Skip to content

Monday Morning Uni Watch


NFL butt cheeks used to make on-field appearances once every few years or so, but now it’s becoming a near-weekly phenomenon. The latest culprit: Browns wideout Travis Benjamin (shown at right), who fired a moonshot during yesterday’s game against the Vikings, treating the nation to a view of his gluteus gridironus. With this type of thing happening more and more frequently, here’s a question worth considering: Given that today’s jerseys are skin-tight and impossible to grab onto, are players grabbing at their opponents’ pants instead? Hmmmm.

Aside from that, it was a fairly uni-uneventful day in the NFL yesterday, but here are a few =notes:

•  Alameda Ta’amu of the Cardinals had a torn collar, with the tear running right through the NFL logo. It’s not immediately clear if this was an accidental tear or an intentional jersey modification, although it’s hard to imagine the logo tearing like that on its own.

• The Bengals wore their orange alts against the Packers.

• Speaking of the Packers, some of their players are still wearing that super-wide pants striping (which I assume means those players are wearing some sort of super-stretchy pants).

• Cam Newton wore some seriously weird shoes while warming up for the Panthers/Giants game.

• The Titans wore white at home against the Chargers.

• The Saints wore white at home against the Cardinals.

(And yes, the Dolphins and Panthers also wore white at home, but that’s nothing new.)

Turning to Saturday’s NCAA action, Phil and his stable of contributors had lots of good coverage in yesterday’s entry, but here are some additional items:

• CMU wore very nice throwbacks against Toledo.

• Check out this shot of the UCLA squad from Saturday night’s game against New Mexico State and compare the “5” in Jake Brendel’s No. 54 to the “5” on Xavier Su’a-Filo’s No. 56. Is Brendel’s jersey just stretched and distorted, or is his “5” actually an upside-down “2”? Sure looks like the latter.

• Tom Brandt of UMass was wearing FNOB, even though he’s the only Brandt on the roster. I think it’s because his brother Tim was on the team last year — Tom must be wearing last season’s jersey.

• Did Johnny Football give Indiana cornerback Kenny Mullen permission to wear his arm sleeve?

• Grand Valley State — that’s a D2 school — went G.I. Joe, with camo numbers and military branch NOBs.

(My thanks to all contributors, including Stephen Boyd, Erkki Corpuz, Don Diaz, George N., Forrest Page, Nik Streng, and of course Phil.)

+ + + + +

No mo’ Mo: As you’re probably aware, the Yankees saluted Mariano Rivera yesterday by wearing a Rivera patch on their sleeves and caps. Can’t say I’m in love with that move — Rivera has been a special player, but he’s still just a player, and it strikes me as unseemly to honor an active player on a uniform. I was wondering if Rivera himself would wear the patches, and sure enough, he did, which seems particularly ridiculous. If he’s as dignified and humble as everyone says, I’m sure he was embarrassed by that.

So will the Yankees do this again when Derek Jeter retires? Should the Braves have done it for Chipper Jones? Should the Rockies be doing it for Todd Helton? Let’s hope this doesn’t start a trend.

As for the patch design, I don’t think it needed the words “New York Yankees,” but aside from that it’s not bad, since it captures Rivera’s familiar game-entrance trot and can also be interpreted as his trot off into the sunset. But here’s something to consider: There’s nothing particularly unique about Rivera’s trot from the bullpen to the mound — scores of other relievers do the exact same thing he does. His entrance has achieved iconic status because a TV director at YES chose to show it again and again and again, making it Rivera’s signature image. But the signature really belongs to that TV director, not to Rivera.

Meanwhile, the Yankees brought in Metallica to play Rivera’s entrance tune, “Enter Sandman,” for the occasion. The band members wore pinstriped Metallica jerseys and used Rivera-themed picks — nice.

+ + + + +

ESPN reminder: In case you missed it last Friday, I had a really cool column about former NFL logo designer Stevens Wright’s archival files. Lots of amazing stuff here, including the revelation that the Chiefs were pursuing a logo redesign in 1983 (although they eventually decided against it).

Also, if you missed my two ESPN columns on the NFL’s new rule regarding alternate helmets, you’ll want to check them out too. Start here and then go here.

+ + + + +

’Skins Watch: This is so awesome: Remember Brittain Peck’s Whiteskins project? Thanks to some help from Owen Good of Kotaku, the Whiteskins are now available for video game use. … So here’s something interesting: Rick Reilly, who wrote a spirited defense of the ’Skins name last week (albeit one with lots of holes), had a completely different take on the subject back in 1991. Now, there’s nothing necessarily wrong with changing one’s mind over the course of 22 years — thoughts evolve, mindsets expand, new evidence comes to light, etc. Hell, my own take on the Native American thing has evolved over the years (I addressed that evolution here), so why not Reilly’s? But it would have been nice if Reilly had at least acknowledged his earlier stance and explained how and why it had changed. His failure to do so strikes me as intellectually dishonest. Disappointing. … The Nepean Redskins — that’s the Canadian football team that recently agreed to change its name — is making preparations for a new identity (thanks, Phil). … According to a placard that Tommy Turner saw at FedEx Field, the idea of changing the ’Skins helmet logo from an “R” to an Indian profile in 1971 came from the President of the National Congress of American Indians. ”¦ Brad Phillips, who trains PR reps on how to deal with the media, thinks the ’Skins should change their name (from Jude Seymour).

Baseball News: Jason Heyward of the Braves is now a member of MLB’s Masked Men fraternity. … Terry Duroncelet came across this shot of the 1978 Tulane baseball team wearing a tequila sunrise-ish jersey with an unusual uphill chest insignia, plus the cap logo is similar to a design that the football team has been experimenting with. … Mets catcher Travis d’Arnaud had been getting hit in the side of the head by batters’ backswings, so he’s switched to a more protective catcher’s helmet. … Speaking of the Mets, Daisuke Matsuzka has worn socks with a swoosh and an outline image of his uni number for his past two starts. He’s also been wearing an orange undershirt over a blue undershirt. … In case you missed it in the Sunday Ticker, here’s the Wrigley Field centennial logo. … The Giants wore their “SF” gray jerseys for yesterday’s game at Yankee Stadium, but someone — maybe a batboy? — wore the “San Francisco” jersey instead (from Ethan Hopkin). ”¦ The Red Sox unveiled a new statue for Yaz (thanks, Phil). ”¦ Dave Long is a fan of the New Era by You site. “Despite the high price tag ($60+) and any New Era hang-ups, it seems like a cool opportunity for some of those who submit uni tweaks/concepts to you,” he says. “You can even change the thread color of the MLB logo.” ”¦ It’s rookie hazing season, so Mets rookies had to dress up as a bridal party for their current road trip to Cincy.

NFL News: The Browns might wanna think about changing the featured player on their mobile app (from Kenny, who didn’t give his last name). ”¦ Andrew Domingo notes that Chargers QB Philip Rivers has been wearing a glove on his non-throwing hand all season long. ”¦ Here’s something that just occurred to me: As we all learned last week, the Packers will be wearing their Acme Packers throwbacks on Oct. 20 (albeit with a plain yellow helmet, not the brown throwback helmet they’ve worn in the past). But Oct. 20 is, you know, in the month of October, when NFL teams will be wearing pink accessories for breast cancer awareness. Can you imagine how the pink will look with those throwbacks? Yeeesh. ”¦ I only caught part of last night’s Bears/Steelers game (too bad, since it was a very good-looking uni match-up), but I did see a Bears punt play in which their punter, Adam Podlesh, set up only 12 yards behind the line of scrimmage, instead of the usual 15. On another occasion, he lined up 11 yards behind the scrimmage line. Is this normal practice for the Bears? When you think about it, it’s kind of amazing that the standard snap lengths for the kicking game — 15 yards for a punt, seven yards for a placekick — have remained unchanged for so long, even as players have gotten bigger, stronger, and faster. … The Raiders have a new sideline mascot. I kinda like him!

College Football News: Throwbacks on tap this Thursday for Georgia Tech (thanks, Phil). ”¦ Butler has used little dog bone icons as merit decals on the back of their helmets for a while now. But now they’ve also added two dog bones to the front of their helmets as a tribute to their mascot, Blue II, who died earlier this month. Meanwhile, Blue II has been replaced by Blue III (from Tris Wykes). … Louisiana Tech will be desecrating the flag this Saturday (thanks, Phil).

College Hoops News: Okay, I realize this happens at every school now, but it’s still disappointing to see that my alma mater is going BFBS (from Benjamin Joshua Ramos).

Soccer News: Two items from Yusuke Toyoda: First, The Guardian asked its readers to post pictures of their old soccer jerseys, and the results are entertainingly garish. And 1860 Munich, copycatting Bayern Munich, has released an Oktoberfest kit.

Grab Bag: Here’s a short, informative piece on how the T-shirt was invented. ”¦ All the gorgeous signs in Times Square have been joined by a new sign that’s also a very interesting art project. … David Firestone has written a good piece on auto racing helmets. “I am also working on a Power Rankings-style setup for NASCAR,” he says. … Two Indian cricket teams — the Rajasthan Royals and the Mumbai Indians — wore very similar uniforms the other night. “Pretty strange given this is the richest cricket competition in the world,” says Kerry Hudson. Uniform clashes probably aren’t as important in cricket, given how the game is played, but it still did not make for fun viewing.” ”¦ Also from Kerry: The Fremantle Dockers — that’s an Aussie rules football team — will have to wear their white clash strip for this Saturday’s grand final. ”¦ Here’s a nice piece about a Seattle artist creating a font based on a name on an old building (from John Kimmerlein). ”¦ PGA Tour commissioner Tim Finchem showed up at the Coca-Cola Tour Championship tournament wearing a tie with the tournament logo (from Mike Davis). ”¦ “The Seattle Globalist had a great piece earlier this month,” says Tom Mulgrew. “The goal was to trace a single University of Washington hoodie back to the person who made it — in Indonesia.”

By the time you read this, I’ll be on my way to ESPN HQ up in Bristol. Gonna be there all day plus a chunk of the evening and won’t be home until pretty late, so please go easy on Ticker submissions today and play nice while I’m away, okay? Thanks.

Comments (123)

    Chipper Jones also had a commemorative farewell logo. They didn’t make a patch out of it, but the Braves used the logo on the bases in his final game.

    But then I looked at a hi-res photo of the Goodbye, Mo! patch:

    And realized that they put a little MLB icon on the back of patch-Mo’s cap. I see they did the same for the back of patch-Chipper’s jersey, too. Self-referential meta-branding! Maybe time to coin a new term: Brandsturbation.

    Surely the Mariano patch has to set the record for square-inch-devoted-per-innings-spent-on-field.

    Georgia Tech NEEDS to switch to those uni’s full time. I mean, thankfully they’ve gone back to some kind of normal this year, but their honeycomb costumes of a year ago still give me nightmares. That throwback, however, is a thing of beauty.

    . . . the gold version of that jersey is my favorite for major conference NCAAF. Absolute classic.

    So few items recently contained therein involve developments on the Washington Redskins naming ‘issue’ front, (aside from the practically insignifcant growth in the number of writers/papers/web sites that refuse to call the Redskins by their full proper name and/or who opine that the Redskins should change their name) that maybe “‘Skins Watch” could benefit from a re-branded as well?

    Also, I don’t know WTF that Raiders mascot is supposed to be, but I guess the kids need something for entertainment too. I’m sure the fans will care about that thing about as much as Pittsburgh does for “Steely McBeam”.

    Red Sox rookies also had to wear special outfits (kilts with sashes and caps) yesterday:

    they had the annual “Picnic in the Park” fundraiser after the game and the players were all in costume. Steven Wright was forced to take off a T shirt, and Jackie Bradley Junior told me he wasn’t sure how to sit down in the outfit.

    “Raider Rusher” is not a sideline mascot. He’s simply a new character for the Nickelodeon show NFL Rush Zone. Why Rovell tweeted it out saying he’s the new “mascot” is unclear to me.

    “Raider Rusher” is not a sideline mascot. He’s simply a new character for the Nickelodeon show NFL Rush Zone. Why Rovell tweeted it out saying he’s the new “mascot” is unclear to me.



    I think I may have talked myself into why the bengals have the white “stripes” running down the side of the jersey. When a player is wearing sleeves under their jersey (specifically long white ones) it aligns perfectly. That being said, still looks like total and complete crap, but after looking at a couple of the players yesterday, I could convince myself that this was the intended look.

    Yeah, it almost works with the long white sleeves… almost. If they’d lose the white side panels they’d easily jump about 10 places in the NFL uniform rankings.

    A bunch of the guys have chipped in to charter a bus to Bristol, PL, to let those ESPN stiffs know we we’re with you all the way for that salary raise.

    My personal take on the Bengals orange-over-white combo – I would place it in my top half (not top tier, but definitely top half) of NFL uniforms, if lined up against every other team’s “standard” home uniform set. I would likely rank the black-over-white (or black-over-black) Bengals uniforms in the bottom 3-4.

    Does anyone else feel this way, or am I nuts?

    I agree. The white panels don’t look as bad on the orange as they do on black, tigers -are- mostly orange, and really, drop shadowed numbers work much better when the shadow is black. An orange “shadow” on top of a black jersey just doesn’t look right.

    Look, the whole uniform is a mess and that orange jersey puts an already gaudy design completely over the top.

    There’s no justification for those side panels on any jersey, black, orange or white.

    I think the Bengals should make the orange jersey their primary jersey, ditch the black jersey altogether, and bring back their original uniform as their third uniform. At least with the new helmet rule it would be compatible to take the tiger stripes off and replace it with “BENGALS”.

    As much as it is somewhat of a direct ripoff of the Browns design, I’ve always been a fan of the Bengals original uniform. It’s different enough from the Browns that you could tell the difference when the two were playing each other–if nothing else, the Bengals did wear them while the Browns had the orange pants (which the Bengals have never had), so it would be nice to see the Bengals in their original uniforms.

    I’m not sure about the rankings part of it, but when I flipped to the game yesterday the creamsicle effect I thought, “they look pretty good.” Then I wondered if I had a fever. I usually begin a radical uni redesign in my head whenever the Bengals appear.

    Yeah, #1 is the only one that looks right to me, though I do prefer how the “1878” is broken up in choice #2.

    But I really hate the typeface for “EVERTON”. It looks like a corporate logo that’ll be outdated in a couple of years, and the kerning feels really tight.


    The best news in this is the re-designed Tower. Whichever crest they choose will be an immediate upgrade for that alone.

    I’m also curious about the fact that only one option features gold. Wonder if that will skew the results, and in which direction?

    Banner and tower from #1 onto current logo would be perfect. I like the shape of and how the elements fit together on current logo best just needs tweaked.

    As someone who hates flag desecration uniforms, I’m surprised to admit that the La Tech helmet really don’t bother me. It more calls on the flag motif than turning a logo (like the UofL Cardinal bird) into a desecrated flag. And the colors are true to the school and not the flag.

    I’m sure the entire look will be garish, no doubt. But it reminds me of this, which is my favorite play on stars and stripes.

    From the “Capitalism Works For Me!” article:

    “The artist would also like to stress that this public intervention does not offer a clear and precise solution, but hopes to inspire a discussion about the possibilities of ‘something better.'”

    IOW, Communism Rules! Woo hoo!

    I wonder about that 49ers helmet design. I have trouble seeing how that decal would work well on the left side of the helmet. Are there any views of the design from the left side? Back in 1991 I only ever saw the right-side view. It almost looks like a one-sided design. This never occurred to me until I took a close look at the image of the helmet that Stevens Wright kept.

    It’d work just fine. The Giants, Jets, and Bengals each had helmets with a wordmark on both sides. The 49ers one-day logo wouldn’t have been a problem. It might not have been as good as the classic (SF) logo, but if they’d used it and still won the Super Bowl in ’94 with it, it’d be an *ahem* “beloved” logo today.

    re: “beloved”

    Hey Paul, would it be true to say in your list of most despised words, “beloved” is “beloathed?”

    That was a pretty shrewd move, not putting the number on the SF helmet. The only number that belongs there is the player’s numeral. Of course, an extended “49” in the oval like the insignia they currently wear could change my mind. Two thoughts: Speaking as a Bill Ring fan, I thought it an honor to wear the “49” on the 49ers. And Philadelphia never put “76ers” across the front of the Sixers’ uniforms. Don’t you think all those different numbers on the front might look odd?

    Mostly pretty terrible. Slick execution, but terrible nonetheless. The Bengals tiger-shrimp, though, is so bad it’s awesome.

    Rams, Redskins, Dolphins, Giants & Colts are decent ideas, though.

    The Metallica pinstripe jerseys…..they were sold at Yankee stadium during the Big 4 tour , when Metallica headlined the tour.

    Someone should compile the sales figures on merchandise with the Goodbye, Mo! patch and logo, and show them to Dan Snyder. If he plays his cards right, he could announce that the team will change its name a full season before the change will take effect and then slap a Goodbye Skins! patch on all the jerseys and merchandise. Collectible! It could feature the words, “Washington Redskins – 1937-2017 – Honor & Pride”. All the diehard fans who already have all the Skins jerseys they need would have to buy a new one with the patch to memorialize the name. Plus, they’ll all buy new Washington Americans jerseys in the first year or two of the new name anyway, so the Goodbye, Mo! style patch would let Snyder double his merch sales.

    “The Saints wore white at home against the Cardinals.”

    Not that new, either. Saints usually wear white jerseys at home at least once in the preseason and usually for the first three or four home games of the regular season. Expect white jerseys next Monday night vs. Miami.

    Is that a tradition dating back to the Tulane Stadium days, when heat was a factor? And if yes, was it done like the Miami Dolphins do it, which is based on whether any portion of the game will be at night (the famous ’82 Kellen Winslow game and the ’85 Bears Monday night game are examples – they wore the aqua jersey).

    That’s an adidas patterned arm sleeve that the IU player is wearing, it’s not specific to any certain player.

    The New Era site has a serious flaw, especially since they’re an official partner of MLB. They’re still providing the Astros old colors and cap design as a default. The Astros unveiled their new uniforms 10 months ago and have been playing in them all season. Pretty piss-poor and inexcusable.

    The Astros have gotten the shaft from New Era in other ways. I went to New Era’s flagship store in NYC and asked for the orange cap in my size; all they had was one display model, a half-size too small. I wanted to say, “Playing like shit didn’t keep you from carrying a full complement of orange Marlins’ hats!”

    One interesting comment I read on Twitter recently was “Would you approach a Native American and call him/her a Redskin?” and my answer was of course not! Puts things in perspective.

    I invite Rick Reilly to address an assembly of Natives by the term Redskins, only to see how long he would last.

    “Would you approach a Native American and call him/her a Redskin?”

    Yeah, whatever. Would you walk up to Paul (who has self-identified as a non-religious Jew) and say “what’s up Jew”? Of course not. Would you approach a Hispanic person and say “what’s up Mexican?” Again, the answer is no. You don’t use a racial or cultural label towards an individual person. At the very least, it’s just rude. That doesn’t mean the term itself is a slur. It’s an absolutely stupid standard. There isn’t a racial/cultural/national term in existence that you can use that way. We just don’t talk that way. It may be perfectly acceptable to say “My neighbor is a Muslim”, but that doesn’t mean you can greet said neighbor by saying “how’s it going, Muslim?”.

    It may be perfectly acceptable to say “My neighbor is a Muslim”, but that doesn’t mean you can greet said neighbor by saying “how’s it going, Muslim?”.

    Now, would it be acceptable to say “My neighbor is a Redskin”? Opinions may differ on this.

    True enough, TH. In today’s world, if you said your neighbor is a redskin, you’re likely to get asked what position he plays or if you can get an autograph.

    Fair point. Though that’s probably because (a) I live in the DC metro area, and (b) people generally don’t expect me to use racial slurs.

    That’s just a blatant example that highlights the acceptable usage of Redskins. Somehow okay for a team name, but taboo around Natives, as it should be because it IS a slur.

    So are you saying you identify Native Americans as Redskins in everyday usage? “My neighbor is a Redskin.” “My boss is a Redskin.” “Hello police? The suspect was a Redskin in appearance.”

    I don’t know a single Native who self-identifies as a Redskin. We self-identify (just like Paul!) as Natives, Native Americans, Indians, Aboriginals, after our respective tribe or band, but NOT Redskins.

    “Would you approach a Hispanic person and say “what’s up Mexican?” Again, the answer is no.”

    No, but it’s still different than saying “what’s up, spic?” Redskin is a slur, Mexican isn’t.

    So what makes Redskin a slur? It *was* a self-identifying term first. At what point in history does it being used in a derogatory fashion make it irreversibly racist?

    Let’s recap: Natives identify themselves, in their own language, as having red skin. Translation turns this into Redskins. The Natives, upon learning English, accept and use this label for themselves. Years later, treaties are broken, land is stolen, people are hunted, etc. So this means Redskin is a slur? Really? Of all the things our white ancestors did to the Native peoples, calling them “redskins” is probably the one and only thing that wasn’t racist.

    The, I think you’re erecting a straw man with “irreversibly racist”. I don’t see anyone making that claim, or discounting the possibility that the word won’t be a slur at some future date.

    Years later, treaties are broken, land is stolen, people are hunted, etc. So this means Redskin is a slur?

    I’m pretty sure that’s not why, unless you’re seriously abridging the history.

    Anyway, does it matter how it came to be a slur? Shit happens, language evolves. While not everyone agrees, plenty of Native American organizations/leaders have come out and explicitly identified the word as a slur. So if Snyder and company are so concerned with “honor and pride”, why persist with a term that’s, at best, a wee bit impolite and callous?

    “Would you approach a Hispanic person and say ‘what’s up Mexican?'”


    First of all, while, technically all Mexican peoples are “Hispanic,” not all Hispanic peoples are Mexican.

    Hispanic (adjective): coming originally from an area where Spanish is spoken and especially from Latin America; also : of or relating to Hispanic people

    Second of all, if you truly wanted to make your comment a slur, you wouldn’t say “Hispanic” but rather a shortened version of that word (see BrianC above), or, if specific to an native of Mexico, you’d use the derogatory “wetback” — both of which could be synonymous with “redskin”.

    Let’s have apples to apples, then … What would your thoughts be on your team playing the New Jersey Jews or the Los Angeles Mexicans of San Francisco?

    Call me an asshole if you want, but I wouldn’t care. If I thought a team name was inappropriate or offensive, then I just wouldn’t support that team. For that matter, perhaps there should be more racial diversity among sports mascots. Every single human mascot that isn’t Native American is white – in leagues where the majority of players aren’t.

    There’s 31 teams in the NFL that aren’t the Redskins, so feel free to support one of them instead. This isn’t a civil rights issue, it’s just the name of a sports team. It isn’t harming anyone. Those who insist on using Redskin as a slur are still going to do so regardless of the team’s name. Meanwhile, 80 years of Redskins football means that you have multiple generations of people who have grown up using Redskins on a daily basis without even thinking about it as a racial slur. For most, it’s simply an outdated name for Native Americans, secondary to being a football team, of course. There’s no ill-will or malice intended. There’s also a large number of Native Americans who are, in fact, proud to be Redskins.

    Also, in response to terriblehuman above, how often do you agree with the things your elected politicians say? Exactly. Tribal leaders saying something and average tribal members actually believing it are two entirely different things. The latest polls we have show that somewhere around 85% of Native Americans don’t have a problem with the Redskins team name. I don’t feel like finding a link, but I seem to recall one of the polls on the issue even stating that there was a huge disconnect between the tribal leaders, who opposed Native imagery in sports, and the regular people who had no problem with it. The phrase “vocal minority” comes to mind, especially when the big protest at the Packers game turned out to be a whopping 24 people.

    Personally, I feel that Redskins is not a reference to race, but to culture. The team doesn’t represent any and all people of Native American descent, it represents those people of 120-300 years ago who did identify as Redskins, and those of today who still do. If someone of Native ancestry doesn’t consider themselves to be a Redskin, then the team isn’t representing them. Kinda like how the Canadian tribes don’t care about the Edmonton Eskimos, because they don’t consider themselves to be Eskimos.

    How often do you agree with the things your elected politicians say? Exactly.

    My elected officials? Pretty often.

    The latest polls we have show that somewhere around 85% of Native Americans don’t have a problem with the Redskins team name.

    I hope you’re not talking about the Annenburg Public Policy Center poll, because that’s an exercise in how not to conduct a poll.

    Replace “Redskin” with “Chief”…is one any worse than the other?
    Both would be considered inappropriate when addressing a hypothetical assembly of American Indians, right?
    There is at present a singular focus on the Washington Redskins but the Kansas City Chiefs are completely ignored…for now.

    I can think of a situation where it would be perfectly appropriate to call somebody “Chief” to his face (namely, meeting a person who is indeed a chief), so no. The two are not interchangeable.

    At this point, Paul probably needs a ‘Skins Watch FAQ because it feels like I’m seeing the “What about Indians/Chiefs/Fighting Irish?” comment a couple of times a week now.

    A great idea!
    The more folks who can better recognize the mechanics of selective outrage as a result, the better!

    Chief has never been known as a slur to Native Americans… Though people do use Chief derogatorily, it has to do with someone in a position of power, not a reference to the leader of a Native American Tribe.

    Now if you want to make the argument that the Chiefs are co-opting Native American imagery when they have no right to, then I’d understand your argument. If you think that just by using Native American imagery that a team is offensive or in the wrong then I can’t take you seriously. Because if you make that argument then the Fighting Irish nickname would be fundamentally wrong (notice I’m not making the argument that a Catholic University using Fighting Irish is the same as an NFL team using Native American imagery).

    Bottom line I think the Native American community would be making a huge mistake by seeking to eliminate their imagery from all sports. Going after the Redskins makes sense, and campaigning to get rid of Chief Wahoo is also understandable. But erasing your existence from popular culture in a society that already lacks a lot of information about your people, is a good way to be forgotten entirely. I think it would be a much better strategy to develop partnerships with the teams. Educate the people and the fans of your actual culture, help them understand what stuff actually means (give them historical context as to what a Headdress meant other than “this is what a chief wore, so I’m gonna support my team by also wearing it,”, stuff like that).

    I know stuff about the Seminole nation, I know nothing about the Sioux people. With the difference being FSU has a relationship with the Seminole Nation, while the Sioux people fight against North Dakota using their imagery.

    FYI the only thing remotely racist in my eyes about Wahoo is the feather band… Big example of this is the white version of Chief Wahoo we’ve seen a few times on this site. I don’t look at that and say well that’s a Native American in white face, it looks like a caricature of a human being in general. No, the only racist thing about it is the Feather Band, a stereotypical item we always associate with Natives, and the only defining feature that is indisputably an indicator of a Native American or “Indian”. And while yes Natives wore those from time to time, it wasn’t a 24/7 thing like we’ve been led to believe by cartoons and other similar media).

    Yours was a compelling comment (as was The Jeff’s reply to JimWa).
    I didn’t think I was making an argument really, especially not one equating the Redskins team name with that of the Notre Dame’s Athletic programs. I was just pointing out that no one in their right mind would get in front of a group of American Indians and refer to them as “chiefs” (unless of course it was an assembly of chieftains) or “redskins” (see Mitch’s initial comment).
    Almost any noun can be manipulated by a user to be derogatory/racist/otherwise offensive…that’s why context and intent matter so much.
    The Washington Redskins, collectively as a team or individually as players/reprsentatives do not go around calling anyone outside the organization or those who have not taken part of the franchise’s history as (small r) ‘redskins’, do they? Within the conifines of the ‘Washington NFL team’, the word “Redskins” is as “redskins” once was…self-referential and wholly appropriate for use in that regard by anyone.

    Re: The Rivera tribute patch

    I’m not generally fan of the farewell tour in pro sports. I can handle it when the “honoree” is a person of class and dignity, as Chipper Jones was, and of which Mariano Rivera is the epitome.

    I think the rear-captured image of him jogging out to the mound has become iconic, in part, due to his uniform and specifically, his number. As the last player in the league to wear the number as his own, combined with the lack of NOB, the pinstriped #42 became an image many (including myself) associated with Rivera. As a reliever, without a real distinctive wind-up, the jogging image was the best way to represent it. It also has a “time to go to work” feel about it, in addition to the “jogging into the sunset” that Paul mentioned.

    I see how the “New York Yankees” scroll could seem unnecessary, but it creates a visual distraction from Mo’s rear end being front and center on the patch.

    Just my thoughts…

    Feel free to delete my repetitive posts. It was not intentional! I apologize for clogging up the comments!

    Don’t know why this didn’t show up the first time, so I’ll recap:

    The rear-captured image of Mariano jogging in has become iconic, in my opinion, due to his uniform and specifically his uni number. As the last player to wear #42 as his own, combined with the Yankees lack of NOB, the pinstriped #42 has become very strongly associated with Rivera. He is a relief pitcher without a distinctive wind-up, so I understand that the jogging image could be considered the best way to represent that image of the man.

    Also, there’s a “time to go to work” feel about it, in addition to the “jogging into the sunset” that Paul mentioned.

    I can see how the “New York Yankees” scroll would seem unnecessary, but I think it creates a visual distraction (or built in “censor”) from having Mo’s rear-end front and center on a memorial patch.

    Just my thoughts…

    One more time….

    The pinstriped 42 with no NOB has become iconic for Rivera. This patch shows that nicely. I think it works, even if he didn’t create the signature style/image.

    The “New York Yankees” scroll may seem unnecessary, but it visually distracts from Mariano’s *ahem* seat of his pants being proudly front and center on the patch.

    I used a different word earlier, and the comment filter didn’t really like it.

    In the years past, the Green Bay Packers generally dedicate only one game in the month of October to “Breast Cancer Awareness”. It is at this time they “pink it up” all over the place. My strong guess is that the team won’t sport any pink for this throwback game.

    One reason it’s not mentioned could be that it’s a lie. Pick up any decent dictionary, and you’ll find that “Yankee” dates to at least the 1750s, and its first known written use was a positive description of American militiamen’s capabilities by a British officer. Furthermore, while “Yankee” has at times been used as a pejorative, it is rarely treated as such by the people to whom the word applies. Since even before the American Revolution, the word has been embraced as a positive self-description by many Americans generally and residents of the northeast particularly.

    On the subject of moon sightings in the NFL, I think I would rather see those than see players wearing tighter pants. (I would rather not see either in organized football unless it was the Legends Football League, but I’m taking the lesser of two evils here.) Next thing you know, Nike will introduce yoga pants to the NFL.

    As far as Alameda Ta’amu is concerned? Thank God he found another NFL team. The Steelers don’t need to bring back (again) someone who having a little too much to drink is putting it lightly.

    Paul here, checking in briefly from Bristol.

    Just want to say about the Tony Gywnn and Cal Ripken retirement patches that were shown in a previous comment: I’m fairly certain those weren’t worn on the field. I could be wrong, but I think the Rivera patch marks the first time an active player has been honored with a retirement patch.

    I always find it odd that these sports hazing moments are very gay in nature. They’re dressed in women’s clothing and the clothing is very revealing or they’re semi-nude. Sometimes they’re dressed in little girl’s halloween clothes or as characters popular in the gay community. Meanwhile the supposedly tough macho veteran players oddly get so excited and get so much pleasure from seeing the rookies dressed as drag queens.

    Weeeeell (sorry Chance!), I think from the gaze of the traditional jock culture, “gay” and “cross-dressing” are probably interchangeable. And these rituals are popular because what better way to assert dominance than to demean a weaker member by emasculating them?

    And while cross-dressing isn’t necessarily gay, drag has been a big part of gay culture – when you ostracize a group, there’s a good chance they’re going to turn to more subversive forms of expression that own and exaggerated stereotypes. I can see that association becoming weaker as gays are less marginalized in society.

    I find the Rivera celebration kind of awkward considering he’s still an active player. Could’t they wait until next spring? Also I found many aspects of the ceremony especially the Steiner sports memorabilia angle kind of tacky and crass.

    I was thinking about Hank Aaron’s last year in Milwaukee and how his 755th home run was just left out in the bullpen until some groundskeeper picked it as a keepsake.

    The Rockies rookie dress up was superheroes. Not sure if they made anyone dress as wonder woman or supergirl.

    I’m squarely on one side of the issue, but the “As far as I’m concerned, I’m not anyone’s mascot.” quote sums it up for me.

    I’ve said this over an over again, it’s not about me being “offended” on behalf of someone. It’s about appropriating someone else’s culture and reducing it down to a bunch of buzzwords like “pride” and “courage”.

    And they also repeat the “Ray Lewis” is a role model blather. You know, the Ray Lewis who has 6 kids with 4 different women and married at most one of them?

    Ombuddie is worthless.

    “Role model” isn’t Lipsyte’s opinion – he was quoting an ESPN exec whom he solicited for comment.

    One more thing – On the weekends, when clicking a link, a new tab opens in my browser. If I click another link (without closing the one just opened by another link), another new tab is opened.

    During the week (Paul’s posts) – when you click on a link , it opens a new tab, all subsequent link clicks redirect the url in the already opened “new” tab. It’s obvs a coding issue.

    Anyone else having this weekend problem of multiple open tabs? (If not, kaythxbai) If so, Phil, can you check with Paul on the differences in code? (or not, I know you guys are busy)

    I’m not aware that I’m doing anything differently from Paul, and I’ve been coding this way for 5 years. I suspect the problem (you’re not the only one who has it, although I wouldn’t consider it a “problem”) may have been due to our last WordPress upgrade.

    You could just close the link before opening a new one if it really bothers you.

    I’m thinking that my initial post came off as a big complaint – it’s not that big of a deal, really – the fact that it was different on the weekends just triggered my “something is different” reflex. It also helped me confirm that it wasn’t just happening within my browser settings or something (doubtful as this doesn’t fit those kinds of patterns), thanks to Ryan and arrScott.

    If anything, it brought the differences to light for you, Phil. This way you know. No need to fix!

    I’ve never noticed that with the weekends, but have with Paul’s weekday posts. I actually prefer the manner in which it opens an entirely new tab (the weekend way, I suppose), as oftentimes I’ll click on a bunch of links to open the pics while reading the text, then go back and look at the pictures. It’s usually not an issue, as I habitually right-click > open link in new tab (in Chrome) anyway, but I guess I’d be in favor of whatever it is that Phil does.

    I’ve experienced exactly this phenomenon too, consistently, for many moons. But seeing as how I hatehatehate the way it works on weekdays, and much prefer the way it works on weekends, I haven’t said anything, because I’ve feared that speaking up would just get weekends “fixed” to behave like weekdays.

    Here’s why Phil’s link coding is superior: Say I open a link in UW, read whatever it is I went there to read, then see something else to read or look at, click on the link, then go back to UW to keep reading UW and check out the new shiny thing later. Then I click on another link in UW, and bam! it loads the link in the tab that was holding whatever it was I was going to read later. Unless I remember “hey, there was already something in that tab, click ‘back’ when you’re done and don’t close the tab,” I lose whatever it was I was going to read later. Happens all the time. On weekends, no such problem.

    Sure, the weekend links can create lots of open tabs if you don’t close them when you’re done, but that’s a feature, not a bug.

    Pretty fascinating that Reilly was against the “Redskins” nickname (among others) before he was for it. Makes me suspect both his positions on the issue were simply for the sake of being a contrarian. Back in ’91, I’m pretty sure there wasn’t as much popular support for such an initiative, but now that he sees many of his fellow journalists denouncing the nickname, perhaps he’s trying to re-make a name for himself by opposing them.

    A neat visual…in the ESPN SN poll question for most surprising team so far in the NFL this season, the six states around KC are currently voting for the Chiefs and the other 44 states are voting for the Dolphins resulting in a graphic that looks just like the Chiefs old-time logo.

    Bucks new floor is unveiled. Personally, and honestly: Kind of a weak homage to the Robert Indiana floor. Stain recalls the ‘M’ and the diamond pattern, but the all-green color makes the floor seem a lot less lifeless than the Indiana floor, which was very bold and popped in the era of lowly-lit arenas on high-contrast TVs.

Comments are closed.