And They Lost Again Anyway

is it just me, or did anyone happen to see a rather distinctive design element within that rear jersey pattern, reminiscent of something else?

Cool, you can see Charlie Whitman with his rifle in the tower.

A doctoral dissertation on sports memorabilia at Florida State, you say?

Perhaps it is like art appreciation, but I don’t think so.

What’s next? Perhaps ballparks.

[quote comment=”376957″]in the super bowl patch album, they seem to have nice attention to detail except super bowl 42 (giants-pats), they use the old giants \”giants\” helmet, not the \”NY.\” even stranger since they have it right for the giants-ravens super bowl a few years earlier.[/quote]

A friend of mine at work has this exact album. He brought it in, and aside from me saying the patches were not offically worn, I also noted the wrong Giants helmet. It appears the Cards helmet from last year is wrong also.

A few random thoughts on today’s post:

1. I wish M.X. safe travels cross country, and if that’s the membership card he’s going out on before he gets cracking again, wow….just outstanding.

2. I have that patch collection from Willowbee and Ward. It’s one of those companies you see in the Sunday ads like Franklin Mint, with collectibles. I’m a big Super Bowl history buff (love watching all the old highlight packages each year) and although, yes, the patches and some of the logos are inaccurate, they come on a cardstock of information both front and back regarding the game. They are a great keepsake. And this reminds me that I’ll be getting a new patch soon!

3. I’m not sure I agree with the corporate douchebaggery claim on Nike with Fujita (a.k.a. a muscular John Krasinski). First of all, the link you provide says he was warned several times. Second, as a paid endorser, I think you have to have more sense than that (just tape your ankles under your sock or wear a brace).

Put a white bar over your ads and see what kind of reaction you get from your advertisers.

I disagree wholeheartedly with Paul about the Texas lettering. Sure, the numerals could use a tweak.

But we should commend Nike for finally putting a little thought into their type treatments … rather than the bland, basic lettering seen on 95% of all Nike-made jerseys.

All hail Nike for exhibiting a wee bit of EFFORT!

[quote comment=”376965″][quote comment=”376961″][quote comment=”376954″]is it just me, or did anyone happen to see a rather link within that rear jersey pattern, reminiscent of something else?[/quote]

yeah, but isn’t that the main building on campus? (i honestly don’t know much about the university). it would be like pitt using the cathedral

link

oh, i know link, i just find the ‘imagery’ interesting…

considering it is some people’s contention (not mine) that nike PURPOSELY avoids any use (where possible) of straight lines in their designs (and prefers, shall we say…swooshy elements)

to use that particular element (graphic depiction of the main building/tower)…i just thought nike might wish to avoid such imagery…especially THREE *straight* lines[/quote]

oh! i totally gotcha now!!! i was wondering where you were going with that. great point though!

[quote comment=”376956″]Cool, you can see Charlie Whitman with his rifle in the tower.[/quote]

I know it’s just wrong, but this made me laugh.

Didn’t players used to draw the logo over top of the tape. Is that no longer allowed?

[quote comment=”376956″]Cool, you can see Charlie Whitman with his rifle in the tower.[/quote]

Some were dying, some were weeping,
Some were studying, some were sleeping,
Some were shouting “Texas # 1!”
Some were running, some were falling,
Some were screaming, some were bawling,
Some thought the revolution had begun.

more here: link

New changes to Shea Stadium

link

[quote comment=”376968″][quote comment=”376956″]Cool, you can see Charlie Whitman with his rifle in the tower.[/quote]

I know it’s just wrong, but this made me laugh.[/quote]

Me,too.

Scott Fujita puts tape on his shoes and Nike drops him.

Couldn’t they have come to some kind of compromise?

Maybe Mr. Fujita could have written, in Sharpie, “I love Nike!” on the tape. Or…”There is a Nike swoosh under this tape.”

Whatever happened with the NFL tweaks contest??

[quote comment=”376978″]Scott Fujita puts tape on his shoes and Nike drops him.

Couldn’t they have come to some kind of compromise?

Maybe Mr. Fujita could have written, in Sharpie, “I love Nike!” on the tape. Or…”There is a Nike swoosh under this tape.”[/quote]

What compromise? Fujita was paid to display the Nike swoosh while he played. He didn’t do that so he’s the one who broke the agreement. If he was going to spat his shoes, he shouldn’t have signed on with Nike.

Meanwhile, an average of 1.60 homers per game were hit at Citi Field last season, more than at five other NL ballparks – San Diego (1.59), San Francisco (1.59), Los Angeles (1.57), Atlanta (1.52) and St. Louis (1.48). And visiting teams actually hit two more homers at Citi Field last season than they did at Shea Stadium in ’08.

Ummm.. You still play 81 games a season at home right? That didn’t change last year?

Those stats sound like a talent problem, not so much a stadium problem.

[quote comment=”376977″]Hey, LarryB…

Could you colorize a photo of the current White Sox unis for us?

—Ricko
(THAT oughta get a good argument started)[/quote]

Yeah, because if there’s anything baseball needs it’s another team wearing a combination of blue and red.

In the sixth photo from that (GREAT!) ’38-’39 NHL scrapbook, Turk Broda and Gordon Drillon both have red lettering on their Maple Leafs logos. Anyone know if that color every actually appeared on the Leafs logo? Or is it just a function of sloppy colorization of the photos?

[quote comment=”376962″]A few random thoughts on today’s post:

3. I’m not sure I agree with the corporate douchebaggery claim on Nike with Fujita (a.k.a. a muscular John Krasinski). First of all, the link you provide says he was warned several times. Second, as a paid endorser, I think you have to have more sense than that (just tape your ankles under your sock or wear a brace).

Put a white bar over your ads and see what kind of reaction you get from your advertisers.[/quote]

I think everyone needs to re-read this comment. Put aside your blind hatred of NIKE and just think about it. Kek is 100% correct.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Hardly a day goes by here that I don’t learn something (aside from the obvious uni-related stuff).

I had no idea until that Staten Island was once known officially as link.

[quote comment=”376992″]I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Hardly a day goes by here that I don’t learn something (aside from the obvious uni-related stuff).

I had no idea until that Staten Island was once known officially as link.[/quote]
The name lives on – Staten Island is still Richmond County.

Well that sucks. Just can’t give ANYTHING for the pitchers, eh? Maybe some of us like low scoring pitching duels.

Doesn’t hurt the pitchers, to first order. What were doubles are now homers. They’re still not outs.

UNRETIRED NUMBERS ….. (Cont’d)

What other numbers have been un-retired?

Off the top of my head:

– When Jerry Rice was briefly with the Seahawks, he got Steve Largent’s permission to wear No. 80.

– Didn’t the White Sox retire Hal Baines’s number after his first stint with the team and then end up un-retiring it when he came back for a second tour of duty?

– MLB, No. 42, every April 15th.

I’m sure there are others….

__________________

The Saints Doug Atkins’ #81 was retired by the Saints for many years, then un-retired for use by pretty-much no-name WR’s in the early 1990’s prior to the NFL allowing #’s 10-19 to be used by WR’s — as the Saints had run out of numbers in the 80’s at that time.

I believe that other teams had similar situations at that time.

Well, this was poorly worded:

“…until 1975 until I saw that graphic …”

Better?

“Until I saw that graphic and looked it up, I just didn’t know that SI’s official designation was “Borough of Richmond” up through 1975.”

[quote comment=”376996″]Well that sucks. Just can’t give ANYTHING for the pitchers, eh? Maybe some of us like low scoring pitching duels.

Doesn’t hurt the pitchers, to first order. What were doubles are now homers. They’re still not outs.[/quote]

I know. But there’s always the psychological aspect to hitters that “oh now this park is a bit easier to jack it out of the park”. It’s frustrating and annoying to see batters fail inning after inning trying to break a tie game with a rare homer instead of manufacturing runs on the bases. But still I’d rather see that ball restricted to a double than a homer.

[quote comment=”376993″][quote comment=”376990″][quote comment=”376962″]A few random thoughts on today’s post:

3. I’m not sure I agree with the corporate douchebaggery claim on Nike with Fujita (a.k.a. a muscular John Krasinski). First of all, the link you provide says he was warned several times. Second, as a paid endorser, I think you have to have more sense than that (just tape your ankles under your sock or wear a brace).

Put a white bar over your ads and see what kind of reaction you get from your advertisers.[/quote]

I think everyone needs to re-read this comment. Put aside your blind hatred of NIKE and just think about it. Kek is 100% correct.[/quote]

There’s a huge difference, though KEK is correct, Paul also chooses his advertisers. It wasn’t too long ago Paul dropped one (I won’t name them) because they had offensive products.

Being branded by Nike is not a choice…so I would have done them same, just a piece of tape.[/quote]
Are you saying the player has no choice of what shoe they go with? That’s news to me.

[quote comment=”377003″][quote comment=”377002″][quote comment=”376996″]Well that sucks. Just can’t give ANYTHING for the pitchers, eh? Maybe some of us like low scoring pitching duels.

Doesn’t hurt the pitchers, to first order. What were doubles are now homers. They’re still not outs.[/quote]

I know. But there’s always the psychological aspect to hitters that “oh now this park is a bit easier to jack it out of the park”. It’s frustrating and annoying to see batters fail inning after inning trying to break a tie game with a rare homer instead of manufacturing runs on the bases. But still I’d rather see that ball restricted to a double than a homer.[/quote]
There’s always the possibility of turning that double into an out. With the fence lowered maybe an outfielder can catch a potential home run ball rather than just conceding the double and playing it off the wall.[/quote]

Well considering that their All-Star Slugger and Face of the Franchise hit just 10 HR last year, they should probably concentrate on playing small ball regardless.

[quote comment=”377004″][quote comment=”376993″]

Being branded by Nike is not a choice…so I would have done them same, just a piece of tape.[/quote]
Are you saying the player has no choice of what shoe they go with? That’s news to me.[/quote]

wait…what? (to pk’s comment)

i bust on nike when they deserve it, but they totally do NOT deserve a douchebag label here

player was warned…player repeated said violation…player gets dropped

player now free to wear some other shoe brand, but why should nike PAY HIM to wear their shoe if he’s not going to show their logo?

player=SOL
nike=not douchebags here

I took this pic with my cell phone at a local restaurant called Friendly’s. It’s there 1957 baseball team.

link

color-on-color in progress with a rare 11:05AM start time in the ECHL. Johnstown at Wheeling. The Nailers, a Pens’ affiliate, are in powder blue while the Chiefs have on their black sweaters.

[quote comment=”377013″]color-on-color in progress with a rare 11:05AM start time in the ECHL. Johnstown at Wheeling. The Nailers, a Pens’ affiliate, are in powder blue while the Chiefs have on their black sweaters.[/quote]

Those jerseys are blue on my copy… damn digitally remastered dvds.

[quote comment=”377016″][quote comment=”377011″]I took this pic with my cell phone at a local restaurant called Friendly’s. It’s there 1957 baseball team.

link

Isn’t Friendly’s a chain of restaurants?[/quote]

Yea, I believe they only have restaurants in the northeast, maybe only New England.

[quote comment=”377015″][quote comment=”377013″]color-on-color in progress with a rare 11:05AM start time in the ECHL. Johnstown at Wheeling. The Nailers, a Pens’ affiliate, are in powder blue while the Chiefs have on their black sweaters.[/quote]

Those jerseys are blue on my copy… damn digitally remastered dvds.[/quote]
at least you’ve finally watched the movie!

AHL is playing an outdoor game:

link

[quote comment=”377018″][quote comment=”377017″][quote comment=”377016″][quote comment=”377011″]I took this pic with my cell phone at a local restaurant called Friendly’s. It’s there 1957 baseball team.

link

Isn’t Friendly’s a chain of restaurants?[/quote]

Yea, I believe they only have restaurants in the northeast, maybe only New England.[/quote]
And I link why they haven’t gone nationwide yet.[/quote]

And free, to boot~! You can’t beat that. (groan: sorry, that was unintentional).

Still, how can they get away w/ giving that away??? unless it ‘s part of a bundled service?

O.M.God. As a high school football official, I want one of those Giants footballs with the officials mark so freaking bad.

Thanks again, Skiba.

I think the raffle should be kept to just those of us that responded to Skeebz’s original post.
yeah, that’s the ticket.

heh, just kidding, well not really, but yeah.

:-D

My favourite un-retired number story.

The CFL’s BC Lions retired Joe Kapp’s #22 (yes – he wore 22 up here) after he moved on to the Vikings.

In the early 90’s he became the General Manager of the Lions, and signed Doug Flutie. He unretired his own number to give it to Flutie.

Problem was – he was such a lousy GM, and left on such bad terms, that the Lions never bothered to “re-retire” his number, after his firing – so RB Jon Volpe got it for a few years.

The Lions eventually “re-retired” 22 – but it was interesting.

Tee Milwaukee Brewers have just unveiled a list of their promotions this year:

link

Highlights include:

– Bernie Brewer bobble
– 1970’s retro pennant featuring the Barrel Man Logo
– Negro League tribute: As part of the Brewers/New York Mets game, the Brewers will wear reproductions of uniforms worn by the Milwaukee Bears, the city’s 1923 representative in the Negro National League. (Will the Mets get in on this? I hope so)
– Cerveceros day
– Italian sausage bobble
– Miller Lite Beer Vendor bobble

[quote comment=”377031″]Tee Milwaukee Brewers have just unveiled a list of their promotions this year:

link

Highlights include:

– Bernie Brewer bobble
– 1970’s retro pennant featuring the Barrel Man Logo
– Negro League tribute: As part of the Brewers/New York Mets game, the Brewers will wear reproductions of uniforms worn by the Milwaukee Bears, the city’s 1923 representative in the Negro National League. (Will the Mets get in on this? I hope so)
– Cerveceros day
– Italian sausage bobble
– Miller Lite Beer Vendor bobble[/quote]
Nothing for Laverne and Shirley?

Stephen Andon said:
“I’m writing a dissertation on sports memorabilia in all of its many forms – from game-worn stuff to packaged dirt.”

Funny, I actually have some packaged dirt. My cousin took a field trip to Three Rivers Stadium back in the mid 70s and he scooped up some of the warning track for me.

Man…..

what I’d do for a Italian Sausage bobble from Miller Field!!!! :)

[quote comment=”376998″]UNRETIRED NUMBERS ….. (Cont’d)

What other numbers have been un-retired?

Off the top of my head:

– When Jerry Rice was briefly with the Seahawks, he got Steve Largent’s permission to wear No. 80.

– Didn’t the White Sox retire Hal Baines’s number after his first stint with the team and then end up un-retiring it when he came back for a second tour of duty?

– MLB, No. 42, every April 15th.

I’m sure there are others….

__________________

The Saints Doug Atkins’ #81 was retired by the Saints for many years, then un-retired for use by pretty-much no-name WR’s in the early 1990’s prior to the NFL allowing #’s 10-19 to be used by WR’s — as the Saints had run out of numbers in the 80’s at that time.

I believe that other teams had similar situations at that time.[/quote]

When Mario Lemieux (Pittsburgh Penguins) came out of retirement they made a big deal about taking his jersey down from the rafters.

[quote comment=”377039″][quote comment=”376998″]UNRETIRED NUMBERS ….. (Cont’d)

What other numbers have been un-retired?

Off the top of my head:

– When Jerry Rice was briefly with the Seahawks, he got Steve Largent’s permission to wear No. 80.

– Didn’t the White Sox retire Hal Baines’s number after his first stint with the team and then end up un-retiring it when he came back for a second tour of duty?

– MLB, No. 42, every April 15th.

I’m sure there are others….

__________________

The Saints Doug Atkins’ #81 was retired by the Saints for many years, then un-retired for use by pretty-much no-name WR’s in the early 1990’s prior to the NFL allowing #’s 10-19 to be used by WR’s — as the Saints had run out of numbers in the 80’s at that time.

I believe that other teams had similar situations at that time.[/quote]

When Mario Lemieux (Pittsburgh Penguins) came out of retirement they made a big deal about taking his jersey down from the rafters.[/quote]
Are we considering unofficially retired numbers as well? If so…
The Vancouver Canucks have mothballed #11 for Wayne Maki after his passing, only to reappear for Mark Messier.
Tradition-unaware Steve Spurrier allowed some numbers to come back. Danny Wuerffel and Shane Matthews briefly wore #7 and 9; both quickly switched to 17 and 6, respectively. I think #49 actually saw regular season action, under honoree Bobby Mitchell’s watch. (And a quick Wikipedia search suggests Sam Huff’s #70 came back for Leonard Marshall.)
I always thought the Saints retired #51 for Sam Mills. Apparently not, because of Jonathan Vilma.
And of course, the Mets #24. Not worn after Willie Mays, except for Kelvin Torver (until the equipment manager was cured from his brain cramp) and for the slightly more notable Rickey Henderson.

[quote comment=”377039″][quote comment=”376998″]UNRETIRED NUMBERS ….. (Cont’d)

What other numbers have been un-retired?

Off the top of my head:

– When Jerry Rice was briefly with the Seahawks, he got Steve Largent’s permission to wear No. 80.

– Didn’t the White Sox retire Hal Baines’s number after his first stint with the team and then end up un-retiring it when he came back for a second tour of duty?

– MLB, No. 42, every April 15th.

I’m sure there are others….

__________________

The Saints Doug Atkins’ #81 was retired by the Saints for many years, then un-retired for use by pretty-much no-name WR’s in the early 1990’s prior to the NFL allowing #’s 10-19 to be used by WR’s — as the Saints had run out of numbers in the 80’s at that time.

I believe that other teams had similar situations at that time.[/quote]

When Mario Lemieux (Pittsburgh Penguins) came out of retirement they made a big deal about taking his jersey down from the rafters.[/quote]

lol. who made a big deal?

[quote comment=”377043″][quote comment=”377040″][quote comment=”377005″][quote comment=”376989″][quote comment=”376986″][quote comment=”376977″]Hey, LarryB…

Could you colorize a photo of the current White Sox unis for us?

—Ricko
(THAT oughta get a good argument started)[/quote]

Yeah, because if there’s anything baseball needs it’s another team wearing a combination of blue and red.[/quote]

And what’s wrong with blue & red? I wish the White Sox would go back to navy & red. So sick of the black, it makes such boring gear. The real problem in MLB is maroon, kelly & brown being completely ignored while other colors like orange, royal, Athletic Gold, forest green and until recently powder blue barely being used at all. But there’s also the fact that there’s only so many color schemes out there. Tampa could had been maroon & Athletic Gold, but instead choose to be Yankees wannabes. I don’t know why Houston is brick, coal & sand, or San Diego is navy & sand, or the White Sox in black & silver, or the Brewers in dark blue & gold. A few tweeks and it wouldn’t be so bad.[/quote]

Well, Ricko wanted to start an argument…

What’s wrong with blue & red? Half the league wears blue hats. That’s what’s wrong with putting another team in one.

You said yourself that there’s too many underused colors.[/quote]

Yeah there may be too many red & blue teams, but I wouldn’t mind my team being in those colors again. What teams would you nominate to get rid of the red &/or blue?

Navy & red: Red Sox, Twins, Indians, Braves, Nationals road, Cardinals road
Navy & orange: Tigers road
Navy & gold/sand: Brewers, Padres
Navy & Northwest green: Mariners
Navy & powder blue: Rays
Navy: Yankees, Tigers home
Red & navy: Angels, Nationals home, Cardinals home
Red & royal: Phillies
Red & black: Reds
Royal & red: Rangers, Dodgers, Cubs
Royal & gold: Royals
Forest green: A’s
Black & etc: Orioles, White Sox, Pirates, Giants, Mets, Marlins, Astros, D-Backs, Rockies, Blue Jays

The problem is you got 12 teams in navy & 10 in black which is too much darkness. There’s at least 5 teams in black that should change to an obvious different color scheme.[/quote]

I’d nominate the Astros going back to predominantly orange (with navy). And bring back the H on the Star caps.[/quote]
Mets can go back to orange and blue immediately. Blue Jays can stop being the Black Jays. Marlins could use a little more teal. And the DBacks look more I-think-they-call-it-“Sedona” red than black to me, but truth is, they have a superfluous black set which I wouldn’t miss.
That’s four. Now if certain teams (esp. the Brewers and A’s) could lighten up their shades, the Majors would look better already.

One more retired number – I don’t have any evidence of this, but I assume that when Jim Palmer made his short comeback in 1991, he wore his own (retired) number.

[quote comment=”376997″]RE: Penn State throwbacks

Note the navy keystone on the side of the shorts.[/quote]

Oh yeah, I’d wear that!

[quote comment=”377042″]
I always thought the Saints retired #51 for Sam Mills. Apparently not, because of Jonathan Vilma.
[/quote]
I thought it was retired, too. Apparently not, according to link

But #31 is on that list of retired numbers for the Saints, yet it’s being worn by link.

[quote comment=”377052″][quote comment=”377042″]
I always thought the Saints retired #51 for Sam Mills. Apparently not, because of Jonathan Vilma.
[/quote]
I thought it was retired, too. Apparently not, according to link

But #31 is on that list of retired numbers for the Saints, yet it’s being worn by link.[/quote]
Well, despite its omission from that list, thus “clearly not retired,” good to see Archie’s #8 not in circulation.

[quote comment=”377040″]

Yeah there may be too many red & blue teams, but I wouldn’t mind my team being in those colors again. What teams would you nominate to get rid of the red &/or blue?

Navy & red: Red Sox, Twins, Indians, Braves, Nationals road, Cardinals road
Navy & orange: Tigers road
Navy & gold/sand: Brewers, Padres
Navy & Northwest green: Mariners
Navy & powder blue: Rays
Navy: Yankees, Tigers home
Red & navy: Angels, Nationals home, Cardinals home
Red & royal: Phillies
Red & black: Reds
Royal & red: Rangers, Dodgers, Cubs
Royal & gold: Royals
Forest green: A’s
Black & etc: Orioles, White Sox, Pirates, Giants, Mets, Marlins, Astros, D-Backs, Rockies, Blue Jays

The problem is you got 12 teams in navy & 10 in black which is too much darkness. There’s at least 5 teams in black that should change to an obvious different color scheme.[/quote]

Easiest solution without totally screwing around with all of the teams – just switch primary & secondary colors for a few teams. The Tigers could use orange(tigers are orange after-all), the Brewers could use gold (the color of beer), the Rays could wear the powder blue, etc. I don’t think the Cardinals should wear blue at all. …and I’m sure a couple teams could get away with white or gray hats without changing any other part of their uniforms.

Smmy Baugh’s “33” is the only “officially” number retired by Washington, although there are several unofficial retirees. Clueless Spurrier had wuerfell and matthews wearing 7 and 9, but it didn’t get past training camp. Mitchell’s “49” however was worn during the season and was part of the reason he says he retired the following year after decades as a player and front office member. another reason to criticize snyder (as if any more were needed).

[quote comment=”377057″]Hey Uni Watchers!

I’m looking for a link to the site that Paul spoke about last winter/spring. The site sold custom-made uniform frames to be sold as keepsakes and such. Tried searching, but just can’t think of the name.

Thanks![/quote]

this?

[quote comment=”377055″][quote comment=”377053″]And potentially one more example of a number coming out of retirement.
link
Really, Seattle? Jim Zorn’s the best quarterback you’ve ever had, responsible for a good portion of Steve Largent’s touchdowns, and you give it to the kicker? Maybe Zorn’s #10 was never retired or given the special mothball treatment, in which case I’ll take back this statement, but be surprised.[/quote]
link[/quote]

Now if you’re going to picture him, use the best uni you can…
link

And easy on the kickers…after all, they put the foot in football.

By the way, only the numbers 12 and 80 are retired by the Seahawks.

[quote comment=”377035″]Stephen Andon said:
“I’m writing a dissertation on sports memorabilia in all of its many forms – from game-worn stuff to packaged dirt.”

Funny, I actually have some packaged dirt. My cousin took a field trip to Three Rivers Stadium back in the mid 70s and he scooped up some of the warning track for me.[/quote]
From the warning track? I always thought that was just brown astroturf.

[quote comment=”377055″][quote comment=”377053″]And potentially one more example of a number coming out of retirement.
link
Really, Seattle? Jim Zorn’s the best quarterback you’ve ever had, responsible for a good portion of Steve Largent’s touchdowns, and you give it to the kicker? Maybe Zorn’s #10 was never retired or given the special mothball treatment, in which case I’ll take back this statement, but be surprised.[/quote]
link[/quote]

A lot of people would argue about him being the best the team ever had, however, he was the first star qb the team ever had, he’s literally been there since day one of the franchise, and he was Matt Hasselbeck’s coach for the team’s first Super Bowl. His number should be retired by the Seahawks right now. I respect Olindo Mare, however, his number should be 3, 6,or, 9.

link

[quote comment=”377063″][quote comment=”377062″]
By the way, only the numbers 12 and 80 are retired by the Seahawks.[/quote]

80–that’s for jerry rice, yes?[/quote]

isn’t 12 for franco harris?

The Red Wings have not retired number 6 for Larry Aurie but it is out of circulation and no one has wore it since Cumming Burton in 58-59.

I think some probably already been mention so forgive me if it has (I have been sick since Sunday) but the Lions unretired Joe Schmidt’s 56 (with his blessing) when they signed that useless lump Pat Swilling.

[quote comment=”377068″][quote comment=”377063″][quote comment=”377062″]
By the way, only the numbers 12 and 80 are retired by the Seahawks.[/quote]

80–that’s for jerry rice, yes?[/quote]

isn’t 12 for franco harris?[/quote]

12 is for the “Twelfth Man” (the Seahawks fans)
Franco wore 34.

[quote comment=”377073″][quote comment=”377072″][quote comment=”377068″][quote comment=”377063″][quote comment=”377062″]
By the way, only the numbers 12 and 80 are retired by the Seahawks.[/quote]

80–that’s for jerry rice, yes?[/quote]

isn’t 12 for franco harris?[/quote]

12 is for the “Twelfth Man” (the Seahawks fans)
Franco wore 34.[/quote]

link[/quote]

I meant because he was only a shell of his former self..

I am seeking a detailed photo or illustration of the Northern League Aberdeen Pheasants logo that was worn on the uniform sleeve circa 1955-1963 (?) when the team was an affiliate of the Baltimore Orioles. Any information would be greatly appreciated.

link

[quote comment=”377065″]The guys at MyDomz really want to let me know that the IU hat actually does have stripes on it. In addition to link, I got this one today:

Hi James,

MyDomz[/quote]

Translation:

Buy the damned hat, already!!!!!

;)

[quote comment=”377011″]I took this pic with my cell phone at a local restaurant called Friendly’s. It’s there 1957 baseball team.

link

I’ve seen that picture . . .Plymouth, MA??

[quote comment=”377043″][quote comment=”377040″]The problem is you got 12 teams in navy & 10 in black which is too much darkness. There’s at least 5 teams in black that should change to an obvious different color scheme.[/quote]

I’d nominate the Astros going back to predominantly orange (with navy). And bring back the H on the Star caps.[/quote]

Yes, please bring back the orange.

I’m not one of the “must wear white at home and gray on the road” guys, but I could be turned if the hats and trim had more variety. Orange Astros hats, teal Marlins hats, gold Pirates hats, orange Mets hats (just seeing if you’re awake, Phil), etc.

[quote comment=”377063″][quote comment=”377062″]
By the way, only the numbers 12 and 80 are retired by the Seahawks.[/quote]

80–that’s for jerry rice, yes?[/quote]

He may be the best receiver ever, but he wasn’t the best Seahawks receiver ever.

/just sayin’

[quote comment=”377064″][quote comment=”377035″]Stephen Andon said:
“I’m writing a dissertation on sports memorabilia in all of its many forms – from game-worn stuff to packaged dirt.”

Funny, I actually have some packaged dirt. My cousin took a field trip to Three Rivers Stadium back in the mid 70s and he scooped up some of the warning track for me.[/quote]
From the warning track? I always thought that was just brown astroturf.[/quote]

It’s more like hardened clay bits. Maybe towards the end they put in a rubberized track, but this stuff definitely isn’t rubber. He might have gotten it from the dugout area or something.

[quote comment=”377080″]Why do they need “lighter” uniforms? I mean really, if you have ever held a team issue jersey or pair of shorts, they don’t feel heavy at all.
Nike has already done away with the inside liner on the team issue shorts, heck, you can even see through the white ones a little! Do they want the uniforms so light that the players feel naked?
On a personal note, I like the feel of “heavier” or lined, shorts. The heft gives them a good ‘swing’ when you are playing.[/quote]

If you wear your shorts right, link there shouldn’t be any swing at all…

[quote comment=”377089″][quote comment=”377080″]Why do they need “lighter” uniforms? I mean really, if you have ever held a team issue jersey or pair of shorts, they don’t feel heavy at all.
Nike has already done away with the inside liner on the team issue shorts, heck, you can even see through the white ones a little! Do they want the uniforms so light that the players feel naked?
On a personal note, I like the feel of “heavier” or lined, shorts. The heft gives them a good ‘swing’ when you are playing.[/quote]

If you wear your shorts right, link there shouldn’t be any swing at all…[/quote]
And you wonder why there are some folks here who think you’re in your 80s.

[quote comment=”377089″][quote comment=”377080″]Why do they need “lighter” uniforms? I mean really, if you have ever held a team issue jersey or pair of shorts, they don’t feel heavy at all.
Nike has already done away with the inside liner on the team issue shorts, heck, you can even see through the white ones a little! Do they want the uniforms so light that the players feel naked?
On a personal note, I like the feel of “heavier” or lined, shorts. The heft gives them a good ‘swing’ when you are playing.[/quote]

If you wear your shorts right, link there shouldn’t be any swing at all…[/quote]
Oh I wore them like that back in the day….and believe me, the less of my legs you see, the better!

[quote comment=”377090″] One of the things I did was grab a handful of dirt from the home plate area and shoved it in my pocket. When I got home, I put it in a baggie and it sat in my sock drawer for years.[/quote]

that’s what i told my old man it was too, when he discovered a baggie full of stuff in my sock drawer

[quote comment=”377095″][quote comment=”377090″] One of the things I did was grab a handful of dirt from the home plate area and shoved it in my pocket. When I got home, I put it in a baggie and it sat in my sock drawer for years.[/quote]

that’s what i told my old man it was too, when he discovered a baggie full of stuff in my sock drawer[/quote]

That’s where the plan fell apart.

Phil: “I got it at Wrigley!”
Phil’s dad: “We’ve never been to Wrigley, son.”
Phil: “Are you sure?”

[quote comment=”377098″]can someone shed light on the start time of todays devils/flyers game? (it’s on now)[/quote]

That’s last night’s game on replay, Leon. I can ruin the ending for you if you like.

Hey everybody, this is Stephen the dissertation guy from Paul’s post. I just wanted to thank everyone for getting in touch with me and promise I will touch base with you all. Since I’ve gotten a couple of questions about it already, I wanted to inform you that I will be sharing my work when it’s all said and done in a couple months. Thanks again!

[quote comment=”377100″][quote comment=”377099″][quote comment=”377098″]can someone shed light on the start time of todays devils/flyers game? (it’s on now)[/quote]

That’s last night’s game on replay, Leon. I can ruin the ending for you if you like.[/quote]

i think leon’s been in my sock drawer[/quote]
LOL
Next you’ll be telling me there’s a way to change channels w/o getting out of one’s seat. I thought the first intermission flew by. Going to check my sock drawer now. If anyone wants to know, it’s 2-0 devils right now.

[quote comment=”377104″][quote comment=”376988″]In the sixth photo from that (GREAT!) ’38-’39 NHL scrapbook, Turk Broda and Gordon Drillon both have red lettering on their Maple Leafs logos. Anyone know if that color every actually appeared on the Leafs logo? Or is it just a function of sloppy colorization of the photos?[/quote]
It sure did.

link Per NHL uniforms, which means the e-bay auction is wrong about it being from a single season or NHL uniforms is wrong about when they used the red.

Here’s a link from the ’46 season, which would seem to confirm NHL uniforms’ take on things.[/quote]

If you look closely, it is a scrapbook of various articles and pictures from various eras of newspapers. It’s not even NHL-endorsed. Someone is fleecing someone else on eBay (I know… a shock!).

To be honest, it’s a nice scrapbook, but the execution is, quite frankly, horrible.

[quote comment=”377105″][quote comment=”377104″][quote comment=”376988″]In the sixth photo from that (GREAT!) ’38-’39 NHL scrapbook, Turk Broda and Gordon Drillon both have red lettering on their Maple Leafs logos. Anyone know if that color every actually appeared on the Leafs logo? Or is it just a function of sloppy colorization of the photos?[/quote]
It sure did.

link Per NHL uniforms, which means the e-bay auction is wrong about it being from a single season or NHL uniforms is wrong about when they used the red.

Here’s a link from the ’46 season, which would seem to confirm NHL uniforms’ take on things.[/quote]

If you look closely, it is a scrapbook of various articles and pictures from various eras of newspapers. It’s not even NHL-endorsed. Someone is fleecing someone else on eBay (I know… a shock!).

To be honest, it’s a nice scrapbook, but the execution is, quite frankly, horrible.[/quote]

That’s what I suspected. But it’s still a bunch of cool old hockey photos.

I just watched that Doc Ellis video again. I have no clue how many times that is now for me. I’ve been trying to share it with everyone I know.
If for some reason you have yet to watch it for the fifth or sixth time, I recommend that you do so.

[quote comment=”376982″][quote comment=”376978″]Scott Fujita puts tape on his shoes and Nike drops him.

Couldn’t they have come to some kind of compromise?

Maybe Mr. Fujita could have written, in Sharpie, “I love Nike!” on the tape. Or…”There is a Nike swoosh under this tape.”[/quote]

What compromise? Fujita was paid to display the Nike swoosh while he played. He didn’t do that so he’s the one who broke the agreement. If he was going to spat his shoes, he shouldn’t have signed on with Nike.[/quote]

I responded without knowing any details of the…uh…violation. There probably is some very specific stipulation in the contract regarding the obscuring of the logo on the shoe. Fujita probably did violate the terms of his contract and was released accordingly.

That said. It’s the spirit of the dispute which bothers me. Nike wants it all, they want now, and they will not be stopped. Yes, they are within their legal rights and it is the American way and all…but.

It’s one guy’s frickin football shoes.

Look outside your window right now and you’ll probably see the Nike swoosh on something…a little kid’s school backpack…the grocery clerk’s shirt…the homeless guy under the bridge is wearing a Nike baseball hat….Grandma’s sweater….every piece of equipment on every damn college team…high school team…little league team…and on and on and on.

Nike has succeeded!

Congratulations to the corporation. You are onmipresent.

[quote comment=”377112″][quote comment=”376982″][quote comment=”376978″]Scott Fujita puts tape on his shoes and Nike drops him.

Couldn’t they have come to some kind of compromise?

Maybe Mr. Fujita could have written, in Sharpie, “I love Nike!” on the tape. Or…”There is a Nike swoosh under this tape.”[/quote]

What compromise? Fujita was paid to display the Nike swoosh while he played. He didn’t do that so he’s the one who broke the agreement. If he was going to spat his shoes, he shouldn’t have signed on with Nike.[/quote]

I responded without knowing any details of the…uh…violation. There probably is some very specific stipulation in the contract regarding the obscuring of the logo on the shoe. Fujita probably did violate the terms of his contract and was released accordingly.

That said. It’s the spirit of the dispute which bothers me. Nike wants it all, they want now, and they will not be stopped. Yes, they are within their legal rights and it is the American way and all…but.

It’s one guy’s frickin football shoes.

Look outside your window right now and you’ll probably see the Nike swoosh on something…a little kid’s school backpack…the grocery clerk’s shirt…the homeless guy under the bridge is wearing a Nike baseball hat….Grandma’s sweater….every piece of equipment on every damn college team…high school team…little league team…and on and on and on.

Nike has succeeded!

Congratulations to the corporation. You are onmipresent.[/quote]
Let me get this straight, ABC Corporation has a written agreement with Player #1. ABC Corporation agrees to not only give Player #1 money, but free product. In return, all Player #1 has to do is display the logo of said product.

Player #1 covers up the logo not once, not twice, not thrice, not four times, not five times, not six times but seven times. Despite being warned by ABC Corporation that he should not cover the logo of their product, Player #1 goes ahead and decides to yet again cover the logo of ABC Corporation’s product. Not only does he cover the logo but does it on the biggest stage of the game (not to mention the largest television audience of all time).

Sorry, but the only douchebag in this situation is Fujita. You’re just not going to convince me otherwise.

[quote comment=”377114″][quote comment=”377112″][quote comment=”376982″][quote comment=”376978″]Scott Fujita puts tape on his shoes and Nike drops him.

Couldn’t they have come to some kind of compromise?

Maybe Mr. Fujita could have written, in Sharpie, “I love Nike!” on the tape. Or…”There is a Nike swoosh under this tape.”[/quote]

What compromise? Fujita was paid to display the Nike swoosh while he played. He didn’t do that so he’s the one who broke the agreement. If he was going to spat his shoes, he shouldn’t have signed on with Nike.[/quote]

I responded without knowing any details of the…uh…violation. There probably is some very specific stipulation in the contract regarding the obscuring of the logo on the shoe. Fujita probably did violate the terms of his contract and was released accordingly.

That said. It’s the spirit of the dispute which bothers me. Nike wants it all, they want now, and they will not be stopped. Yes, they are within their legal rights and it is the American way and all…but.

It’s one guy’s frickin football shoes.

Look outside your window right now and you’ll probably see the Nike swoosh on something…a little kid’s school backpack…the grocery clerk’s shirt…the homeless guy under the bridge is wearing a Nike baseball hat….Grandma’s sweater….every piece of equipment on every damn college team…high school team…little league team…and on and on and on.

Nike has succeeded!

Congratulations to the corporation. You are onmipresent.[/quote]
Let me get this straight, ABC Corporation has a written agreement with Player #1. ABC Corporation agrees to not only give Player #1 money, but free product. In return, all Player #1 has to do is display the logo of said product.

Player #1 covers up the logo not once, not twice, not thrice, not four times, not five times, not six times but seven times. Despite being warned by ABC Corporation that he should not cover the logo of their product, Player #1 goes ahead and decides to yet again cover the logo of ABC Corporation’s product. Not only does he cover the logo but does it on the biggest stage of the game (not to mention the largest television audience of all time).

Sorry, but the only douchebag in this situation is Fujita. You’re just not going to convince me otherwise.[/quote]

Fujita saw the green Nike offered and jumped at the opportunity. Then he went and violated the contract. He was wrong to do so. I have no argument. I am not defending Fujita.

I did not describe Nike as… “douchebag.” I tried to convey them as a corporation looking to take over the world. Is there anything wrong or illegal about that? No. Distasteful and depressing? In my opinion, yes. Was Nike wrong to drop Fujita? No. Do they have my sympathies?

[quote comment=”377117″][quote comment=”377115″]
Can’t you see? They’re all douchebags.[/quote]

um…no

nike is not the douchebag this time[/quote]
You can’t prove that.

[quote comment=”377117″][quote comment=”377115″]
Can’t you see? They’re all douchebags.[/quote]

um…no

nike is not the douchebag this time[/quote]
No.
It’s everyone. Fujita douched it up pretty good.
Nike knows of no other way.

To Fujitas’s credit, he did show a surprising amount of support for gay people after Larry Johnson’s comments on Twitter.
Maybe that’s the real reason Nike dropped him. Yeah. I’m pretty sure that’s it.

[quote comment=”377119″][quote comment=”377112″][quote comment=”376982″][quote comment=”376978″]Scott Fujita puts tape on his shoes and Nike drops him.

Couldn’t they have come to some kind of compromise?

Maybe Mr. Fujita could have written, in Sharpie, “I love Nike!” on the tape. Or…”There is a Nike swoosh under this tape.”[/quote]

What compromise? Fujita was paid to display the Nike swoosh while he played. He didn’t do that so he’s the one who broke the agreement. If he was going to spat his shoes, he shouldn’t have signed on with Nike.[/quote]

I responded without knowing any details of the…uh…violation. There probably is some very specific stipulation in the contract regarding the obscuring of the logo on the shoe. Fujita probably did violate the terms of his contract and was released accordingly.

That said. It’s the spirit of the dispute which bothers me. Nike wants it all, they want now, and they will not be stopped. Yes, they are within their legal rights and it is the American way and all…but.

It’s one guy’s frickin football shoes.

Look outside your window right now and you’ll probably see the Nike swoosh on something…a little kid’s school backpack…the grocery clerk’s shirt…the homeless guy under the bridge is wearing a Nike baseball hat….Grandma’s sweater….every piece of equipment on every damn college team…high school team…little league team…and on and on and on.

Nike has succeeded!

Congratulations to the corporation. You are onmipresent.[/quote]

And congratulations to Jim, for saying it better than I could. Thanks, buddy.[/quote]
grrrrrrr….

I think it’s a safe assumption that the two parties here, Nike and Fujita, have a written agreement. In the United States, I believe that’s also known as a contract.

You know what else is a contract? Rental agreements and mortgages. Let’s all stop paying our rent or mortgage because our landlord or the bank are “douches”.

I’ll wait here and see how that works out.

[quote comment=”377122″][quote comment=”377119″][quote comment=”377112″][quote comment=”376982″][quote comment=”376978″]Scott Fujita puts tape on his shoes and Nike drops him.

Couldn’t they have come to some kind of compromise?

Maybe Mr. Fujita could have written, in Sharpie, “I love Nike!” on the tape. Or…”There is a Nike swoosh under this tape.”[/quote]

What compromise? Fujita was paid to display the Nike swoosh while he played. He didn’t do that so he’s the one who broke the agreement. If he was going to spat his shoes, he shouldn’t have signed on with Nike.[/quote]

I responded without knowing any details of the…uh…violation. There probably is some very specific stipulation in the contract regarding the obscuring of the logo on the shoe. Fujita probably did violate the terms of his contract and was released accordingly.

That said. It’s the spirit of the dispute which bothers me. Nike wants it all, they want now, and they will not be stopped. Yes, they are within their legal rights and it is the American way and all…but.

It’s one guy’s frickin football shoes.

Look outside your window right now and you’ll probably see the Nike swoosh on something…a little kid’s school backpack…the grocery clerk’s shirt…the homeless guy under the bridge is wearing a Nike baseball hat….Grandma’s sweater….every piece of equipment on every damn college team…high school team…little league team…and on and on and on.

Nike has succeeded!

Congratulations to the corporation. You are onmipresent.[/quote]

And congratulations to Jim, for saying it better than I could. Thanks, buddy.[/quote]
grrrrrrr….

I think it’s a safe assumption that the two parties here, Nike and Fujita, have a written agreement. In the United States, I believe that’s also known as a contract.

You know what else is a contract? Rental agreements and mortgages. Let’s all stop paying our rent or mortgage because our landlord or the bank are “douches”.

I’ll wait here and see how that works out.[/quote]
Don’t do it, people! Those douchebags will throw you out on the street.

[quote comment=”377121″][quote comment=”377118″][quote comment=”377117″][quote comment=”377115″]
Can’t you see? They’re all douchebags.[/quote]

um…no

nike is not the douchebag this time[/quote]
You can’t prove that.[/quote]

no…no i can’t prove that

and there are three sides to every story

but i do know this…

this isn’t jordan or some nike tool covering up the 3 stripes with a piece of tape or some poor bastid on a college team being FORCED to wear nikes when they are too narrow for his feet

this is a professional athlete who signed a contract to wear nike product, for which i am sure he is paid, and with that contract comes a stipulation that the nike logo be shown…he covers it up MULTIPLE times and each time he is told DON’T DO THAT

nike makes shoes that he could spat (where the logo is down by the toes, which i frikkin hate) but he insists on violating his contract by covering up the logo…not once, not twice, but many times

now, i don’t know whether nike approached him with an alternate plan or shoe or whether he was presented with other options — but apparently neither he nor nike was willing to explore mutually acceptable alternatives or were able to come to a mutually acceptable agreement (the three sides)

but i really don’t think nike is the douchebag here; if he violated the terms of his contract they should be within their rights to terminate said contract

that’s not being douchebaggish

hate nike all you want, and you have every reason to — the singlehandly almost ruined college football tradition this year…but in this instance, i gotta side with the swoosh…

unless you can prove me wrong (and in this case, i’d like to be proven wrong)[/quote]
well said Phil, you articulated that way better than me, thanks!

Have only found one photo of the Bradley black unis. It has a hyphenated NOB as well

link

[quote comment=”377081″][quote comment=”377011″]I took this pic with my cell phone at a local restaurant called Friendly’s. It’s there 1957 baseball team.

link

I’ve seen that picture . . .Plymouth, MA??[/quote]

North Haven, CT

[quote comment=”377121″]
hate nike all you want, and you have every reason to — the singlehandly almost ruined college football tradition this year…but in this instance, i gotta side with the swoosh…

unless you can prove me wrong (and in this case, i’d like to be proven wrong)[/quote]
Ain’t no time to hate.
Barely time to wait.

Dude, all I’m saying is that you can’t absolve Nike of complicity here because you don’t know all the facts.

I’m not saying Fujita isn’t in the wrong here. I’m not saying Nike isn’t in the right. And really, I don’t give a shit one way or the other.

Chris Dodd just brought up logo creep in a way on the Colbert Report, they were talking about corporations backing politicians, Dodd said something along the lines of “eventually we’d have senators with logos all over their shirts, like in nascar” he gets it, kinda

[quote comment=”377135″][quote comment=”377134″]Chris Dodd just brought up logo creep in a way on the Colbert Report, they were talking about corporations backing politicians, Dodd said something along the lines of “eventually we’d have senators with logos all over their shirts, like in nascar”

he gets it, kinda[/quote]

he wasn’t wearing a countrywide t-shirt, was he?[/quote]

no sir.

not sure bout that story

[quote comment=”377138″]
All this talk about Fujita…were you criticizing and slamming Reebok, for example, when they were trying to force Marcin Gortat to cover up his Jordan tattoo. A tattoo by the way he had BEFORE Reebok gave him a deal. So which company is really the one deserving of our ill words…the one that just wanted someone to live up to a contract? Yes, a very, probably unnecessarily strict contract…but both sides did agree to it. OR the company that signed someone up without knowing they had a rivals logo tattooed on his leg, then tried to make him cover it up without anything to back up their attempts to force him to do so?[/quote]

The amazing thing is…

Yes Reebok WAS criticized, heavily, for that act. And the same for reason Reebok deserved to be criticized in that instance, Nike really doesn’t deserve to be criticized here.

[quote comment=”377100″][quote comment=”377099″][quote comment=”377098″]can someone shed light on the start time of todays devils/flyers game? (it’s on now)[/quote]

That’s last night’s game on replay, Leon. I can ruin the ending for you if you like.[/quote]

i think leon’s been in my sock drawer[/quote]
Post of the day!

[quote comment=”377178″][quote comment=”377094″][quote comment=”377092″][quote comment=”377089″]If you wear your shorts right, link there shouldn’t be any swing at all…[/quote]

I liked the Spurs’ western stitching on the back of their shorts, which I believe Gervin is wearing.[/quote]

It didn’t look as good on the warmups, though.
link
What an awesome picture of the IceMan… is that anyone on this MB? What a wonderful memento![/quote]

Nah, I just found that picture online. Never noticed the fake pockets on those warmups, but I remember the western “stitching” on the hind quarters of the shorts.