for the rest of his life. And I’ll bet there’ve been more than a couple times since that Saturday night that he’s wanted to just walk out in front of freeway traffic.

But, y’know, let’s just hope that seeing Nike logos in the weight room doesn’t stick with him.[/quote]

Its not about scarring the athletes. Its about cultivating corporate apologists like you that suck the soul from everything they touch.[/quote]

So forty years ago when coaches said to wear team-issued stuff in training room that was okay. But now, because that gear has a manufacturer logo, it’s wrong?[/quote]

I have no problem telling them you play for the Blues wear Blues stuff. Its when you have somebody in beaverton telling a kid on the podunk U football team wear this branded piece of sneaker company x’s apparel, or you cant use the gym of the school youre making money for.

Perhaps it wasnt as big of a deal 40 years ago because you drove your car to the stadium.

Today you drive your Eddie Bauer outfitted Cadilac SUV to corporate fuckhole field, to root for your high dollar coach who defected from another school with another marketing agreement, for a shot at the doritos-at&love- billywitchdoctor.com bowl. But you cant get in unless you turn your nike shirt inside out because were an addidas school.

Like I said…sucking the soul out.

[quote comment=”305927″]I have no problem telling them you play for the Blues wear Blues stuff. Its when you have somebody in beaverton telling a kid on the podunk U football team wear this branded piece of sneaker company x’s apparel, or you cant use the gym of the school youre making money for.
[/quote]
No, thats not the point

The point is that they’re telling them that if they don’t wear the logo’d sportswear, they can’t workout in that gym, the one that sponsor helps pay for. Thats perfectly fine. Why? Because thats the athlete’s only gym. Its not like they’re being disallowed from working out at school, they can use the one for the general student population, but if they want the priviledge of short lines, personalized staff, and facilities made just for you and your sport, then obide by the rules.

I don’t see where the problem is with that.

And, hey, I’m not saying we aren’t over-branded and over-retailed out (heard about Best Buy today?).

But, yeah, if coach says gotta wear team stuff, wear team stuff.
These days its gonna have a logo on it.

[quote comment=”305929″][quote comment=”305927″]I have no problem telling them you play for the Blues wear Blues stuff. Its when you have somebody in beaverton telling a kid on the podunk U football team wear this branded piece of sneaker company x’s apparel, or you cant use the gym of the school youre making money for.
[/quote]
No, thats not the point

The point is that they’re telling them that if they don’t wear the logo’d sportswear, they can’t workout in that gym, the one that sponsor helps pay for. Thats perfectly fine. Why? Because thats the athlete’s only gym. Its not like they’re being disallowed from working out at school, they can use the one for the general student population, but if they want the priviledge of short lines, personalized staff, and facilities made just for you and your sport, then obide by the rules.

I don’t see where the problem is with that.[/quote]

The shoe company gets recognition from the attention paid to the all to often atrocious jerseys and gear the players wear.

Why do they feel the need to dictate what brand you get to work out in.

Can a company be insecure? Do nike and addidas have tiny penises?

I could be wrong, but does anybody else think that not only the “A” may be different on the Philadelphia Flyers 3rd (retro) jersey, but the shade of orange , may be different as well, a tad more……well……orange, as opposed to an orangey red.

[quote comment=”305910″]The Buffalo Bisons have updated their webpage with their new Mets-color scheme. The logo will officially be unveiled tonight.

link

I think this logo and color scheme is an improvement over the previous. Green, red, black, and gold were a terrible change for a team that looked classy in navy and red. The smiling Buster Bison was awful. The charger bison is much better. I will wait to pass judgment on the uniforms until I see them.[/quote]

However … As a proud former Cross Country/Track member of the “Buffalo Grove Bison”, I must respectfully dispute the plural use of the team name. Now I’m going to go buy tickets for my favorite group, Phishes.

[quote comment=”305937″]
However … As a proud former Cross Country/Track member of the “Buffalo Grove Bison”, I must respectfully dispute the plural use of the team name. Now I’m going to go buy tickets for my favorite group, Phishes.[/quote]
Regardless of where you went to high school, “Bisons” is flat-out stupid. “Bison” is the correct plural form. It’s just like “deer” vs. “deers.”

Incidentally, I went to Fremd. So, hi, former sorta-neighbor.

Here is an image of the orioles “looks like a duck” cap from the 1998 season. the video was awesome, but they said they couldn’t find a cap from 1998. I googled and got this image. does resemble a duck in the breast area.

link

I think Wikipedia is compounding the problem (or maybe even started it). They use both dates out of some silly “compromise” between die-hards who use the real date (you know, the one the NFL uses) and the casual fans, who don’t understand.

Not the first time Wikipedia has put its official stamp on inaccurate information, and it won’t be the last. This is the essential problem – facts really ought not be decided by consensus.[/quote]

Dead on. Facts should be decided by a single person, preferably a Republican or old white British men.

link

If only we could get rid of that pesky free press now…

[quote comment=”305941″]Here is an image of the orioles “looks like a duck” cap from the 1998 season. the video was awesome, but they said they couldn’t find a cap from 1998. I googled and got this image. does resemble a duck in the breast area.

link

Does my heart good to see Elrod Hendricks. He was a pretty awesome person. Even if he is in a duck hat. :)

Nothing really to add. Just wow, my old high school (Bishop Ireton) got mentioned. Considering they aren’t exactly a sports powerhouse and fairly small student pop. wise, I can now say it is a small world after all.

[quote comment=”305830″][quote comment=”305776″]As for wedding bands for hockey players, my exposure to this in my leagues (FAR from NHL levels) is that guys take them off for fear of the sweat making them slip off and then losing them.

As for NHL players, I imagine fighters take them off because it’d be like having a mini set of brass knuckles on. Seeing Petr Sykora is not a rough player and rarely ever (I’ve never seen him) takes his gloves off in play, I can see why he’d leave it on. Thing is, you would only know if someone is wearing a ring when they take their gloves off in play, and the only ones who do this would be fighters and they would take the ring off in respect for the face they are about the bash in :)[/quote]
Here’s my take on the wearing of rings:
1. Rings are not to be worn because of the chance you may be in a fight.
2. Even in rec leagues (where there shouldn’t be fighting) no rings – I had a teammate who was slashed in the hand and his finger swelled so much that we had to cut his ring off.[/quote]

I played in the ECHL a few years ago, and a teammate of mine got his forehead split open in a fight because of a guy’s wedding ring. The guy couldn’t put his helmet on for a week.

“[I]n 2002, the Bills’ white uniforms went through a radical change. The white uniforms include a red stripe on the sides and are dark blue along the shoulders of the uniforms, likely to mimic CFL uniforms designed in a similar manner due to the team’s large fan base in Canada as a result of Buffalo’s proximity to Canada.”

First, the grammar tells me this is just opinion and has no factual basis.
Second, the same company made the uni’s.
Third, why would they try and mimic the competition that no one goes to see?
Fourth, Yes the Bills look a lot like Montreal…But why aren’t the Lions/Browns/Seahawks designed similarly ?

[quote comment=”305954″]the NFL doesn’t award some sort of All-American status to college players, does it? i ran into Mizzou TE Chase Coffman at dinner sunday night and he was wearing an NFL Equipment logo’d shirt with the words “2008 All-America Team” printed under the logo. anyone know anything about this?[/quote]

All the corporate dollars the team lost by choking the season away probably forced the college to print the all american shirts on blank nfl shirts :)

[quote comment=”305950″][quote comment=”305830″][quote comment=”305776″]As for wedding bands for hockey players, my exposure to this in my leagues (FAR from NHL levels) is that guys take them off for fear of the sweat making them slip off and then losing them.

As for NHL players, I imagine fighters take them off because it’d be like having a mini set of brass knuckles on. Seeing Petr Sykora is not a rough player and rarely ever (I’ve never seen him) takes his gloves off in play, I can see why he’d leave it on. Thing is, you would only know if someone is wearing a ring when they take their gloves off in play, and the only ones who do this would be fighters and they would take the ring off in respect for the face they are about the bash in :)[/quote]
Here’s my take on the wearing of rings:
1. Rings are not to be worn because of the chance you may be in a fight.
2. Even in rec leagues (where there shouldn’t be fighting) no rings – I had a teammate who was slashed in the hand and his finger swelled so much that we had to cut his ring off.[/quote]

I played in the ECHL a few years ago, and a teammate of mine got his forehead split open in a fight because of a guy’s wedding ring. The guy couldn’t put his helmet on for a week.[/quote]

I say, good for him…keep the rings on! Fighting still doesn’t put the puck in the net, so if you get clobbered by a ring because you’re too frustrated that you haven’t scored a goal since the turn of the century, you deserve it!

[quote comment=”305910″]The Buffalo Bisons have updated their webpage with their new Mets-color scheme. The logo will officially be unveiled tonight.

link

I think this logo and color scheme is an improvement over the previous. Green, red, black, and gold were a terrible change for a team that looked classy in navy and red. The smiling Buster Bison was awful. The charger bison is much better. I will wait to pass judgment on the uniforms until I see them.[/quote]

I like the new logo. And the article says the new uniforms will tie in to the Mets’ primary colors – blue and orange.

Any buzz about a Mets uni change? On some of the Mets forums, there are a few topics devoted to some buzz/rumors that there could be some major Mets uni changes. Some speculate a ditching of the black, others speculate the bringing back of the 1986-era look.

[quote comment=”305959″]…the article says the new uniforms will tie in to the Mets’ primary colors – blue and orange black.[/quote]

(fixed)

[quote comment=”305961″]Any buzz about a Mets uni change? On some of the Mets forums, there are a few topics devoted to some buzz/rumors that there could be some major Mets uni changes. Some speculate a ditching of the black, others speculate the bringing back of the 1986-era look.[/quote]

I was hoping a uni-change, but Im doubting it now..i figure they would do it before the holidays. But oh well, maybe next year…

The CFL uniforms were all redesigned for the 2005 season – and at that time three teams (Calgary, BC, Hamilton) adopted contrast color or outlined shoulder patterns. (link). Prior to that, no team had Buffalo styled shoulders.

The Bills adopted those shoulders in 2002.

Thankfully, the wikipedia entry has been corrected.

[quote comment=”305954″]the NFL doesn’t award some sort of All-American status to college players, does it? i ran into Mizzou TE Chase Coffman at dinner sunday night and he was wearing an NFL Equipment logo’d shirt with the words “2008 All-America Team” printed under the logo. anyone know anything about this?[/quote]

Reebok makes the NFL Equipment stuff and hands it out at plenty of events. Players at the U.S. Army All-American Bowl get the same gear, just unbranded. Coffman’s shirt may have been from Playboy, Santonio Holmes link in warmups back in 2005 at OSU (hmm, Reebok gear at one of Nike’s flagship schools).

Color-on-color alert at the Staples Center tonight. Knicks wearing blue, Lakers in yellow. Pretty good looking matchup.

[quote comment=”305972″]Nevermind on my previous comment. Guess that happens a lot when the Lakers play at home.[/quote]
Is that link?

[quote comment=”305974″]Heh. Yeah. My bad.[/quote]
Just fuckin’ witcha.

Actually, I happened to be looking for old Bulls photos because I was trying to figure out if they always looked like crap or if they actually used to look good.

So what the hell is it about the Bulls’ current uniforms? What they’re wearing now is essentially unchanged over the last 20+ years except for the fabric. But link (even with that goofball on the left) really does look much better than link.

I went to O’Connell. Pretty cool to see them featured on Uni Watch – but it should really be DC area basketball since both schools are in nothern virginia suburbs of the nation’s capital. Also, O’Connell has been wearing gray jerseys since at least 2000-2001 season (I am pretty sure that was the first year). I wonder if the person who sent those pics is from DJO or Ireton?

Forgot the link

link

[quote comment=”305943″][quote]I think Wikipedia is compounding the problem (or maybe even started it). They use both dates out of some silly “compromise” between die-hards who use the real date (you know, the one the NFL uses) and the casual fans, who don’t understand.

Not the first time Wikipedia has put its official stamp on inaccurate information, and it won’t be the last. This is the essential problem – facts really ought not be decided by consensus.[/quote]

Dead on. Facts should be decided by a single person, preferably a Republican or old white British men.

link

If only we could get rid of that pesky free press now…[/quote]

Adopting the standards of a free press would actually improve Wikipedia.

Don’t get me wrong – I use it frequently, but only as a source for links to real information. It has zero credibility on its own, aside from what it can borrow from other sources.

New UW football coach Steve Sarkisian is talking about changing the unis for next year.