Skip to content

And If You Ask Nicely, He Might Buy You a Hot Dog

As we’ve all learned by now, Mark Cuban is not your typical professional sports franchise owner. For one thing, he has a blog. And yesterday he used that blog to invite fans to redesign the Mavericks’ uniforms for the 2015-16 season.

Not bad, right? It’s actually a pretty progressive move — until you get to the part where Cuban reminds you that he’s, you know, Mark freaking Cuban:

Who will own your design? The minute you post it [on Cuban’s blog], the Mavs will. If you think it’s horrible that the Mavs will own your design, do not post. If you think it’s cool that the Mavs could possibly use your design and you will have eternal bragging rights, then post away. If we really like your design and you, I may even throw in some tickets. If we don’t use your design, it will still be here on this site for now and ever more for you to glance longingly at.

Now, this isn’t the first time a team has crowdsourced its uniform design. The White Sox did it in 1981 (for details, check out this ESPN column I wrote in 2011), and the Brewers just did it a few months ago with their YOUniform promotion (okay, so that was only for a spring training uni, but still). And yes, once you submit something to an NBA team, of course they’re going to own it. No surprise there.

But there’s something distinctly uncharitable about Cuban’s tone, like he’s doing the fans a favor by granting them the privilege of doing free design work for him. And then maybe — maybe — the winner will be rewarded with some free tickets. So instead of creating something that sounds fun, he’s created something with a strong undercurrent of contempt. Granted, that seems to be what he’s best at, but jeez.

The ink was barely dry on Cuban’s blog post when I received an email from reader Stu Taylor, who had this to say:

This is awful. … The guy is a millionaire if not a billionaire, and he’s trying to get the main branding outlet of his team done for free. … There are plenty of extremely qualified professional designers the Mavs can tap for this. I’m rooting for a flood of under-considered designs to lampoon the whole process. I’m a die-hard Mavs fan (and graphic designer) and have been a huge fan of Cuban, but this is a bush league move.

Personally, I love the idea of soliciting fan designs. But Cuban’s approach here, as usual, is strictly blowhardus maximus. And would it kill him to pay a professional fee to the winning design?

One other thing of note: Among all the NBA owners, Cuban has been the loudest advocate of putting advertising on uniforms. Interesting that he didn’t mention that in his blog post (“Be sure to leave room for an ad patch,” or whatever). Maybe he just forgot.

+ + + + +

Correction: Yesterday I wrote that the bat manufacturer MaxBat had made and shipped several pink bats with the MaxBat logo, in violation of MLB rules. That prompted a note from MaxBat VP Jim Anderson, who said, “We didn’t supply pink bats. We supplied black bats with pink logos [like those shown at left ”” PL] to some of our customers. There are no restrictions for logo colors. Therefore a pink, orange, yellow, blue, red, silver, gold, etc. logo is legal, and we didn’t violate any rules.”

Duly noted. But there seemed to be considerable confusion about which bats were and weren’t allowed on Sunday, and most MaxBat-supplied players opted not to use the pink-labeled lumber. Again, the real culprit here is MLB, which never should have had any restrictions on the pink bats (or maybe just never should have allowed any pink bats, period) in the first place.

+ + + + +


Collector’s Corner

By Brinke Guthrie

Anyone who reads “Collector’s Corner” each Tuesday has probably figured out that I am a sucker for anything NFL + Dave Boss. So imagine my reaction when I saw the poster shown above — all NFL teams in one painting! Check it out here.

Here’s the rest of this week’s haul:

• Ron Jaworski and Bill Bergey (I think) appear in this 1979 Eagles poster by Damac.

• Someone say Damac? Got your 1979 Miami Dolphins poster right here.

• Steelers fans, you’ll look snazzy on the links with this Steelers/NFL Alumni golf bag.

• Ever seen these? Vintage 1940s circular Japanese baseball cards.

• Love the look of these 1970s NFL helmets on this Thermos.

• Nice set of 1976 NFL glasses from Mobil.

• This one is for Paul: a signed photo of the 49ers RB Ken Willard, from the 1960s.

• This NFLPA sleeping bag from 1972 would’ve been great for those camp-outs back in the day.

• This may be the first dress ever featured on Collector’s Corner: It features all the 1960s MLB logos.

• Gumball helmet buggies! One for the Titans and one for the Falcons (with mismatched colors for the sticker and helmet shell).

• You know I love any old Sears/NFL gear, and this old Dolphins zip-up cardigan is as nice as they come.

Seen something on eBay or Etsy that you think would make good Collector’s Corner fodder? Send your submissions here.

+ + + + +

Uni Watch News Ticker: ’Skins WR Josh Morgan is in favor of keeping the team’s name. Jim Rome and John Feinstein disagree (both from Tommy Turner). … Here’s a piece on NBA compression sleeves and other cover-up gear. ”¦ Odd move by the Aussie football team St. Kilda, which will wear a heritage guernsey with the opposing coach’s name (from Craig Snyder). ”¦ Here’s something I’ve never seen before: a purple tequila sunrise uni! That’s Brownsburg High School in Indiana (from Randy Rollyson). ”¦ And wait, here’s another high school wearing the tequila sunrise, this time in black, red, and gray. That’s Satellite Beach High in Florida (from Joshua Pryor). … Truly horrid G.I. Joe jerseys for WVU baseball (from Terry Wehrend). … Reprinted from yesterday’s comments: Jason Kipnis of the Indians was standing too close to the dugout heater on Sunday and burned a hole in his pants. Video coverage here (from Tim Forstser). … Remember my recent post about Carlos Peña’s armbands? On Sunday he went pink over orange. Yuck. … Did you know there used to be Bobby Orr-branded lemonade? It’s true! (From John Muir.) … Back in March, we saw a handful of the G.I. Joe caps that MLB teams will be wearing on Memorial Day. You can now see more of them here. As R. Scott Rogers posted yesterday, “Those would be great hats — for Armed Forces Day. Which is Saturday, May 18. Raises the question: If MLB actually ‘honors’ and ‘supports’ our troops, why does the league completely ignore the one national holiday that actually honors currently serving soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and guardsmen?” … This is very cool: a Tumblr devoted to hockey scoreboard design. I’ll be conducting an interview with the site’s editor shortly. … Hamilton Nolan was on vacation or something for a few weeks, but now he’s back. Boy is he good. And if you prefer him on a lighter topic, he’s still really good. … A CC Sabathia fan wore a Yanks/Indans Frankenjersey yesterday (from Paulie Sumner). … Georgia Tech baseball fans have been invited to choose the team’s uniform for tonight’s game (from Britton Thomas) … “Florence is the host city of the 2013 Cycling World Championships, so the event’s logo is an image of Pinocchio in the cycling rainbow stripes,” reports Sean Clancy. “Yes, the fictional Pinocchio was from the Tuscan region, but having him associated with pro cycling is priceless.” … The Lake Erie Crushers will wear Superman, Batman, and Spider-Man costumes on the same night. What, no Wonder Woman? (From Rick Grayshock.) … The Mets signed Rick Ankiel off the scrapheap yesterday. He’ll no doubt be released in a month or two, but meanwhile this piece includes a quote explaining how he chose his new uni number: “I was a big Doc Gooden fan when I was younger, so even being able to wear 16 is cool. It’s exciting. I asked what numbers were available. There weren’t that many. When 16 was one of them, it was a done deal right away.” ”¦ In a related item, Ankiel’s gear didn’t arrive in time for last night’s game against the Cards, so he had to borrow pitcher Jonathon Niese’s glove — which may have cost the Mets last night’s game. ”¦ “Seattle has been rather disappointed in the way it’s been treated by the NBA lately,” says Adam Schechter. “There was a little rally tonight at a popular local music venue, and these shirts were available.” … The Packers have assigned No. 1 to Matt Brown, an undrafted QB out of Illinois State. If he makes it onto the regular season roster, he’ll be only the second player in team history to wear that number, after Curly Lambeau in the 1920s. “Understandably, this has caused some consternation in fan circles,” says Chance Michaels. … Rhode Island’s baseball team appears to be channeling the Rays. Nice stirrups, though (from Eric Hoffman). ”¦ Yesterday’s vote to make Minnesota the 12th state to recognize marriage equality led to the creation of a logo with clever use of negative space (from Geoff Poole). ”¦ New kits, including a bizarre faux-denim look, for Marseille (from Danny Garrison). ”¦ Back in 1989, Washington State’s football field had directional indicators on both sides of the 50-yard line (from Paul Deaver). ”¦ It’s a little hard to see in this photo, but new Eagles coach Chip Kelly appears to have a marker attached to his whistle (from Kurt Esposito). ”¦ Here’s something you rarely see: Negro Leagues video footage. Note that they’re wearing the Hale America “Health” patch, just like MLB teams did in 1942 (big thanks to James Ashby). ”¦ About a gazillion readers got in touch yesterday to inform me that the Kentucky “penis tongue logo” controversy from 1994, which I mentioned with an air of skepticism in yesterday’s Ticker, was indeed real. But only Robert Hudson provided substantiation. ”¦ Never seen this version of Brownie the Elf before. Brian K. says it’s from a 1948 pennant.

The Battle of the Uniforms rolls on today. Voting on the first round is still open until 9am Eastern. We’ll have the second-round match-ups posted sometime between 10am and noon.

Comments (186)

    I don’t think it’s that big of a deal. Fans are constantly itching to gain inside access or have input in their teams operations. Cuban is a smart man, he knows that by introducing a fan friendly design and marketing campaign, he will sell more Jerseys while also connecting with the fans. With all the money he has, it’s comical to think he is trying to get free labor.

    “With all the money he has, it’s comical to think he is trying to get free labor.” Really? How you do think they get so rich?

    I said it in yesterday’s comments, but you don’t see too many major league sports teams and Fortune 500 firms crowdsourcing other professional services. Yet when it’s design, it’s “fun” and “connecting with the team” to give up tens of thousands of dollars worth of billable time.

    If the Mavs can get desperate designers to give up time they could be spent working for paying clients, then more power to them. There’s obviously a sucker born every minute. But it’s really indicative of how little some people think of design.

    If people are willing to do it for free (and they undoubtedly are), why pay for it?

    From the client’s point of view, you get what you pay for. Plus, user submission contests have backend costs that are often higher than doing it professionally.

    On a philosophical level, it feeds perceptions people have about designers and the design process. The message it sends is that a designer’s time and investment in the craft are worthless if a design isn’t selected. It’s exploitative.

    I’m willing to be the trainer for free. I know how to put on band-aids and fill an ice bag. I’ve trained in CPR and in a pinch, I’m pretty sure I could do stitches.

    Think the team will take me up on it? Think trainers would be happy about it? Why not? It cheapens their profession creating the perception that anyone can do it.

    “It cheapens their profession creating the perception that anyone can do it.”

    This. There is starting to be a body of work in labor theory discussing how volunteerism like this erodes middle class jobs. Because when one person can do it for free as a hobby, it makes it that much harder for another person to do it as a profession.

    That’s not the volunteer’s problem, though … nor is it the client’s if the result meets his standards (the result doesn’t HAVE to meet a professional designer’s).

    If such volunteerism becomes widespread enough to hurt the jobs of paid professionals, then those professionals have ipso facto overvalued the market value of their product. I repeat: that’s not the problem of the hobbyists or potential clients, neither of whom owe professional designers security or stability in their “middle-class jobs.”

    Your trainer analogy is asinine. Plenty of people without formal graphics design training, or who aren’t professional designers, can create a good identity package. The availability of graphic design software has given birth to countless designers, be they amateur or professional, who 30 years ago wouldn’t have been anywhere near the industry. Sure, lots of the end product is garbage – but there’s plenty of high-quality product as well. You can say the same thing about music, photography, film, etc. I think the erosion of jobs is due more to available technology than to volunteerism; the notion of a design contest 30 years ago would have been laughable.

    “…those professionals have ipso facto overvalued the market value of their product.”

    In the words of Peter Griffin, “Whoa, whoa, whoa.” Professional designers working in an agency, production house, etc. often do not set their own rate. They get paid like most other people… an amount their employer/client feels is a fair price to pay for their services. If that is compromised by things that are out of their control such as design contests or companies that crowdsource design work, it devalues their services.

    the notion of a design contest 30 years ago would have been laughable.

    Someone didn’t read today’s lede entry very carefully. As I explicitly noted, the White Sox held a fan design contest in 1981.

    “Your trainer analogy is asinine.” First, thanks for staying classy, Steve.

    Second, of course technology has made it possible for so-called “outsiders” to make inroads in many of the creative professions. That’s a great thing. Exploiting those who do – with contests and crowdsourcing – is not.

    Third, “…the notion of a design contest 30 years ago would have been laughable.” As Paul mentioned above, “Now, this isn’t the first time a team has crowdsourced its uniform design. The White Sox did it in 1981.” Do the math.

    Fuckin’-A right I’m being snarky. I’m pissed off because I’ve seen a lot of friends careers go in the crapper (I’ve been “downsized” more than once myself) over the last 10 years because of shit like crowdsourcing that douchebag corporations pull to save a buck. The devaluation of creative professionals hurts everyone and it sure as hell doesn’t doesn’t help to read comments like “If people are willing to do it for free (and they undoubtedly are), why pay for it?”

    What about that White Sox contest (much like many of Veeck’s ideas) was not laughable?

    I do not agree with the use of “exploiting” in this context. All of the participants are not only willing, but I dare say excited about the idea of their logo being chosen. You make it sound like slave labor.

    “The devaluation of creative professionals” does not hurt EVERYONE. It may hurt YOU, but that’s not a problem for all of the volunteer/hobbyist designers who work for the joy of the process. If you have so much anger toward your industry and potential clients, perhaps consider a career change?

    “Professional designers working in an agency, production house, etc. often do not set their own rate. They get paid like most other people… an amount their employer/client feels is a fair price to pay for their services.”

    Then it’s the agency/production house/whatever that’s overvaluing the designer’s services in that scenario. And depending on what the employer/client wants and how much high-grade design acumen he actually cares about, in the face of amateur willingness he might reasonably stop feeling that the current price is fair–or at least, worthwhile for his purposes. But again, that’s neither his fault nor the amateurs’.

    @ Steve Naismith:

    “‘The devaluation of creative professionals’ does not hurt EVERYONE.”

    Yeah, I think it does when you think big picture. Quality diminishes on a large scale and becomes more and more acceptable to the general public because it’s cheap and ubiquitous. It’s happened with everything else (furniture, clothing, food to name a few) and now it’s happening to the creative arts. There’s diminishing value placed on it and that attitude is becoming more and more pervasive and tolerated. Where does it end?

    “If you have so much anger toward your industry and potential clients, perhaps consider a career change?”

    You missed the point. It’s not the industry or clients myself or other designers have anger toward. Far from it. It’s businesspeople who exploit (and yes, that is the proper word for it) those with talent they neither posses nor are willing to pay fair-market value. It’s a slippery slope toward what I wrote in the preceding paragraph.

    @ LeCraquere:

    “Then it’s the agency/production house/whatever that’s overvaluing the designer’s services in that scenario. And depending on what the employer/client wants and how much high-grade design acumen he actually cares about, in the face of amateur willingness he might reasonably stop feeling that the current price is fair—or at least, worthwhile for his purposes. But again, that’s neither his fault nor the amateurs’.”

    So it’s the employee’s fault that his talent is being devalued because someone else is willing to do for free what he does for a living? The time and energy he’s put into his career deserves a downgrade because his boss figured out he could dupe someone else into doing it for nothing because of their “amateur willingness?” See, that’s the problem with these contests… they don’t use the same designer over and over. It’s a revolving door of fresh cows that can be perpetually milked for free.

    Marc: it’s not the employee’s FAULT, but no one automatically owes him a living for what he does. If his talents are worth less than they used to be b/c of willing amateurs working gratis and clients satisfied with the results, that sucks for him. For the Nth time, however, that’s not the amateurs’ or the clients’ problem. Neither of them owes the trained graphic designer a job.

    Le Cracquere, I’m not saying anyone owes anyone. I’m merely trying to generate awareness to the issues these sort of “contests” create. And it’s a bigger picture besides. It affects more than just designers. New tech makes it even easier for businesses to look past fairness to generate profit.

    I’m not missing your point or your sense of the “big picture”; I’m disagreeing with it and your sense of worth and entitlement.

    At an even BIGGER scale, though, I think most here will agree these debates and issues are what make America great and that we are all fortunate to have such opportunities.

    This smacks of “design by committee.” When that happens the result is rarely (if ever) good.

    Cuban’s comments are riddled with grammar and spelling issues, so I imagine he pays no attention to his tone either.

    He thinks it’s fun. It will obviously draw lots of attention.

    If I’m a “good” designer … I create a kick-ass design and post it on MY own website (and perhaps a Uniwatch, or elsewhere where it can draw attention). Then sit back and compare.

    If it’s considerably better, perhaps the Mavs will come calling.

    Whether it’s done by a highly-compensated pro or an eager fan, we’re just as likely to complain about it. Suckitude does not discriminate.

    Yeah, it would have been nice (and proper) for him to offer a tangible reward, but what was the other option here? Answer: have adidas design the uniforms for free.

    I should clarify. Obviously, designers at adidas are getting paid, but from Cuban’s point of view, the two avenues cost the same, and one creates a feel-good news story, while the other one is business as usual.

    This thread is precisely why Cuban wrote: “Who will own your design? The minute you post it [on Cuban’s blog], the Mavs will. If you think it’s horrible that the Mavs will own your design, do not post…”

    He knew some people would have this reaction, as did I when I saw this post.

    Design is like any other art (writing, film making, painting, jewelry making, etc…). The majority of people who create it aren’t fortunate enough to make a living at it. That doesn’t mean they should stop creating, does it?

    You create if you want to create (a true artist must create, btw), and once you have created, you have the choice of what to do with the piece.


    Cuban’s contempt has more to do with litigious America than disdain for fans. I can guarantee that no matter how blunt or rude the disclaimer is, someone will file a suit five years from now saying he/she submitted a design to the Mavs and it was blue or striped or polka-dotted, just like their unis…

    (And, for the record, I think fan-designed uni contests are a cheap gimmick, so I hope Cuban does get burned on it.)

    So Josh Morgan has joined Robert Griffin III in opposing a name change for the Washington DC NFL franchise.

    Let’s see…

    Morgan’s contract is worth $11.5 million, and Griffin III’s is worth $21.1 million.

    AND they support their employer?

    Not much of a surprise, in my opinion.

    True… I found it funny that the first Redskin article stated “Josh Morgan supports Dan Snyder and Redskins team name”, yet the body of the article didn’t quote Josh Morgan stating he supported Mr. Snyder’s comments as much as he just liked keeping the Redskins team name.

    I find it a little disturbing to assume that Morgan and Griffin aren’t capable of opinions based on anything other than their contracts – especially in the case of Morgan, who grew up as a fan of the team.

    I thought about sending in pics of those WVU jerseys, but I couldn’t see them ;) … Come to think of it, everyone should have been so lucky.

    pretty sure Don Majkowski (sp?) wore #1 for the Pack before Favre got there.

    The Majik man did briefly wear #5 for the Packers, which up to that point had been unofficially retired for Paul Hornung (and which hasn’t been issued since).

    But after a year of people asking him how he felt wearing Hornung’s number, he decided that he should stake out his own turf and changed to #7.

    As for #1, the only person who ever wore it on a jersey was Curly Lambeau, but Vince Lombardi’s sideline gear was marked #1 where players had their uniform numbers.

    When a quality logo or uniform design can be created by any random person with a just little bit of artistic ability, using free software and no training, how much should it cost?

    C’mon, Jeff, you read (and submit) on the weekends. Do you REALLY think quality design is that easy/common?

    I don’t. But he who pays the piper calls the tune, and it’s Mark Cuban’s prerogative to have a tin ear.

    For design as a whole… no, of course not. Design firms are probably always going to need to exist to provide services to smaller businesses.

    For a professional sports team with a few million fans and hundreds of people willing to do the work for free just because they enjoy it and it’s their team…. Yeah, it is.

    Plus, have you seen some of the “professional” designs lately? Unreadable gradient numbers, goofy looking two-colored helmets, every single new minor league baseball logo drawn in the exact same style… We’ve had plenty of unprofessional user-submitted concepts on here that are arguably better than what the real teams are using.

    As much as that person feels their time, skill and effort is worth.

    The agency that Cuban has on the back end of this deal will get paid handsomely – a hell of a lot more than possible tickets (that “maybe” thing is a Grade-A Douchebag move, btw) – to take the winning design and clean it up, develop secondary logos, color schemes, etc., so why shouldn’t the person who came up with the idea be part of the bonanza? What Cuban is doing cheapens the perception of designers thereby devaluing the work of not only professionals, but freelance artists and students as well.

    One thing to consider is that these crowdsourcing campaigns often end up costing more than just getting an agency on retainer to do it.

    Going through all the submissions, then getting the winning work to professional quality, are a huge time sink.

    But yeah, the whole perception that “design” is just making something look pretty on a computer is pretty pervasive and this isn’t helping.

    That’s quite possible … and if so, Cuban will end up costing himself more money in the long run. If that happens, one hopes he and other owners learn from it. If not–well, a man can be as foolish as he likes with his own dollars.

    After reading this comment from JimWa, I think I’ll reserve judgement on Cuban as douchebag:

    “I wouldn’t be the least bit shocked if he treats the winning designer very well, but isn’t going to say so ahead of time, for fear people will enter for the payout and not for the love of the team”

    Good point, JimWa. Hadn’t thought of that.

    That was sorta my thought, too. I almost read that comment as being tongue-in-cheek. I don’t know much about Mark Cuban, but I don’t imagine him being THAT big of a douchebag. I think he’s just being a bit coy with his readers.

    But again, I don’t know the guy… maybe he’s 100% serious.

    If he doesn’t want to make specific promises, he could at least say something like “there will be a reward for the winning design, and the reward will be cool.”

    To say “maybe” there’s something for the winner is a total jerk move.

    It really is all about the tone with this Mavs/Cuban thing. The words, by themselves, make him sound like such a pompous cocksucker. I wonder if it would’ve come off any better spoken in a video or sound bite, where we could get a better sense of his attitude/inflection. Probably not.

    You said it, Connie. Nats roads are particularly good now. The navy and white double outline of the red city name and numbers is a very nice, subtle nod back to the franchise’s roots in Montreal. If only they’d go back to the solid navy cap on the road; it makes road games in Atlanta look like intrasquad scrimmages.

    Should clarify: the current navy crown, red bill Nats road cap makes road games in Atlanta look like intrasquad scrimmages.

    Nats definitely need to wear either their home red cap all the time, or their new red crown, navy visor cap on the road, if they insist on wearing a second cap at all. But the road uniform still needs work. Mainly, it needs identical red/blue piping to match the home uni.

    As to the softball top, only two teams in baseball look good in solid red tops: the Nats and the Reds. And, sadly for the Nats, who have one of the best softball top alts in baseball, the Reds simply pull it off better. A lot better.

    The other major change I’d like to see is adopting the original Expos number font, which would match the curly W much better than their current extra-thick, hyper-serifed block numbers. That, and either raise the number to the same level as the curly W at home, or eliminate jersey-front numbers entirely.

    Could just as well ask, Which Nats curly W? Years after officially adopting a slightly tweaked but significantly improved curly W logo, the Nats are still using the old curly W on their caps and jersey fronts. The only place the updated curly W appears on Nats uniforms is the sleeve patch.

    The current Nats have the edge in my book. By intent, the Mets’ design is an ill-harmonized match-up of Giants and Dodgers fonts, colors, and design elements that’s never really cohered. Usually, their blue has been too light to look decent next to the orange, and their logo is over-busy.

    The Nats unis have had a lot of chaotic, ill-fitting elements since the move, but over the last few seasons they’ve made changes that keep resulting in a more coherent, attractive look (and if you’re going to steal from another team, the Braves are a pretty smart choice). In short, Washington’s design ethos is palpably on an upward course and coming together, while the Mets haven’t stopped flailing and dabbling since ’62.

    Glad I didn’t see the rankings before I placed my votes. I like to think that either I’m a good chooser of uniforms, or I’m a sheep, but I ended up agreeing with every single choice made by the voting public.

    JimWa, for the most part, I agreed with the majority on every choice also.

    I like the Mets’ blue/orange combo – I think that color combination is underutilized in uniforms, while the Nats’ red/white (and sometimes blue) is waaaaaaay too common. That said, the Nats’ uniform looks so crisp and clean to me, and the curly W is a thing of beauty.

    I, too, like the blue and orange combo (thanks to my home-town Bears and identical color scheme of my high school) … but when it comes to the uniform, somehow the orange and grey wash one another out too much, IMO.

    Please, don’t anybody tell Susan G. Komen for the Cure that Bobby Orr was selling pink lemonade. I wouldn’t want to get him in trouble.

    Regarding the Mavs owning your design work once you submit, I believe that’s to prevent legal issues down the road. Say if the Mavs end up creating a new uniform at some point in the future that maybe, sorta looks like one you submitted. Even if it’s coincidental, the person that created that idea would be in the right to sue the Mavs. So if you have a big fan contest to design a uniform, you’re going to be receiving hundreds of designs. If the Mavs didn’t own those designs it would really limit would they could and couldn’t do in the future.

    This is why large companies, for example Apple, can’t accept your ideas for improvements to their products. In many cases they are already working on something a fan would suggest. (a lot of suggestions are fairly obvious.) Once that idea hits the market, it needs to come purely from the company or they need to have worked out a licensing agreement ahead of time with the individual.

    I don’t think anybody really has a problem with the Mavs owning all submissions, for just that reason.

    It’s his jerkish tone, the sneering “maybe we’ll give you something if we choose your design” statement that are raising ire.

    But you’re judging him on the basis of something he did not say. Cuban didn’t say he’d throw a few trinkets at you if “we choose your design,” he said he’d throw trinkets at you if “we really like your design.” I don’t believe he ever actually says that any submitted designs will necessarily form the basis of the team’s new uniforms, just that they could. Which is what you’d say if you opened up a fan-submission contest expecting that all you were going to do is hand out a few goodie-bags and participation trophies to the plebes while the actual professionals you’ve hired design the new uniforms you want. The strong implication, as I read Cuban’s text, is that if he really likes any submissions, he may show them to his designers as “see, I like this” examples.

    Re: Cuban’s attitude, at least he’s crystal clear, transparent, and completely honest. Would you rather have the guy do what the Ravens did to that guy whose logo was stolen?

    And as we all know, the only two choices in life are to be duplicitous or to be transparently boorish. There is no middle ground.

    Modern American culture in a nutshell.

    Right because it never occurs to our culture that “Not being a jerk” is an option.

    I think think that NFLPA sleeping bag must be a Nike product. Get a load of those uniform colors!!

    I, for one, applaud Mark Cuban for what he’s doing. He’s not asking fans to design a building, or rewire the arena, or orchestrate an event. He’s asking fans – IF THEY WANT TO – to offer their visions of how they’d like to see their team look. Yes, he COULD pay a designer good money to do so, and I’m assuming he has done so in the past and will do so again in the future. Look at this website each weekend. There’s a pretty sizable group that LIKES to make our own jersey concepts. We take pride in it. I love the Cubs jersey that I pieced together, and from the reaction I got, others liked it, too. I’d LOVE for the team to adopt my vision, even if I didn’t get paid for it.

    I guess what I’m saying is there’s probably tens, if not hundreds or thousands, of Mav’s uni concepts out there, whether they’re on the back of school notebooks, bar napkins, inside a photoshop file, or wherever. People have a passion for this kind of thing already, why not let those ideas be seen and even used by the parent team?

    As for Cuban’s flippant “I may even throw in some tickets” is something that would most likely insult me coming from just about any other team owner, but it seems to sound just right coming from him. I don’t know him, but I wouldn’t be the least bit shocked if he treats the winning designer very well, but isn’t going to say so ahead of time, for fear people will enter for the payout and not for the love of the team.

    If I’m wrong, well, don’t say he didn’t warn you! :)

    A lot of people play basketball for free. Do carpentry in the garage. Prepare gourmet meals for friends. Yet those people wouldn’t do so for an otherwise paying client just because it’s a fun contest.

    Sure, it’s completely voluntary, but it still devalues the time, work and experience it takes to create quality designs. It’s taking a paying job off the market. And it reinforces the idea that design is only worthwhile if it’s used, and the process – design exploration, designer/client interaction, review/revision cycle – are worthless.

    Let me ask you this – who is doing a great disservice to the profession of uniform designers – the Dallas Mavericks who change their design every five years but will (potentially) screw one designer out of a fee this time, or the Yankees, who haven’t had to pay a uniform designer in my lifetime?

    The Mavs. The Yankees are paying the fair market rate for services rendered.

    “I’m unemployed all the time, but at least the Yankees aren’t paying anyone else! Yeah for me!” – Uniform Designer in NYC

    The intellectual dishonesty store called and they’re running out of you.

    I mean, if the Yankees’ classic design is keeping the guy unemployed, he should consider another field of work. You don’t see too many ad agencies crying because Google does its creatives in house.

    If so, it’s not the responsibility of the contestants or Cuban to REFRAIN from “devaluing” them. And if “design exploration, designer/client interaction, [and a] review/revision cycle” don’t result in something that the client values more than an amateur’s efforts that HAVEN’T undergone such things, they aren’t worthwhile in the event.

    I don’t blame Cuban for reflecting society’s attitude towards the creative process (though he should know better), but he does have a responsibility to pay for services rendered. He’s pretending there’s no service, and just the end product.

    It’s the equivalent of going into a restaurant, telling the cooks to come up with something to wow you without giving specific directions, then saying, “Okay, I like this dish so I’ll pay for it. Everyone else can screw off.” Completely reasonable, right?

    Now I’m confused. Are you saying that Cuban should pay every amateur out there who does spec work on the design? If I’m not mistaken, he bluntly said that non-winners weren’t getting paid. If contestants, KNOWING THAT, are willing to do the work regardless, then no–Cuban’s got zero responsibility to pay for freely rendered services that he already said he wouldn’t pay for, in crystal-clear terms.

    For your restaurant comparison to be valid, the cooks must all understand that if they don’t win, they won’t get paid. In that case, they’re free not to play, and to refuse wasting their efforts & ingredients in the first place. But if they cook a dish for him, they’re making a fully informed wager that might pay off, or might yield zilch. If the latter occurs, that’s not the customer’s fault.

    Well, the restaurant example isn’t exactly a “contest” either, as in, it’s not a bunch of chefs/cooks competing to make the one dish that the customer feels is “best.”

    Using JimWa’s original thought:

    Would you feel the same if Cuban asked designers to submit their ideas to re-wire the building, orchestrate a compelling event, or design the brand-new Mavericks Arena … for free, if they WANT to?

    Hey architects … send me new building design ideas. Hey engineers … send me new ideas to wire my building. Hey event planners … concept out and execute a spectacular event. Nobody’s getting paid, BTW. I own the designs. You may get some tickets.

    Of course this would not fly in any way, shape, or form.

    But it’s marketing and design. Everyone thinks they can do marketing. And anybody can do design with today’s technology.

    I don’t think it would fly, not because nobody could for those things, but would anyone WANT to do it, especially for free.

    I hate to sound like a capitalist, but if you have hundreds/thousands of people willing to do a job for free, is it the work that’s being undervalued, or the professionals getting paid to do work others are willing to do for free that are OVER-valuing the work?

    If someone is willing to come along and staff this company at no cost (and still provide quality), why WOULDN’T the company listen?

    Also … surely he’s going to have to pay a designer at some point to make a mock-up into reality. I don’t know that I’ve ever seen a concept-turned-reality where something wasn’t changed along the way. That’s where the designer comes in much of the time anyway, isn’t it? An owner has a napkin sketch, brings it to a designer who brings as much of the “feel” as possible while working within the boundaries of said league’s guidelines.

    If freelance, untrained architects were uniformly capable of designing an arena in a way that didn’t risk killing or endangering anybody; if they were willing to do that kind of stuff for free; and if the results were good enough for the owner’s satisfaction, then yeah–it would fly.

    Basically, architecture/electrical/safety are more “important” fields of design than graphics or fashion. Being a graphic designer, I know how the perfect visuals can take anything from decent to excellent, but I’m not going to pretend that the graphics really matter to the general public; they typically don’t have a great sense of the principles of design.

    Reading Cuban’s blog post – and good lord, just trying to imagine the equivalently dickish titans of industry of my youth, like Lee Iacoca, writing “blog posts” makes me feel old – I come away with a more generous reading than Paul. Which is probably an error on my part – the list of people who don’t deserve the benefit of the doubt definitely includes Cuban. But still. I don’t get the impression that he’s saying, “If we choose your design as the basis for our new uniforms, maybe just maybe we’ll throw a couple of nosebleed tickets and a keychain at you, sucker.” I got the impression that (A) He doesn’t actually intend to use fan designs for the uniforms anyway, and the “we own your submission” thing is just preemptive IP lawyering to avoid later claims; and (B) He’s saying that a good number of entrants, whose work will not become the new Mavs unis, will be showered with trinkets for participating. It’s just that, being M Cuban, attempting to say, “Hey guys, have fun with this, plus we’ll give out prizes,” comes off sounding more like, “I’m a self-important asshat and you’re all suckers.”

    Yeah, the tone and the “I own your work” disclaimer are the things I have the *least* problem with. I like Cuban, and I still do. My beef is about how the public perception of the creative fields.

    Once, just once, wouldn’t it be cool if they’d have a contest for logo/uni designs that said “The winner receives the equivalent of a professional designer’s full day’s wages!” Granted, it’ll be a check for $37.50, but still…

    The helmets on that Ebay thermos look VERY similar to a poster of “all 28 NFL helmets” I got for free with a Scholastic Books order in 1978 or 79 (divided by conference, on a white background).

    UK Wildcats tongue/penis “rumor just kept getting bigger and bigger.” Really? Somebody printed THAT quote in THAT story?

    “…but once the rumor reached the climax, it quickly shrunk away.”

    Nice catch. Somebody was having fun in the article.

    I couldn’t get a clear view, but those supposed NFL glasses from 1976 seem to have the Bengal’s striped helmet. Didn’t they unveil those around 1979? Little help?

    1981. And dates of stuff listed on E-bay aren’t worth the paper they’re not written on. Usually just a WAG by the seller (if you’re giving the benefit of the doubt) or deliberately trying to make things look older than they are to drive up the price (if you’re not).

    That one NFL poster seems as though it was created in 1966 or early 1967 (Saints were not on there, but Falcons were). Its featuring of a cowboys v. Steelers graphic in the upper left corner was prophetic.

    I had that Dave Boss NFL poster on my bedroom wall about 40 years ago. It cost about $2.99 (thanks, Mom) and arrived in a cardboard tube via USPS. I probably ordered it from an advertisement in the back of a sports magazine. Even back then, I was puzzled/charmed by the depiction of the Redskins…like they were an after thought. Presented twice, but nearly invisible.

    I love the Minnesota marriage equality thing and the 1948 Brownie. Actually, maybe I don’t love that particular 1948 Brownie because he’s glowering. I’ll just like him. I love the Brownies with, well, an impish little smile on their faces. Bring ’em back, please.

    I thought Cuban’s post was awesome.

    As a lawyer who hates boilerplate lawyer-speak because it actually discourages people from really understanding legal consequences, I commend him for making sure people can’t misunderstand the legal rights to their creations that they will be giving up.

    The use of humor is an awesome way to make sure people really read it. Yeah, the humor is Cuban’s own brand, but it really works in this case.

    Chris, I’m a lawyer as well and I had the same reaction.

    I’ve spent too much of my life reading and writing boilerplate IP clauses and trying to figure out who owns the rights to something.

    Compare that to the boilerplate for other online contests – for example clause 5 of “Intellectual Property Matters” here:

    I love the casual voice. I love the part about eternal bragging rights.

    My beef comes with the “maybe we’ll deign to give the winner something” bit, which curldes the whole event.

    “Redskins” applies to a lot of things, mostly foodstuffs. All they have to do is change the mascot and logo.

    A CC Sabathia fan wore a Yanks/Indans Frankenjersey yesterday (from Paulie Sumner).

    Frankenjerseys steal a lot of my uniform doodle time, nowadays. I think I’d want my imaginary team to look like its identity was created by Alexander Calder.

    In the early 80s, one of my high schools (Rippowam HS, of Stamford, Conn., home of Bobby Valentine) had green tequila sunrise baseball jerseys to go with the green brick of the school.

    So add another to the list!

    I’ll see if there are any pix in the yearbook that I can scan.

    If the Braves ever change their uniforms, I’d love to see the Brewers adopt that exact look for all-times!

    JimWa, I’m with you. At the very least, adopt that script tomorrow – it’s a beut.

    For context, here’s an authentic 1948 Brewers home jersey (the one I was going to wear to the Uni Watch meet-up, Paul). Majestic did a great job with it, once you get past swapping the zip-front for a button-up placket.

    I’m confused about this whole thing – at first glance it looks like the Brewers are throwing back to the Milwaukee Braves colors, but with ‘Brewers’ script, yet the Brewers actually wore that in 1948? So the Boston Braves and the minor league Milwaukee Brewers had virtually the same unis, and the Braves wound up moving to the Brewers’ city?!? Or am I missing something?

    Not only is THAT confusing, but the Twin is in the road St. Paul uni, the Brewer in a home uni, but the photo seems to have been taken in front of Minnesota’s photo op wall!

    It’s in front of the Minnesota backdrop because this is a Twins home game.

    They decided to wear road uniforms because, they say, they wanted to let he two St. Paul-born players wear their hometown across their chests. Personally, I think they might also not want to promote those that other team that wears “Saints” jerseys, but whatever. Regardless, the Brewers are wearing home throwback unis on the road.

    I’m confused about this whole thing — at first glance it looks like the Brewers are throwing back to the Milwaukee Braves colors, but with ‘Brewers’ script, yet the Brewers actually wore that in 1948? So the Boston Braves and the minor league Milwaukee Brewers had virtually the same unis, and the Braves wound up moving to the Brewers’ city?!? Or am I missing something?

    You’re not missing anything – the Brewers were an independent team for over four decades, and during that time they introduced that particular “Brewers” script. After the 1946 season, Boston Braves owner Lou Perini bought the Brewers and made them the top farm club for his NL franchise. At that time, they made some modifications to the Brewers’ uniforms making them more like the Braves’, including the navy/red/navy piping and those unmistakable socks.

    And, of course, since the Braves were failing in Boston, a couple years later Perini looked to his thriving AAA city as a new home (he owned the territory and prevented Bill Veeck from moving his St. Louis Browns to Milwaukee). Perini waited until Milwaukee finished building its taxpayer-funded County Stadium and swooped in.

    As a Braves fan who absolutely loves those stirrups… I AM SO JEALOUS!

    Toronto wearing the MARPAT? Shouldn’t they use Canada’s own CADPAT camo pattern? Oh, and does Canada even celebrate Memorial Day…isn’t it the “Queen’s Birthday” or something in late May for them? Hope Jays are on the road, otherwise awkward moment when a Canadian team takes the diamond at Rogers Centre wearing USMC camo caps!

    New economics study out of Emory looks at the financial impact of switching away from Indian nicknames and mascots, and finds no big impact. Near-term financial hits, made generally a wash after year two with upticks in support and sales. Looks to me like an issue of pent-up demand; all the diehards who insist they’ll never attend a game or buy stuff after the name change hold out for about 18 months, then come back as if nothing happened. Still reading it, so that first impression might not be borne out, but here’s the link:“imperfect”-analysis-of-the-economics-of-native-american-mascots-much-ado-about-nothing/

    The report’s bottom-line conclusion: Schools experience a very short (1 or 2 years) negative financial impact and then quickly recover. Furthermore, in the long-term, the shift away from a Native American mascot yields positive financial returns.

    Interesting analysis, though it would have made a bit more of an impression on me if it was written more as an academic paper (y’know, footnotes, formulae, etc.).

    Full disclosure: Emory is post-secondary alma mater #2 or 3 for me. It’s not a school with much of an athletic tradition, and its mascot choice was pretty much the idea of one person, an editor of the student newspaper. Given the popularity of its unofficial mascot and his role in campus life, Emory seems to have missed the boat in not making him official.

    What holds ‘true’ for NCAA hoops may not for the NFL and the Washington Redskins.
    I applaud the authors for owning their ‘apples and oranges’, though I doubt Dan Snyder is interested the flawed product…maybe if it was printed in caps he’d be better convinced?
    Why would Snyder alter the Redskins in such a way and risk a hit to the wallet, even a short-term one, when the current branding is a great seller with fans and the Redskins’ overall value has grown without an name/logo overhaul?

    Paul, saw this post on the discussion thread for the Reds/Braves best uniform vote.

    Schwabsa writes:
    “Braves tomahawk is as racist as the Indians Chief Wahoo, but Lukas looks the other way.”

    There seems to be a bit of bile in Schwabsa’s post, but I’d really like to hear your thoughts on the Braves’ use of traditional native American imagery.

    I’m opposed to it. Always have been. Not because it’s racist, but because, as I’ve said all along, it’s intellectual property that doesn’t belong to the team.

    Paul, can you clarify that statement? To what IP do you refer, specifically, and why you feel the team doesn’t have a right to it?

    The art is cool and all, but I don’t understand the proposal of “Redtails” as a new name for the Redskins. Perhaps I’m missing something, but I don’t see how a nickname for the Tuskegee Airmen ties in to Washington DC or its culture. That isn’t to say that I don’t think the Tuskegee Airmen are worthy of celebration and respect; merely that I don’t see the connection to DC. I get that it would mean that the team only has to change part of its name, but I don’t think it’s the first syllable (or the color) that the average DC football fan is rooting for.

    That said, Redtails is a marginally better option than Pigskins.

    Is there a requirement that a sports team’s name must have a specific connection to a city or its culture? What connection does “Redskins” have to the DC area? Or “Pigskins,” for that matter?

    Since Washington, DC, is the hub of our nation’s armed forces, I’d suggest that naming the team after an historically significant military provides a greater connection to the city and region than either the current name or the presumptive most popular alternative.

    There is no specific connection between “Redskins” and DC, but the team adopted the name before it relocated to Washington. I mention “Pigskins” because that suggestion has been bandied about as a way to tie the old name in with the legacy of the Hogs, while having the added advantage of being a colloquialism for the game itself.

    Of course there’s no requirement for the team’s name to have a specific connection to the city or its culture, but I personally like when there is that kind of local connection. Could “Redtails” work because of the military presence in DC? I guess so, sure. But it seems to me like it’s a reach that’s less about honoring the military in DC than it is about recycling part of the existing name.

    First off, any defense of “Redskins” after questioning the local relevance of “Redtails” is just digging the hole deeper. It would be a valid question, if the Redskins were named the Washington Monuments. They’re not; switching from a name that was supposed to refer to Boston to a name that sort of refers to Alabama is a wash.

    Secondly, who’s to say Redtails doesn’t have local relevance? The Tuskegee Airmen didn’t fight in Alabama. They fought in Europe, for the United States of America, whose government and military are and were headquartered in Washington, DC. Plus, they were a black unit, and DC is perhaps our nation’s most historically upwardly mobile black-majority city.

    The Tuskegee Airmen are national heroes, and DC is the national capital. And the Tuskegee Airmen were black pioneers, and DC is a historically black city. That’s a heck of a lot more local relevance than, say, “Some guys in Boston dressed like Indian braves once, and 30 years later the country whose independence resulted from the rebellion they started built its capital at Washington. Plus, some other team in Boston was already using ‘Braves’ 80 years ago, so they’re the ‘Redskins.'” Try explaining that to a child ten times fast.

    “Could ‘Redtails’ work because of the military presence in DC? I guess so, sure. But it seems to me like it’s a reach that’s less about honoring the military in DC than it is about recycling part of the existing name.”

    Is “Pigskins” any different, really? Does that name serve any purpose other than to recycle a part of the team’s existing name? “Pigskins” has no tie to the culture and heritage of the DC area other than in a team-specific, self-referential, circular sort of way.

    This is all an exercise in hypotheticals, of course, because the team doesn’t appear likely to change its name anytime soon. But I can see how there might be a preference to recycle a piece of the team’s current name in a potential rebranding. (It maintains a tie to the team’s past; it keeps the cadence of the team’s fight song intact; etc.) And in that case, I like “Redtails” better than “Pigskins” because of its deeper historical context. (Not to mention I like mcrosby’s logo concepts on SportsLogos.Net.)

    Is “Pigskins” any different, really? Does that name serve any purpose other than to recycle a part of the team’s existing name? “Pigskins” has no tie to the culture and heritage of the DC area other than in a team-specific, self-referential, circular sort of way.

    Lots of people have advocated changing to “Pigskins” in large part because it’s “team-specific.” If you’re going to change a team’s name, using a name that’s relevant to the team’s history (and fits into the fight song) seems to be as valid a choice as any. I just fear having this as a mascot:

    I’m sure there are a lot of people who feel that basing a new name on part of the old name – whether it’s “red” or “skins” – is a clever idea. All I was syaing was, I like Redtails only slight better than Pigskins but I would hope for some other options.

    Josh Morgan, from the Washington Post article Paul linked to in the Ticker, on why he does not support the Redskins changing their name to the Redtails:

    “I was kinda getting scared when everybody started talking about the Redtails, and all this other stuff. I was getting a little nervous about that.

    “That’s kind of taking away from the Tuskegee Airmen,” he continued. “That was their name.”

    So Morgan finds it objectionable for a sports team to appropriate the name, imagery, and likeness of one group of people (the Tuskegee Airmen), but is perfectly fine with the exact same thing being done to another group of people (Native Americans). Okay, got it!

    Not to mention that something along the lines of Paul’s pet peeve G.I. Joe look may be institutionalized as the standard uniform for the Redtails. Not full camo, mind you, but something either olive drab or khaki with martial imagery.

    I certainly can’t presume to speak for Paul, but I don’t recall him ever objecting to a team with a specifically military-themed name using martial imagery as part of its visual identity. (Unless, of course, the imagery includes a hideously ugly camo uni.)

    I thought Paul was sort of kind of okay with the military theme that Jacksonville was rumored to be using (that got toned down in the actual release).

    My understanding is that his beef is with commercializing “patriotism” and “military appreciation” by selling one-off uniforms.

    Paul, I’m a graphic designer. Designers are paid to come up with ideas. Hundreds of designs will likely be submitted of which one will be chosen. The designs that aren’t chosen still provide value. They might not be used in the final product, but they are used to help the client make a decision. So even if he decided to pay for the winning design, he’s still getting something of value for free. This sets the precedent for designers that their brainstorming, thought process, sketching, etc is of no value unless it’s the “chosen” one. These fan submission contests are fun but unfortunetly the whole thing cheapens the design process.

    Made me cringe when they talked about it during last night’s broadcast.

    I can understand not giving it to a young pitcher who’s coming up (undue expectations) but to give it to a scrapheap pickup outfielder who’s not going to be around very long leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

    I honestly don’t understand this attitude.


    1) The number is available.

    2) It’s been worn plenty of times since Gooden left the team, most recently by a second-string catcher who most fans probably don’t even remember being on the team.

    3) Ankiel is wearing 16 specifically as a tribute to Gooden. I’m pretty sure that wasn’t the case with any of the other post-Gooden players who wore it (except Cone).

    If they retire the number, then fine. Until then, it’s fair game.

    A better tribute to Gooden would be to just not wear his number; unless you are a good enough player. Ankiel should know that he is not worthy.

    “A better tribute to Gooden would be to just not wear his number; unless you are a good enough player. Ankiel should know that he is not worthy.”

    Should every player whose number he’s not wearing feel honored? Or should he be required to tell us which players he’s specifically honoring by, you know, not doing anything to bring attention to them in the first place?

    He doesn’t have to honor anybody in the first place Just take a number other than 16.

    Wheels, forgive the tone, but that makes no sense at all. You honor things by keeping them in memory, not by sealing them away never to be seen again. Nobody says, “To honor my grandfather Tom, I’m going to decree that no child ever be named Tom again in this family.” No, you do the opposite: go out of your way to give out that name again. And that’s what should be done with numbers of great baseball players.

    I agree with Cuban’s approach. If he selects someone’s design and then stiff’s that person, I’ll be disappointed in him. My guess is that he will reward that person in a fun and creative way.

    I suspect that some folks just don’t like Cuban and so they are inclined to hate whatever he does.

    I suspect that some folks in the design field will react negatively to virtually any kind of “fan contest”, because it belittles their profession.

    It is easy for any of the above naysayers to accuse Cuban of being “cheap” or “boorish”. I think it is just Cuban being Cuban, while trying to give fans a fun opportunity to participate.

    Why should only the winner being rewarded? Why aren’t you bothered that he’s not stiffing everyone else?

    I assume the “not” in “not stiffing” was a simple oversight. If so, the answer is: because anyone who submits a design is explicitly VOLUNTEERING to get “stiffed.” Cuban’s terms are perfectly clear. I don’t like the sound of those terms, myself, so I wouldn’t submit a Mavs design even if I had a great idea for one. Everyone else is free to do the same.

    The problem with the “Don’t do it if you don’t like it” mindset is that if we only compensate for the end product and not the work, then the process of processing the brief, exploring options, the back-and-forth with the client and refinements are all no longer worthwhile. If it becomes the norm, “design” becomes “whipping something up on Illustrator”, and ultimately, design as a whole suffers.

    You might not value the process, but I think we’d all suffer if the race to the bottom becomes the default.

    Oh, I do value the process. However, I can’t and won’t demand that every client value it. And if enough clients don’t care about the difference it makes, design won’t “suffer” in any sense that matters to the people who PAY for design, and they won’t suffer themselves. I like good design, but if the people who write the checks don’t care about the distinction between pro design and the amateur work that can be done with modern tools, it won’t do to pretend otherwise.

    I cast a couple of unpopular votes:

    * Braves over Cardinals–Yes, I’m a Braves fan … but what’s more, the all-red St. Louis uni is monotonous–far inferior to the varying Cards uniforms worn from 1940 through the early ’60s.

    * Phillies over Dodgers–the Dodgers’ weird red jersey numbers don’t look any better just because they’ve become traditional. And the Phillies’ uniforms are often underrated because of misplaced nostalgia for the abominations of the Mike Schmidt era.

    * Giants over Pirates: They’re neck and neck, but right now, Pittsburgh has the edge. For my money, though, the Pirates are the only team that should have KEPT their sleeveless vests: they’ve got historical precedent, and it’s not such an annoying affectation if only one single team is regularly doing it.

    Still haven’t fixed that erroneous description of the White Sox script being inspired by the 83 Winning Ugly team, as opposed to the Go Go Sox of the 50s.

    I can’t imagine anyone ever wearing something covered in MLB logos, but I’m tempted to buy that dress simply for its inclusion of the Washington Senators.

    I just saw that bespectacled UW fave Chuck Muncie has passed away (heart attack). Bummer.

    This graphic design topic reminds me of television. We used to have classic shows/characters, and now we have reality stars.

    The classic shows stay classic forever, and the reality stars leave when they make everyone (including their original supporters) sick to our stomachs. If you are too young to remember a time before “classic” then you don’t give a shit, in your disposable world.

    Would Mark Cuban care about that analogy? No. Will he ever get a design worthy of being loved forever? NO!

    He’s a new wave kinda guy; disposable is the new classic. Unless you’re 14, you won’t get it. When the 14 year olds turn 30+, they won’t be enamoured at the thought of working for free. Who cares, because there will be a new crop of 14 year olds…

    You know, I’d totally be down with your analogy, but we arguably in the Golden Age of television.

    Jerry Seinfeld & his children’s children will be eating off of “Seinfeld” for a long time. Honey Boo Boo will be putting an advertisement on her jersey when she jumps off the diving board into the pool in a few years. For free.

    ‘Seinfeld’ is a tad bit overrated and hasn’t aged particularly well.

    I think the 6-camera sitcom hit its peak in the late 80’s/early 90’s, but other formats – serial dramas and single camera comedies (basically, ‘Sopranos’ and the original ‘The Office’ and later) have gotten considerably better in this century. Movies have become the pulp medium while auteurs have moved to TV.

    Speaking of American TV’s Golden Age, Rod Serling also urged fans to submit ideas for his ‘maverick’ franchise.
    He received a lot of them, got around to personally review a few of them, and wound up using none of them.
    Cuban may wind up doing the same thing.

    I just realized – there was a fan logo contest before the White Sox. The Brewers held one in 1977 to replace the beer barrel man.

    The winner was a student named Tom Meindel, who received $2,000 from the team (almost $7,700 in 2013 dollars). His design, FWIW, was then given to a professional design firm which tweaked it and refined it.

    But that can’t be the first one, can it?

    Has it already been mentioned that the Jaguars helmet, when viewed backwards, looks like George Costanza’s hairline? Am I the only one who sees that?

    Co-stan-za… By Mennen!

    again, should leave the aussie stuff to me…i sent that to you also…it’s not going to happen…they wore those already…i watched it live…monday night (in aus), two days ago… :(

    No need to do any checking to see if Native Americans oppose the Redskins name, we can just trust Jim Rome, who says they do. No need for any further research. Regardless of your stance on the whole naming issue, his reasoning is horsecrap, not to mention self-contradictory.

    Not that I have the mad skills or time to do it, but perhaps the new Mavs jersey should have a Uni-Watch logo where the ad should be. Maybe all of the entries should…

    Has anyone thought about that Cuban may be trying to keep Mavericks relevant over the summer. Missing the playoffs sure took a bite out of his bottom line this year.

    Hey I typed in “Pabst Blue Ribbon” on eBay, and found this beauty. I would think Stroh’s would have bragging right in Detroit first. (Ironically, that brand is now owned by PBR.) Not sure if the Brewers were playing at that point, though judging by the bottle on the sign the Braves were probably already in Atlanta by that point. (The PBR label largely hasn’t changed since the late 1960’s, though it did use a similar label to the current one after WWII.) I imagine that Schlitz was probably sponsoring the MLB team in Milwaukee at that time anyways. (Ironically, Schlitz is another brand now owned by Pabst.) Anyone has $100 to pony up for this sign?

    And both Schlitz and Pabst are now brewed under license by Miller, which was the primary sponsor of baseball from the Brewers of the 1930s through the Braves’ entire existence. I think Pabst took over for a while when the club returned in the 1970s.

    “Seattle has been rather disappointed in the way it’s been treated by the NBA lately.”

    GMAFB. The Maloofs are the reason Seattle had a chance at robbing Sacramento. Any sane (read: solvent) ownership group would have taken the arena deal in Sacramento when the Anaheim fiasco happened last year.

    Obscure esthetic note, tonight the Blue Jays are playing the Giants. Current Blue Jay (last year Giant) Melky Cabrera was shown to be using a bat that appears to be a SF bat from last year, in that at the bottom of the bat , was a black circle and an orange 53. The Blue Jays’ telecast had a close up shot, ironically Melky has 4 hits tonight.

    Re: Twins/Brewers throwbacks..if those uniforms were to be worn in today’s anal world they would be called boring..jus saying

    Not the Brewers, although they’d undoubtedly add a sleeve patch today.

    But I’m confused – was that a “things aren’t what they used to be” post or a “the golden days sucked” one? ;)

    For anyone interested, there’s a great segment on the show “NFL Films Presents”, on the NFL Network at 12:30 am (est), about a guy with a huge collection of football socks.

    RE: The NFL thermos; I had a lunch box in the 70s with that same helmet look. It had the AFC on one side and the NFC on the other and it looked even better rendered in metal.

    I’m more than happy to uncover this great site. If you don’t mind May I also reveal a tip. Fidning a sexy muscles Lawyer can also be dificult, in the event you reside in Sourthern California and you have to have a sexy muscles nude man, simply click my link.

Comments are closed.