But I Absolutely Refuse to Write About the Draft Caps

I’d venture to say that the “improved” playoff logos are going to look quite awful when painted on the playing field. Ditto for the new SB crap.

Mitchell & Ness plans to start selling the 1970s Chisox leisure suit jersey soon (with thanks to Mike Hersh).

Fisk is too easy, and he only wore that jersey for a season or two at the end of the run. I’m hoping for an Eric Soderholm, Frankie Barrios, or Lamar Johnson.

Seems like the NFL is taking the UFL’s template of making everything the same..

[quote comment=”379992″]Well I’m cool with the NFL’s new logo system. No one outside of this site actually cares what the logo is anyway.

As for that colorized hockey picture… I’m seriously wondering if the NHL didn’t screw up the new version. The black & white shot really really really really really makes it look like it should be blue. Red does not typically look lighter* than any dark shade of blue.

In fact here’s the red version in black & white:
link

That does NOT look like the jersey in the old photo at all.[/quote]

*darker

(stupid lack of a preview window)

[quote comment=”379992″]Well I’m cool with the NFL’s new logo system. No one outside of this site actually cares what the logo is anyway.

As for that colorized hockey picture… I’m seriously wondering if the NHL didn’t screw up the new version. The black & white shot really really really really really makes it look like it should be blue. Red does not typically look lighter than any dark shade of blue.

The new Hunt and Halas trophies might be strange and not terribly attractive or appealing, but you’ve got to admit that the old trophies were even more strange, ass-ugly and outdated. I will not miss those at all. They looked like bowling league trophies, circa 1974.

In fact here’s the red version in black & white:
link

That does NOT look like the jersey in the old photo at all.[/quote]

Seriously, you can’t use a desaturated internet image to make a point about how red and blue are supposed to look in a genuine black and white photo. There are so many other factors at play, like lighting, type of film, exposure, and so on. Blue and red are nearly indistinguishable in many old B&W photos, and in some, there might be a clear difference like we see here.

Yeah, I posted it yesterday afternoon, but it’s too beautiful for those that didn’t see it to miss out …

link

What – no “NFL Labor Negotiations” or “NFL Lockout” logos?

As for all the logos they did tweak, that’s money they could have put into the players’ concussion fund.

[quote comment=”379993″]Seems like the NFL is taking FIFA’s template of making everything the same..[/quote]

Fixed your post.

The When Saturday Comes site has a link to Classic Football Shirts, which provided photos from some of the Kits of Yesteryear.

What an abomination I saw on the front of that site today:

link

This makes the Norwegian curling team’s pants actually look GOOD.

[quote comment=”380002″]that’s money they could have put into the players’ concussion fund.[/quote]

or the jimmy mac fund

I don’t know, Paul, that Purple Store had some interesting things. Too bad they don’t sell these for men:
link

Is there a Neon Green Store?

[quote comment=”379999″]Well, hell, Halas and Hunt are both dead now, so why not mess with their trophies?[/quote]

How about, because they’re dead?

[quote comment=”379998″]

Seriously, you can’t use a desaturated internet image to make a point about how red and blue are supposed to look in a genuine black and white photo. There are so many other factors at play, like lighting, type of film, exposure, and so on. Blue and red are nearly indistinguishable in many old B&W photos, and in some, there might be a clear difference like we see here.[/quote]

Ok, show me another black & white photo where red appears that much darker than blue.

Generally speaking, they either look almost the same, or blue is darker. I know converting a color shot to black & white in photoshop isn’t quite the same… but it’s obvious that blue is usually the darker color, or the recolored version wouldn’t have been done that way in the first place.

[quote comment=”380012″][quote comment=”379999″]Well, hell, Halas and Hunt are both dead now, so why not mess with their trophies?[/quote]

How about, because they’re dead?[/quote]

Did Hunt or Halas design the original trophies? If they actually did, then yeah the NFL shouldn’t have touched them. But if they didn’t… what’s the problem? Halas & Hunt are still being honored and remembered by the fact that the trophies are named after them. The actual design of the trophy doesn’t really matter.

[quote comment=”380016″][quote comment=”380012″][quote comment=”379999″]Well, hell, Halas and Hunt are both dead now, so why not mess with their trophies?[/quote]

How about, because they’re dead?[/quote]

Did Hunt or Halas design the original trophies? If they actually did, then yeah the NFL shouldn’t have touched them. But if they didn’t… what’s the problem? Halas & Hunt are still being honored and remembered by the fact that the trophies are named after them. The actual design of the trophy doesn’t really matter.[/quote]

Actually, when you come right down, nothing at all. Had they dropped the names, that would have been shameful.

I guess what takes some of us aback is how every once in a while branding runs amok. Everything has to be new, and the same, and sleek, and modern, and updated.

And there is logic to that, yes. Sometimes, though, it runs so far out that the limb supporting it gets pretty thin.

You probably aren’t old enough to remember how well “new” Coke went over.

—Ricko

[quote comment=”380018″][quote comment=”380014″][quote comment=”379998″]

Seriously, you can’t use a desaturated internet image to make a point about how red and blue are supposed to look in a genuine black and white photo. There are so many other factors at play, like lighting, type of film, exposure, and so on. Blue and red are nearly indistinguishable in many old B&W photos, and in some, there might be a clear difference like we see here.[/quote]

Ok, show me another black & white photo where red appears that much darker than blue.

Generally speaking, they either look almost the same, or blue is darker. I know converting a color shot to black & white in photoshop isn’t quite the same… but it’s obvious that blue is usually the darker color, or the recolored version wouldn’t have been done that way in the first place.[/quote]

Reader Doug Brei just sent me a photo of one of the actual jerseys (not the modern throwback), and sure enough, it’s red:
link

A-ha! But the stripes ARE Royal, not Navy. Said that yesterday. No, way navy (even if it’s a b&w print from a color negative) shows as light as in yesterday’s photo.

—Ricko

[quote comment=”380016″][quote comment=”380012″][quote comment=”379999″]Well, hell, Halas and Hunt are both dead now, so why not mess with their trophies?[/quote]

How about, because they’re dead?[/quote]

Did Hunt or Halas design the original trophies? If they actually did, then yeah the NFL shouldn’t have touched them. But if they didn’t… what’s the problem? Halas & Hunt are still being honored and remembered by the fact that the trophies are named after them. The actual design of the trophy doesn’t really matter.[/quote]

REALLY? THE ACTUAL DESIGN DOESNT MATTER? By your logic THE JEFF the Stanley Cup, the HOLY GRAIL OF Sports is WRONG THEN… the ORIGINAL Cup that Lord Stanley gave out was just the little BOWL at the top of the current deisgn with the rings and such! Bad idea…

Now I only spent ~5 minutes doing this, but c’mon, this has got to be a better Conference logo than what the NFL came up with…

link

[quote comment=”380018″][quote comment=”380014″][quote comment=”379998″]

Seriously, you can’t use a desaturated internet image to make a point about how red and blue are supposed to look in a genuine black and white photo. There are so many other factors at play, like lighting, type of film, exposure, and so on. Blue and red are nearly indistinguishable in many old B&W photos, and in some, there might be a clear difference like we see here.[/quote]

Ok, show me another black & white photo where red appears that much darker than blue.

Generally speaking, they either look almost the same, or blue is darker. I know converting a color shot to black & white in photoshop isn’t quite the same… but it’s obvious that blue is usually the darker color, or the recolored version wouldn’t have been done that way in the first place.[/quote]

Reader Doug Brei just sent me a photo of one of the actual jerseys (not the modern throwback), and sure enough, it’s red:
link

First off, Paul sure has it right… … “Marc Swanson took a stab at colorizing one of the wire photos from yesterday’s post and did a great job. …” Wonderful work. Funny about the blue=dark supposition must of us have about the colors of things depicted in black-and-white photographs. I certainly work on that basis. But going through a lot of early-20th century photographs in which the US flag appeared, I was surprised to note that the red was often darker than the blue. Not always, but frequently. Can’t begin to explain it, of course.

I always thought the Hunt and Halas trophies were the most bootleg, clumsy, cobbled-together-looking trophies in sports. Which is exactly why they were so fantastic.

That Purple Store is pure genius. I’m buying the suit jacket right now.

[quote comment=”380027″][quote comment=”380020″]
You probably aren’t old enough to remember how well “new” Coke went over.[/quote]

um…some of us are

and, im sure for reasons completely different from mothervilker, i liked it — know why? it was far less sweet

which is why, i suppose, it didn’t go over well

it wasn’t so much that it was “new” and “different”…

to this day i don’t drink coke (or pepsi or any cola)…and it actually all started when new coke was introduced…once ‘original coke’ came back, i stopped drinking any cola altogether[/quote]

Wasn’t it flatter as well as less sweet? That’s why I liked it, I think.

Probably reminded me of working at the Coliseum, where any cups of Coke that weren’t sold at the end of the game got dumped unless we drank them. Gotta tell you, few things tasted better than flat watered-down Coke, with hot dogs steamed so much the buns stuck to them.

[quote comment=”380033″]Bet The Joker shops there, huh.[/quote]

(fixed)

It seems Roger Goodell REALLY wants people to remember his tenure. Or to think he is secretly a graphic designer. He’s changed the league logo, the ball’s graphic design and now the conference logos (along with the rest of the changes we saw today). He’s made more changes in the 3+ years he’s been at the helm than Paul Tagliabue made in his entire tenure.

[quote comment=”379991″]Mitchell & Ness plans to start selling the 1970s Chisox leisure suit jersey soon (with thanks to Mike Hersh).

Fisk is too easy, and he only wore that jersey for a season or two at the end of the run. I’m hoping for an Eric Soderholm, Frankie Barrios, or Lamar Johnson.[/quote]
When I was a kid I had a cheap replica of this jersey and had my mom put #12 on the back for Soderholm, but if I had my choice it would be for Harold Baines, my favorite of all time, and his rookie jersey.

[quote comment=”380002″]What – no “NFL Labor Negotiations” or “NFL Lockout” logos?

As for all the logos they did tweak, that’s money they could have put into the players’ concussion fund.[/quote]
Good points, Vilk.

How about these others:
1. Drunken WR plowing into a pedestrian
2. or the lesser: annual Minnesota State police nailing a viking on speeding and/or DUI.
3. bi-weekly gun charge/domestic battery/sexual crime… we can call this section the Lawrence Phillips.

[quote comment=”380038″]It seems Roger Goodell REALLY wants people to remember his tenure. Or to think he is secretly a graphic designer. He’s changed the league logo, the ball’s graphic design and now the conference logos (along with the rest of the changes we saw today). He’s made more changes in the 3+ years he’s been at the helm than Paul Tagliabue made in his entire tenure.[/quote]

This trend of complete brand overhauls is really cooking my grits. I understand the need to have graphic (or “identity”) standards, but it seems like all it’s really accomplishing is stunting creativity and putting tons of money in the hands of 2o-something marketing agents. (This coming from a 20-something University Marketing worker who refuses to sell his soul.)

Paul, where can one track down an NFL Identity Guide?

[quote comment=”380028″][quote comment=”380018″][quote comment=”380014″][quote comment=”379998″]

Seriously, you can’t use a desaturated internet image to make a point about how red and blue are supposed to look in a genuine black and white photo. There are so many other factors at play, like lighting, type of film, exposure, and so on. Blue and red are nearly indistinguishable in many old B&W photos, and in some, there might be a clear difference like we see here.[/quote]

Ok, show me another black & white photo where red appears that much darker than blue.

Generally speaking, they either look almost the same, or blue is darker. I know converting a color shot to black & white in photoshop isn’t quite the same… but it’s obvious that blue is usually the darker color, or the recolored version wouldn’t have been done that way in the first place.[/quote]

Reader Doug Brei just sent me a photo of one of the actual jerseys (not the modern throwback), and sure enough, it’s red:
link

First off, Paul sure has it right… … “Marc Swanson took a stab at colorizing one of the wire photos from yesterday’s post and did a great job. …” Wonderful work. Funny about the blue=dark supposition must of us have about the colors of things depicted in black-and-white photographs. I certainly work on that basis. But going through a lot of early-20th century photographs in which the US flag appeared, I was surprised to note that the red was often darker than the blue. Not always, but frequently. Can’t begin to explain it, of course.[/quote]

Black and white films, particularly older black and white films, are biased–more sensitive too–the red spectrum than any other color. Reds tend to appear as a darker shade than they would to the naked eye seeing color. This is part of the reason that Ansel Adams created his “zone system” that more accurately(he said) reproduced gradients as the naked eye see’s them.

It is very common to find older press photos, which were processed and printed for speed, not gradation accuracy and often not processed by the photographer, that have reds that look nearly black.

Looking for some good examples, glad I went to photo school pre-digital!

[quote comment=”380041″]
But does the actor need to “sound” like Lombardi – how many of us would even know what Lombardi sounded like?[/quote]

surely you must have seen one of those NFL ads where he’s screaming “WHAT THE HELL IS GOIN’ ON HEAH?”

of course…he may not have spoken like that ALL the time…

That snowboard isn’t a Knicks one, its some Tech 9 logo garbage.

[quote comment=”380034″]Probably reminded me of working at the Coliseum, where any cups of Coke that weren’t sold at the end of the game got dumped unless we drank them. Gotta tell you, few things tasted better than flat watered-down Coke, with hot dogs steamed so much the buns stuck to them.[/quote]

The only thing better was Cleveland Stadium’s Coke in a wax-covered cup that had gone soft from holding flat Coke and melted ice in 85 degree heat over which the Saran Wrap cover had come loose just as the vendor had left his refill station. Oh yeah… and the over-steamed hot dogs. At the very least, there was Stadium Mustard. Mmmmmmm…. Stadium Mustard (my fellow Clevelanders know what I’m talkin’ about).

[quote comment=”380052″][quote comment=”380034″]Probably reminded me of working at the Coliseum, where any cups of Coke that weren’t sold at the end of the game got dumped unless we drank them. Gotta tell you, few things tasted better than flat watered-down Coke, with hot dogs steamed so much the buns stuck to them.[/quote]

The only thing better was Cleveland Stadium’s Coke in a wax-covered cup that had gone soft from holding flat Coke and melted ice in 85 degree heat over which the Saran Wrap cover had come loose just as the vendor had left his refill station. Oh yeah… and the over-steamed hot dogs. At the very least, there was Stadium Mustard. Mmmmmmm…. Stadium Mustard (my fellow Clevelanders know what I’m talkin’ about).[/quote]

Wow, except for the Cleveland-specific mustard sounds just like Met Stadium before the Twins moved indoors.

Can’t speak for Cleveland, but here the hot dog bun seemed to have been form-fit around the wienie, almost as if someone had shoved the finished product into its waxy sleeve and then squeeeeezed it ever so gently to be certain vendors could pack more of them into their aluminum (or were they stainless steel?) carrying cases.

—Ricko

[quote comment=”380051″][quote comment=”380018″][quote comment=”380014″][quote comment=”379998″]

Seriously, you can’t use a desaturated internet image to make a point about how red and blue are supposed to look in a genuine black and white photo. There are so many other factors at play, like lighting, type of film, exposure, and so on. Blue and red are nearly indistinguishable in many old B&W photos, and in some, there might be a clear difference like we see here.[/quote]

Ok, show me another black & white photo where red appears that much darker than blue.

Generally speaking, they either look almost the same, or blue is darker. I know converting a color shot to black & white in photoshop isn’t quite the same… but it’s obvious that blue is usually the darker color, or the recolored version wouldn’t have been done that way in the first place.[/quote]

Reader Doug Brei just sent me a photo of one of the actual jerseys (not the modern throwback), and sure enough, it’s red:
link

Wow… I didn’t expect a two-hour Photoshop job to get so much reponse (thanks for the kudos, btw). Anyway, there seems to be a lack of color photo evidence on that particular uniform. The image Doug Brie sent is the same one I found and it’s from a different year than the one Bentley’s wearing — 1949 as opposed to Bentley’s 1948. When looking at Bentley’s jersey, I thought — as have some of you — that the darker color had to be blue. I did a test with color chips approximating the same blue and red from the jersey-in-a-box and desaturated, over and under-exposed and generally anything else I could think of to see if the darker color would have been blue or red. My tests (completely unscientific and done in the course of about 7 minutes) yielded dark = blue. Wrong or right, that’s what I came up with, I liked it and so I went with it. The final blue is a bit darker than what I’d hoped for (though pretty close to the navy in the throwbacks), but anything lighter tended to look hokey and unrealistic. As for the breezers and socks, again no evidence to help, but I thought the blue looked better. Artistic license rules!

Broadway Connie brought up an interesting point about the US flag colors with red sometimes being darker. I went back to my color chips and made the colors a little more equal in terms of saturation and indeed sometimes the red was a bit darker. My assumption on this would be the flag(s) had been sun-bleached. A new flag likely wouldn’t look that way, but one that’s been out in the elements might. I don’t know about any of you, but my experience seems to be that the blue (navy) on the U.S. flag tends to fade quicker than the red leaving the red more saturated and therefore a bit darker in a black and white exposure.[/quote]

Most often It had to do with making a b&w image from a color original. Don’t know if happened when printed from the neg, don’t know if it happened when shooting a half-tone.

But…

If I can find them when I get home, I will scan and post B&W photos (used in a preseason annual) of the 1960 Patriots (from the color 1961 Fleer football cards) that would make you SWEAR they wore blue jerseys (probably navy) with white-red-white shoulder loops. And I’ll post the color Fleer card, too.

Confused the shit out of me in 1961. Thought perhaps Patriots had had a navy jersey at some point.

I’ll also show a b&w of, I believe, Packer Jim Taylor in b&w that would lead one to believe Green Bay had a set of dark pants. But it’s just the red component in the yellow-gold being dominant in the translation to b&w.

—Ricko

Actually, from what I’m gathering, the Portland Pirates are the favorite to move to Albany…makes sense since it’s for Buffalo…

[quote comment=”380054″]Wow, except for the Cleveland-specific mustard sounds just like Met Stadium before the Twins moved indoors.

Can’t speak for Cleveland, but here the hot dog bun seemed to have been form-fit around the wienie, almost as if someone had shoved the finished product into its waxy sleeve and then squeeeeezed it ever so gently to be certain vendors could pack more of them into their aluminum (or were they stainless steel?) carrying cases.

—Ricko[/quote]

The franks at Cleveland Stadium were wrapped in wax paper and “squeeeeeezed” would probably a generous term for what the vendors did to fit more dogs. “Smooooooooshed” is probably more apropos.

As for “stadium mustard,” it’s been sold at Indians games since the 1920s and it’s actually a misnomer for my preference. Though known as “Stadium Mustard” for years (since the Tribe played at League Park), link is the best. There is a “Stadium Mustard” that came out in the 1960s to capitalize on Bertman’s success (and the fact Joe Bertman hadn’t yet packaged his product for individual sale), but IMHO, it’s the inferior product.

[quote comment=”380058″][quote comment=”380057″]
I’ll also show a b&w of, I believe, Packer Jim Taylor in b&w that would lead one to believe Green Bay had a set of dark pants. But it’s just the red component in the yellow-gold being dominant in the translation to b&w.[/quote]
Have you posted that one before? Sounds familiar.

I’ve also seen b&w photos of the 1959 Packers (before the helmet logo was added) where the gold looks so dark you would swear they were the Cleveland Browns.[/quote]

Nope, haven’t posted it. But have seen Pack helmet photos similar to those you mention.

I honestly don’t how it happens. But logic says is either a b&w print from a color negative, or that something about shooting a halftone of a color shot would go wiggy.

Suspect was in direct transfer from neg., cuz the B&W version of the 1960 NFL Championship highlights does make the Packers look like the Sipe-era Browns.

And it was filmed in color. Seen the color version, too.

—Ricko

[quote comment=”380010″]I don’t know, Paul, that Purple Store had some interesting things. Too bad they don’t sell these for men:
link

Is there a Neon Green Store?[/quote]

You can get those “sneaker socks” at any place that sells cheap Chinese knockoff goods. Some look like ballet slippers, too.

[quote comment=\”380026\”]Now I only spent ~5 minutes doing this, but c\’mon, this has got to be a better Conference logo than what the NFL came up with…

link

The NFL Design Team: \”C\’MON, MAN!\”

“Did anyone out there equate the number of stars with the number of divisions in each conference? Like, anyone?”

*raises hand* Yes , sir I did.

The new conference trophy stink on ice.

[quote comment=”379988″]from the ticker:

Marc Swanson took a stab at colorizing one of the wire photos from yesterday’s post and did link.

indeed; late yesterday in the comments, it was revealed that the sweaters were actually red with white and blue stripes, link

that’s why B&W photos are so frustrating sometimes — i would have bet money the sweater was blue, with red and white stripes, based on the link

great job…wrong colors…i almost like the dark blue better[/quote]

Awesome

[quote comment=”379992″]Well I’m cool with the NFL’s new logo system. No one outside of this site actually cares what the logo is anyway.

As for that colorized hockey picture… I’m seriously wondering if the NHL didn’t screw up the new version. The black & white shot really really really really really makes it look like it should be blue. Red does not typically look lighter than any dark shade of blue.

In fact here’s the red version in black & white:
link

That does NOT look like the jersey in the old photo at all.[/quote]

Good point. Sometimes I make a color pic b&w to get idea since i know the real colors. As somebody who likes to colorize, it is tricky trying to guess or figure out the true colors.

I agree about red the red and blue and then in b&w

[quote comment=”380061″][quote comment=”380054″]Wow, except for the Cleveland-specific mustard sounds just like Met Stadium before the Twins moved indoors.

Can’t speak for Cleveland, but here the hot dog bun seemed to have been form-fit around the wienie, almost as if someone had shoved the finished product into its waxy sleeve and then squeeeeezed it ever so gently to be certain vendors could pack more of them into their aluminum (or were they stainless steel?) carrying cases.

—Ricko[/quote]

The franks at Cleveland Stadium were wrapped in wax paper and “squeeeeeezed” would probably a generous term for what the vendors did to fit more dogs. “Smooooooooshed” is probably more apropos.

As for “stadium mustard,” it’s been sold at Indians games since the 1920s and it’s actually a misnomer for my preference. Though known as “Stadium Mustard” for years (since the Tribe played at League Park), link is the best. There is a “Stadium Mustard” that came out in the 1960s to capitalize on Bertman’s success (and the fact Joe Bertman hadn’t yet packaged his product for individual sale), but IMHO, it’s the inferior product.[/quote]

Whatever kind of metal they used for the Coliseum hot dog containers, it was heavy…and there was a place at the bottom for a can of Sterno (great in the winter, but darned uncomfortable come playoff time). The dogs were wrapped in foil and yeah, smooshed would be a good way to describe them. But I love smooshed bologna sandwiches, too, so the dogs were just fine with me.

By the way, Stadium (or Ballpark) Mustard is great on pretzels or Swiss cheese sandwiches, too.

[quote comment=”380077″][quote comment=”380073″][quote comment=”380067″]Can people PLEASE stop calling the Super Bowl the “biggest event on the planet”?

Thanks
Lee[/quote]

World Cup fan?

Me too – THAT’s the biggest sporting event on the planet.[/quote]
yes…. the World cup of Polo, that is.[/quote]
Let me link onto my own stupid attempt at funny by asking about Leon’s whereabouts. anyone????

[quote comment=”380046″][quote comment=”380028″][quote comment=”380018″][quote comment=”380014″][quote comment=”379998″]

Seriously, you can’t use a desaturated internet image to make a point about how red and blue are supposed to look in a genuine black and white photo. There are so many other factors at play, like lighting, type of film, exposure, and so on. Blue and red are nearly indistinguishable in many old B&W photos, and in some, there might be a clear difference like we see here.[/quote]

Ok, show me another black & white photo where red appears that much darker than blue.

Generally speaking, they either look almost the same, or blue is darker. I know converting a color shot to black & white in photoshop isn’t quite the same… but it’s obvious that blue is usually the darker color, or the recolored version wouldn’t have been done that way in the first place.[/quote]

Reader Doug Brei just sent me a photo of one of the actual jerseys (not the modern throwback), and sure enough, it’s red:
link

First off, Paul sure has it right… … “Marc Swanson took a stab at colorizing one of the wire photos from yesterday’s post and did a great job. …” Wonderful work. Funny about the blue=dark supposition must of us have about the colors of things depicted in black-and-white photographs. I certainly work on that basis. But going through a lot of early-20th century photographs in which the US flag appeared, I was surprised to note that the red was often darker than the blue. Not always, but frequently. Can’t begin to explain it, of course.[/quote]

Black and white films, particularly older black and white films, are biased–more sensitive too–the red spectrum than any other color. Reds tend to appear as a darker shade than they would to the naked eye seeing color. This is part of the reason that Ansel Adams created his “zone system” that more accurately(he said) reproduced gradients as the naked eye see’s them.

It is very common to find older press photos, which were processed and printed for speed, not gradation accuracy and often not processed by the photographer, that have reds that look nearly black.

Looking for some good examples, glad I went to photo school pre-digital![/quote]

Ya another quote, but I am finding some very good points by many here today. I also wondered about the much older b&w film, wondering it it did indeed give a different look to reds in b&w than more recent b&w film.

I have looked at a lot of old Ohio State pictures and it does seem the red appears darker in most old film then say film from late 1940’s,50’s,60’s

Ricko just found and read #79.

Again it is all very interesting to me as one who tries to guess colors from old b&w pictures.

[quote comment=\”380006\”]The When Saturday Comes site has a link to Classic Football Shirts, which provided photos from some of the Kits of Yesteryear.

What an abomination I saw on the front of that site today:

link

This makes the Norwegian curling team\’s pants actually look GOOD.[/quote]

The early-mid 90\’s produced some really bad soccer shirts. This may be the worst of the bunch-Norwich City\’s \”bird poo\” kit link

[quote comment=”380083″]As a Cav’s fan I have mixed feelings about Lebron wanting to change to #6 next year. I guess it is no big deal. As long as he stays with the Cavs.[/quote]

Guess this means Boston, Philadelphia, Phoenix and Sacramento have no shot at signing him next year.
link

[quote comment=”380087″][quote comment=”380084″][quote comment=\”380006\”]The When Saturday Comes site has a link to Classic Football Shirts, which provided photos from some of the Kits of Yesteryear.

What an abomination I saw on the front of that site today:

link

This makes the Norwegian curling team\’s pants actually look GOOD.[/quote]

The early-mid 90\’s produced some really bad soccer shirts. This may be the worst of the bunch-Norwich City\’s \”bird poo\” kit link

Those are bad – these are worse:
link

Except for Coventry City and Kilmarnock. I might wear those.

[quote comment=”380073″][quote comment=”380067″]Can people PLEASE stop calling the Super Bowl the “biggest event on the planet”?

Thanks
Lee[/quote]

World Cup fan?

Me too – THAT’s the biggest sporting event on the planet.[/quote]

What is this “World Cup” of which you speak?

[quote comment=”380089″][quote comment=”380086″][quote comment=”380083″]As a Cav’s fan I have mixed feelings about Lebron wanting to change to #6 next year. I guess it is no big deal. As long as he stays with the Cavs.[/quote]

Guess this means Boston, Philadelphia, Phoenix and Sacramento have no shot at signing him next year.
link

link
If LBJ had chosen 32 instead of 6 that would have given me more hope of a jump to the Nets … but this guys’s too smart to jump into that mess ( either Nets or Knicks)…. Isn’t he??????[/quote]

He wants to be a billionaire someday. If the Nets or Knicks get him there, he just might make that jump.

Some Cleveland sports hosts think LeBron applying for the number change is a good sign. Others say even though he only has to do that if he’s staying in Cleveland, don’t look that far into it.

[quote comment=”380093″][quote comment=”380091″]Now, the Bulls…that could be another story.

—Ricko[/quote]

I was thinking of them as well. They do have that number 23 already up in the rafters…

Also, with Michael Jordan now becoming the owner of the Bobcats (soon to be Mikecats?) does Charlotte become a possibility?[/quote]

Bulls a better young club. Got someone in place already to be his Pippen…and it’s a big enough market. Look what Michael accomplished there. Ownership pretty good, too.

—Ricko

[quote comment=”380093″][quote comment=”380091″]Now, the Bulls…that could be another story.

—Ricko[/quote]

I was thinking of them as well. They do have that number 23 already up in the rafters…

Also, with Michael Jordan now becoming the owner of the Bobcats (soon to be Mikecats?) does Charlotte become a possibility?[/quote]

“MikeCats.” LOL.

[quote comment=”380097″][quote comment=”380003″][quote comment=”379997″][quote comment=”379991″]Mitchell & Ness plans to start selling the 1970s Chisox leisure suit jersey soon (with thanks to Mike Hersh).

Fisk is too easy, and he only wore that jersey for a season or two at the end of the run. I’m hoping for an Eric Soderholm, Frankie Barrios, or Lamar Johnson.[/quote]
I agree completely. My favorite MLB jersey (seriously) needs to be someone else – Wilbur Wood, Alan Bannister, Mike Squires, Chet Lemon, Ralph Garr…[/quote]

DIY it traxel![/quote]
Thought about it. Problem is finding the right base. The untucked shirt tails, the unique v-neck, you almost have to start from scratch. Frosty is the man who could pull it off better than anyone I’ve seen. I still might butcher an attempt some day too. We ought to have our own contest. Who can DIY the best 1978 Sox jersey![/quote]

Another tallest midget contest. Yea.

[quote comment=”380095″]why would lebron want to play for cleveland or minnesota if he could make it big in NY?[/quote]

how much bigger could lebron possibly get?

[quote comment=”380100″][quote comment=”380095″]why would lebron want to play for cleveland or minnesota if he could make it big in NY?[/quote]

how much bigger could lebron possibly get?[/quote]

He’s nowhere near Jordan. If he won a title or six in New York? The answer to your question is “lots”.

[quote comment=”379997″][quote comment=”379991″]Mitchell & Ness plans to start selling the 1970s Chisox leisure suit jersey soon (with thanks to Mike Hersh).

Fisk is too easy, and he only wore that jersey for a season or two at the end of the run. I’m hoping for an Eric Soderholm, Frankie Barrios, or Lamar Johnson.[/quote]
I agree completely. My favorite MLB jersey (seriously) needs to be someone else – Wilbur Wood, Alan Bannister, Mike Squires, Chet Lemon, Ralph Garr…[/quote]

My absolute favorite as well. But I really wish they’d do the blue jersey as well as the white.

I, too, think of Wilbur Wood as a more iconic player in that jersey… but Fisk’s signing is a very special moment in White Sox history.

[quote comment=”380098″][quote comment=”380097″][quote comment=”380003″][quote comment=”379997″][quote comment=”379991″]Mitchell & Ness plans to start selling the 1970s Chisox leisure suit jersey soon (with thanks to Mike Hersh).

Fisk is too easy, and he only wore that jersey for a season or two at the end of the run. I’m hoping for an Eric Soderholm, Frankie Barrios, or Lamar Johnson.[/quote]
I agree completely. My favorite MLB jersey (seriously) needs to be someone else – Wilbur Wood, Alan Bannister, Mike Squires, Chet Lemon, Ralph Garr…[/quote]

DIY it traxel![/quote]
Thought about it. Problem is finding the right base. The untucked shirt tails, the unique v-neck, you almost have to start from scratch. Frosty is the man who could pull it off better than anyone I’ve seen. I still might butcher an attempt some day too. We ought to have our own contest. Who can DIY the best 1978 Sox jersey![/quote]

Another tallest midget contest. Yea.[/quote]
Oh, we can get downright scientific on this one. “Best” can be catagorized into just about anything.

Hey rpm, can you get us some of those White Sox non-stirrups from that era? I think the striping pattern was a little different every year…

[quote comment=”380035″]I agree totally.. and it will completely flop like the USFL .. but merely because from a marketing and merchandising stand point, no one will be interested in this crap. How many uniform more combinations can you make from 4 ugly colors?

I hate all the playoff logos.. what a disgrace. The uniqueness of the Super Bowl logo is a triubte to the city, the host team, and the graphic styling of the era. This new standardizing method is just dumb. This looks like if I was asked back in 1972 what I would think the logo would like in 2010. No one knows where graphic design is heading, and to assume that in 10 years this is where we’ll be is astonishing.

It definitely is the first huge mistake by Goodell.[/quote]

I really could care less about the conference championship trophies, but ONE standard SB logo? MLB used that same World Series logo from the late 70s through the 80s, and you cannot tell one from the other – except for the year , of course. Some SB logos sucked and some were great, but I always looked forward to their unveiling. They do say something about the host city and/or the times in which the game was played. Bad job by the NFL.

OK.

Tell me what looks darker (red or blue) from these pics from the Hockey Hall of Fame itself (hope to God these links work):

Joe Hall: link

Ching Johnson:
link

Howie Morenz:
link

[quote comment=”380090″][quote comment=”380073″][quote comment=”380067″]Can people PLEASE stop calling the Super Bowl the “biggest event on the planet”?

Thanks
Lee[/quote]

World Cup fan?

Me too – THAT’s the biggest sporting event on the planet.[/quote]

What is this “World Cup” of which you speak?[/quote]

It’s this:
link

[quote comment=”380034″][quote comment=”380027″][quote comment=”380020″]
You probably aren’t old enough to remember how well “new” Coke went over.[/quote]

um…some of us are

and, im sure for reasons completely different from mothervilker, i liked it — know why? it was far less sweet

which is why, i suppose, it didn’t go over well

it wasn’t so much that it was “new” and “different”…

to this day i don’t drink coke (or pepsi or any cola)…and it actually all started when new coke was introduced…once ‘original coke’ came back, i stopped drinking any cola altogether[/quote]

Wasn’t it flatter as well as less sweet? That’s why I liked it, I think.

Probably reminded me of working at the Coliseum, where any cups of Coke that weren’t sold at the end of the game got dumped unless we drank them. Gotta tell you, few things tasted better than flat watered-down Coke, with hot dogs steamed so much the buns stuck to them.[/quote]
No, no, no… You guys are remembering it all wrong. It was actually sweeter than the original recipe.

I don’t recall it being less fizzy, but it was definitely less acidic.

For the record, I was indifferent because I’ve never been a cola drinker but at the time, I thought it was one of the stupider ideas of all time.

Stupider like a fox!

[quote comment=”380112″][quote comment=”380111″]OK.

Tell me what looks darker (red or blue) from these pics from the Hockey Hall of Fame itself (hope to God these links work):

Joe Hall: link

Ching Johnson:
link

Howie Morenz:
link

That’s wild. Are there any darkroom junkies that might be able to confirm Ricko’s suspicions as to why the red appears darker than the blue?[/quote]

Aha that is interesting. And I ask again it is there something about much older b&w film that differs from film from 50’s and later?

Yeow! Check out the socks here.
I mean, we all know they’re royal with three red stripes…
link

—Ricko

Another thumbs down for the NFL re-dos.

Just as pathetic are the slogans for the Super Bowl. (“One Game, One Dream.” “Who Wants It More?” “Own The Moment”) Wow — gets me fired up!!

There’s even a slogan for the NFL Scouting Combine: “Path To The Draft”

What’s next?
NFL Draft: “Ramp To The Camp”
NFL Training Camp: “Reason For The Preseason”
NFL Preseason: “It’s All One Big Dress Rehearsal”

This Is The NFL. One League. One Identity. One Boring Graphic Design.

[quote comment=”380121″]Another thumbs down for the NFL re-dos.

Just as pathetic are the slogans for the Super Bowl. (“One Game, One Dream.” “Who Wants It More?” “Own The Moment”) Wow — gets me fired up!!

There’s even a slogan for the NFL Scouting Combine: “Path To The Draft”

What’s next?
NFL Draft: “Ramp To The Camp”
NFL Training Camp: “Reason For The Preseason”
NFL Preseason: “It’s All One Big Dress Rehearsal”

This Is The NFL. One League. One Identity. One Boring Graphic Design.[/quote]

Exactly. Kinda like when we wondered if MLB was gonna come up with a “Day Game After A Night Game” logo. Y’know, so you wouldn’t expect, say, a catcher such as Joe Mauer to play.

Slogan could be: Right Back At It.

—Ricko

And I know the color of this but in looking at it others may not

link

2 more for now. I know the colors of the 2 teams in the old picture and the one from the 1950’s most everybody knows anyhow.

link

link

As somebody else said earlier, maybe Ricko, it may be a lot of the visual has to do with the lighting in the original. The 1st picture here it appears was a sunny day and therefore the 2 shades may be easier to judge.

If it was a a cloudy day or perhaps a night game the reds do appear much darker.

If you see Ohio State vs Notre Dame in 1935 game pictures both appear fairly dark.

But pictures from the 1910’s the red does seem pretty dark in b&w

No love for Butterbean Love?
link

—Ricko

[quote comment=”380128″]If people judge on NBA titles or something like that.[/quote]

are those important?

[quote comment=”380131″][quote comment=”380128″]If people judge on NBA titles or something like that.[/quote]

are those important?[/quote]

Kinda sorta lol. But I do not see how it proves who the best all time players are.

oh, i know…would be like saying bill russell, with 11 rings, was like 5X better than wilt, who only had two

just saying that many people measure a player’s greatness by the number of rings he has

[quote comment=”380127″]2 more for now. I know the colors of the 2 teams in the old picture and the one from the 1950’s most everybody knows anyhow.

link

link

As somebody else said earlier, maybe Ricko, it may be a lot of the visual has to do with the lighting in the original. The 1st picture here it appears was a sunny day and therefore the 2 shades may be easier to judge.

If it was a a cloudy day or perhaps a night game the reds do appear much darker.

If you see Ohio State vs Notre Dame in 1935 game pictures both appear fairly dark.

But pictures from the 1910’s the red does seem pretty dark in b&w[/quote]

Clouds and night would affect film sensitivity, in that the film would “see” more infra-red spectrum and less visible solar spectrum and therefore produce darker reds. All right, I’m done. Back to unis.

[quote comment=”380034″][quote comment=”380027″][quote comment=”380020″]
You probably aren’t old enough to remember how well “new” Coke went over.[/quote]

um…some of us are

and, im sure for reasons completely different from mothervilker, i liked it — know why? it was far less sweet

which is why, i suppose, it didn’t go over well

it wasn’t so much that it was “new” and “different”…

to this day i don’t drink coke (or pepsi or any cola)…and it actually all started when new coke was introduced…once ‘original coke’ came back, i stopped drinking any cola altogether[/quote]

Wasn’t it flatter as well as less sweet? That’s why I liked it, I think.

Probably reminded me of working at the Coliseum, where any cups of Coke that weren’t sold at the end of the game got dumped unless we drank them. Gotta tell you, few things tasted better than flat watered-down Coke, with hot dogs steamed so much the buns stuck to them.[/quote]
Man… I love my buns steamed. And I love mustard AND ketchup on my dog. I wish I had that cartoon. Really cute.

P.S.
New Coke was way way way sweeter.

World cup uni update:
link

[quote comment=”380073″][quote comment=”380067″]Can people PLEASE stop calling the Super Bowl the “biggest event on the planet”?

Thanks
Lee[/quote]

World Cup fan?

Me too – THAT’s the biggest sporting event on the planet.[/quote]

3rd’d. The Citi v Shea argument goes all day and this gets a relative pass?! Egregious!

[quote comment=”380102″][quote comment=”380100″][quote comment=”380095″]why would lebron want to play for cleveland or minnesota if he could make it big in NY?[/quote]

how much bigger could lebron possibly get?[/quote]

He’s nowhere near Jordan. If he won a title or six in New York? The answer to your question is “lots”.[/quote]
The comparisons are all ready there w/ out him winning a single title. If he won a 3 or more anywhere he would be at the same level as MJ…and he doesn’t need to do it in NY either. What huge names in the NBA has playing in NY created to support your theory. He would down as won the top 3 most talented to play the game if he retired tomorrow!!Also, the glove Carmona is wearing is not a White Sox glove…it’s a nike glove. It is a white swoosh inside of a black circle.

I’m happy to hear other folks aren’t pleased about the standardized Super Bowl Logo. I thought I may be the only one – but I feel like this definitely takes a little bit of the luster off the Super Bowl. I just get that icky feeling that the No Fun League’s next move is to make it permanently in Los Angeles starting with Super Bowl L

So sue me, I like the new conference trophies.

Are they great? No.

But are they better then the thrown together crap they had? Much. Just because it’s old does not mean it’s good.

But what the NFL should do if they ever get the urge again is to pick up the phone and give the NHL a ring. They know how to design trophies. Not everything has to involve a football (or a puck).

As for the logos, meh. I like some better then the old ones, some I like less. The AFC logo I like the shape of the A on, but I liked the arching stars better. The NFC logo isn’t that different, and looks nice enough.

Interesting and well-meaning Photoshop on ESPN.com, for link.
Note the just-enough manipulation on the Green Bay uniform, turning the usual 15 into a 16, owing to Bart Starr’s retired #15 for the Packers.

[quote comment=”380061″]As for “stadium mustard,” it’s been sold at Indians games since the 1920s and it’s actually a misnomer for my preference. Though known as “Stadium Mustard” for years (since the Tribe played at League Park), link is the best. There is a “Stadium Mustard” that came out in the 1960s to capitalize on Bertman’s success (and the fact Joe Bertman hadn’t yet packaged his product for individual sale), but IMHO, it’s the inferior product.[/quote]

I have a bottle of each in the fridge right now, and blasphemer though I may be, I’ve always preferred the Stadium to the Bertman’s. But only by a whisker!

Two things about the NFL logos:
1) The wrong element was dropped on the Playoff logos. Divisional what?

2) It will be interesting to see what the SB XLVI Regional logo looks like. Lucas Oil Stadium is brown, not silver like Cowboys Stadium. Something’s gonna give.

[quote comment=”380154″][quote comment=”380153″][quote comment=”380061″]As for “stadium mustard,” it’s been sold at Indians games since the 1920s and it’s actually a misnomer for my preference. Though known as “Stadium Mustard” for years (since the Tribe played at League Park), link is the best. There is a “Stadium Mustard” that came out in the 1960s to capitalize on Bertman’s success (and the fact Joe Bertman hadn’t yet packaged his product for individual sale), but IMHO, it’s the inferior product.[/quote]

I have a bottle of each in the fridge right now, and blasphemer though I may be, I’ve always preferred the Stadium to the Bertman’s. But only by a whisker![/quote]

if i remember correctly, i always found the two pretty much indistinguishable.[/quote]

Can not say I recall the difference between the 2 either. I do know I think the mustard is very very good. I have not looked for the mustard in stores lately. But I have bought in NE Ohio over the years.

When going to a baseball game in person which is not as often as years ago. I always try and get a hot dog. Rarely try any of the newfangled food they offer.

[quote comment=”380157″][quote comment=”380154″][quote comment=”380153″][quote comment=”380061″]As for “stadium mustard,” it’s been sold at Indians games since the 1920s and it’s actually a misnomer for my preference. Though known as “Stadium Mustard” for years (since the Tribe played at League Park), link is the best. There is a “Stadium Mustard” that came out in the 1960s to capitalize on Bertman’s success (and the fact Joe Bertman hadn’t yet packaged his product for individual sale), but IMHO, it’s the inferior product.[/quote]

I have a bottle of each in the fridge right now, and blasphemer though I may be, I’ve always preferred the Stadium to the Bertman’s. But only by a whisker![/quote]

if i remember correctly, i always found the two pretty much indistinguishable.[/quote]

Can not say I recall the difference between the 2 either. I do know I think the mustard is very very good. I have not looked for the mustard in stores lately. But I have bought in NE Ohio over the years.

When going to a baseball game in person which is not as often as years ago. I always try and get a hot dog. Rarely try any of the newfangled food they offer.[/quote]

i know you are supposed to pick a dog in the mustard fight, but oh well. and i love that there is a stadium mustard conversation every 3~4 months.
again, stadium mustard in chicago…casa del pueblo on 18th and blue island. while you are there hit the awesome taqueria

LeBron wants to honor the sport by wearing #6 and retiring #23 because he thinks the entire NBA should retire it in Jordan’s honor? And how is there NOT a corollary from this that implies Bill Russell == Chopped Liver???

Also, i did buy that purple suit. Four button suits are kinda weird but maybe chicks will think i’m mod or something.

[quote comment=”380122″]~chet lemon was far and away the best sock in collar.

~it just so happens that the browns were 4~0 after sock delivery to close out the season. as a thank you i got a case of stadium mustard in the mail from a happy fan, which was awesome in that it is the best ever. but what to do when i get re~addicted? two days later i am in the hispanic grocery store down the street, where it is hard to get things like pasta let alone a regional mustard. but what did they start stocking? stadium mustard! it’s a stryped miracle. so if you are in chicago and want stadium mustard go to the casa de pueblo at 18th and blue island.

~i would get that curling pattern and hire the sweatshop across the hall to start mass producing these, but there is nothing near a 48, so if i can’t get one, nertz to that idea.[/quote]
hey rpm, my man… how’s that bobble you be cobblin’???? ..

[quote comment=”380163″][quote comment=”380122″]~chet lemon was far and away the best sock in collar.

~it just so happens that the browns were 4~0 after sock delivery to close out the season. as a thank you i got a case of stadium mustard in the mail from a happy fan, which was awesome in that it is the best ever. but what to do when i get re~addicted? two days later i am in the hispanic grocery store down the street, where it is hard to get things like pasta let alone a regional mustard. but what did they start stocking? stadium mustard! it’s a stryped miracle. so if you are in chicago and want stadium mustard go to the casa de pueblo at 18th and blue island.

~i would get that curling pattern and hire the sweatshop across the hall to start mass producing these, but there is nothing near a 48, so if i can’t get one, nertz to that idea.[/quote]
hey rpm, my man… how’s that bobble you be cobblin’???? ..[/quote]

with any luck the end of the weekend. working on the ones i need to get done tonight.

[quote comment=”380164″][quote comment=”380129″]No love for Butterbean Love?
link

—Ricko[/quote]
that’s NVL, Innit?
Now, that was a player![/quote]
Yeah, that’s Norm. Bob Love link …and looked completely different.

(Just messin’ with ya, Rick.)

[quote comment=”380167″][quote comment=”380164″][quote comment=”380129″]No love for Butterbean Love?
link

—Ricko[/quote]
that’s NVL, Innit?
Now, that was a player![/quote]
Yeah, that’s Norm. Bob Love link …and looked completely different.

(Just messin’ with ya, Rick.)[/quote]

That came up when I google image searched Buttberbean Love, and after I posted it, I thought, “Damn, that ain’t Butterbean Love.”

—Ricko

[quote comment=”380161″]LeBron wants to honor the sport by wearing #6 and retiring #23 because he thinks the entire NBA should retire it in Jordan’s honor? And how is there NOT a corollary from this that implies Bill Russell == Chopped Liver???[/quote]

because LBJ has never heard of bill russell

[quote comment=”380169″][quote comment=”380167″][quote comment=”380164″][quote comment=”380129″]No love for Butterbean Love?
link

—Ricko[/quote]
that’s NVL, Innit?
Now, that was a player![/quote]
Yeah, that’s Norm. Bob Love link …and looked completely different.

(Just messin’ with ya, Rick.)[/quote]

That came up when I google image searched Buttberbean Love, and after I posted it, I thought, “Damn, that ain’t Butterbean Love.”

—Ricko[/quote]
The question here is:

Who wore #10 for the Nets during their first year in the NBA???

NOTE: Boe didn’t sell the team off to Taub and cronies until the second year so that ‘New York’ uniform seen here is identical to the Championship winning Nets of 1975-’76.

[quote comment=”380160″]There’s a guy making his debut for the Columbus Blue Jackets tonight named Grant Clitsome. Think NHL.com would allow the purchase of that customized jersey? I hope that T is silent.[/quote]

LOL and darn it my being in the Penguins territory for NHL telecasts. I rarely get to see the CBJ on Time Warner cable.

[quote comment=”380176″][quote comment=”380171″][quote comment=”380161″]LeBron wants to honor the sport by wearing #6 and retiring #23 because he thinks the entire NBA should retire it in Jordan’s honor? And how is there NOT a corollary from this that implies Bill Russell == Chopped Liver???[/quote]

because LBJ has never heard of bill russell[/quote]

I detect sarcasm Phil. Lebron is one of the few who does know NBA history.[/quote]

only slightly (my sarcasm, not LBJs ‘knowledge’)…but the point is, history to most of these guys (not just NBAers, but across all sports) usually ONLY extends to the guys they saw growing up, not the ones who pioneered the game or came before they were born

but if that is the case with LBJ, and he does know the history of the game, Rev. Nørb’s point is even more valid

Phil, I agree for the most part about the players today only knowing guys they watched. And that goes for most all sports.

That is too bad but it is true. I assume Lebron does know more than most players as I have heard him talk about guy of the past such as Jerry West and so on.

[quote comment=”380177″][quote comment=”380176″][quote comment=”380171″][quote comment=”380161″]LeBron wants to honor the sport by wearing #6 and retiring #23 because he thinks the entire NBA should retire it in Jordan’s honor? And how is there NOT a corollary from this that implies Bill Russell == Chopped Liver???[/quote]

because LBJ has never heard of bill russell[/quote]

I detect sarcasm Phil. Lebron is one of the few who does know NBA history.[/quote]

only slightly (my sarcasm, not LBJs ‘knowledge’)…but the point is, history to most of these guys (not just NBAers, but across all sports) usually ONLY extends to the guys they saw growing up, not the ones who pioneered the game or came before they were born

but if that is the case with LBJ, and he does know the history of the game, Rev. Nørb’s point is even more valid[/quote]
His point is mega valid.
Ever since I first saw Lebron, I thought he was an idiot for wearing #23. Completely unoriginal.
I stated it then, and I will state it now, “He has cursed himself.” Changing to #6 solidifies my belief. Get your own #, Lebron. Even if it’s ugly. Get a copy “Best By Numbers”, find a # with so-so (if I can say that) caliber players (preferably none from basketball), and pick one.

With all this hate (rightfully so) for the bastardized, er standardized Super Bowl Logos, maybe that should be added to the Uni-Watch Design-Its? Maybe even do a contest each year.. a prize for best and worst..

sorry… link