Skip to content

One Last Round of Super Bowl News


As the build-up for Sunday’s big game hits the home stretch, there’s been a flurry of last-minute Stupor Bowl-related content. Dig:

• This is pretty great: a look at every Super Bowl ticket design. Interesting that they didn’t start using the term “Super Bowl” until SB IV (I would have guessed SB III), and they didn’t start showing the Roman numerals until the year after that.

• The NYC design firm Pentagram has created a huge Pepsi showcase at MetLife Stadium.

• We’ve seen team-branded jet planes before, but only in Seattle would you find a “12th Man”-branded jet. Additional photos and info here.

• There’s a UFC event in New Jersey this weekend, so of course the participants staged a media event wearing Broncos and Seahawks jerseys.

• Jerry Seinfeld was on with Mike & Mike yesterday morning, and they swapped out his Starbucks cup for a Super Bowl mug during a commercial break, prompting Seinfeld to quip, “So you took away the Starbucks cup and put it in a Super Bowl mug. What, you don’t think they are getting enough press?”

• Todd Radom has written a good piece on Super Bowl design history

•  A couple of very dedicated fans sculpted snow logos for the Seahawks, the Broncos, and the Lombardi trophy.

• Last year reader Steve Speicher geared up for the Super Bowl by DIYing a 49ers jersey for himself. This year he followed up with a DIY Seahawks jersey. Nicely done!

• Reader Steve Mandich, who lives in Seattle, recently scored this 1980 Seahawks latch-hook kit on eBay and spent the last couple weeks putting it together. “The same seller also has a Broncos kit listed, he says, “but it has a basic ‘D’ logo, with no horse inside.”

•  Here’s an annual Super Bowl ritual: the seizure of counterfeit goods by federal authorities.

• I got into the act, too: In case you missed it yesterday, my latest ESPN column covers 10 uni-related things to watch for in the Super Bowl.

• Finally, because it’s always fun to see this again, here’s that great footage from Super Bowl VII’s halftime show, featuring dozens of motorized helmet carts:

I have zero emotional stake in Sunday’s game. But for those of you who do, I hope your team wins. Everyone have a great Super Bowl weekend, remember to watch the Puppy Bowl at halftime, and I’ll see you next week.

(My thanks to Markus Kamp, Coleman Mullins, Matthew Solan, Bruce Utzig, and Phil for their contributions to this section.)

+ + + + +

PermaRec update: It was bound to happen — a convergence between Two Buckaroo and Permanent Record, centering on the notation scribbled on a $2 bill. Get the full scoop in the latest entry on the Permanent Record blog.

+ + + + +

’Skins Watch: Here’s one of the better articles I’ve seen about the background and current status of the ’Skins name controversy. Recommended (thanks, Phil). ”¦ Disappointing to see that the Baseball Hall of Fame is selling a Braves cap with the Indian head (Phil again). ”¦ The National Congress of American Indians has released an anti-’Skins ad, proving once again that only white people care about this issue (Phil again). ”¦ NFL Players Association head DeMaurice Smith says it’s time for a “broad discussion” of the ’Skins name. Smith, of course, is black, as are most of the players he represents, proving yet again that only white people care about this issue (from Tommy Turner).

Baseball News: For years now the Dodgers’ road uniform has had a “Los Angeles” script. They’re now adding an alternate version with a “Dodgers” script. This makes the Dodgers the third MLB team to have two different sets of road grays, the others being the Giants and the Cubs. … We already knew the Rangers had made some slight adjustments to their jersey typography, but Matthew Bolzan has noticed another change: They’re switching from contrast-colored squatchees to same-colored. … Yesterday’s entry about NFL cross-stitch DIYs prompted Steven Robinson to share this Reds cross-stitch piece that his mom made for him. … The Brooklyn Cyclones will host this year’s New York-Penn League All-Star Game, and they’ve released a nice logo for the occasion. … “The Brewers’ double-A affiliate is moving to Biloxi, Mississippi, next season,” says Alan Spaude-Filipczak. “They don’t even have a team name yet, but their new website features a clever appropriation of the Brew Crew’s logo.” … New uni set for Cal. … Levi’s has renewed its naming rights deal for AT&T Park’s right field landing (thanks, Brinke). ”¦ The trash cans in the Twins’ clubhouse at Target Field are adorned with Target logos (from Zach Brady).

NFL News: If you go to the 50:45 mark of this podcast, you’ll hear former Steelers and Rams offensive line coach Dan Radakovich claiming that he was the first to shorten offensive linemen’s sleeves and to use double-sided tape to prevent holding (from Jake Sorg). … Todd Radom wrote a good article on the abortive NFL franchise the Seattle Kings. … Not sure how I didn’t know about this until now, but the Museum of the Moving Image in Queens currently has an exhibit on the history of the Madden video game (from Adam Herbst).

College Football News: Here’s probably the best look yet at an Under Armour-made Notre Dame jersey (from Randy Thomas). … Here’s more on the possible new uniforms at Syracuse (from David Haberman). ”¦ This is interesting: a video that shows the Oregon State game-day experience from four different perspectives — equipment manager, radio voice, game day operations, and communications (from Eric Fisk).

Hockey News: Good article on how the Islanders’ organist really enjoyed working the Stadium Series game. … It’s pretty standard now to see players wearing eye black for outdoor games, but it’s much rarer to see eye black in a standard indoor game. That’s Leafs defenseman Kent Douglas from 1966 (great find by Chris Bisbee). … “Neon Night” jerseys upcoming for the Lake Erie Monsters (from Jared VanderWeele). … New flag-desecration uniforms for the Cincinnati Cyclones.

Soccer News: Possible new kit for the L.A.Galaxy (thanks, Phil). ”¦ New jerseys for the San Jose Earthquakes, and here’s more info on their new logo (from Joe Schmidt and Phil, respectively). ”¦ An Irish politician wore a soccer jersey to Parliament (from Tanner Welch).

NBA News: Here’s an article on NBA players’ sneaker collections. ”¦ Austin Carr’s retired number banner is missing from the Cavs’ arena (from Randy Thomas). ”¦ Warriors G Stephen Curry was wearing some seriously fucked-up sneakers last night (blame Phil).

College Hoops News: Nike has a lot of throwbacks in the works. Here’s a closer look at the ones for Michigan State and Ohio State (all this from Phil). … Scott Novosel sent along some screen shots from an amazing-looking 1979 Wisconsin/DePaul game. Not sure which I like better — DePaul’s untucked jersey or that “W”-themed notch in Wisconsin’s shorts. Uni Watch intern Mike Chamernik is a DePaul grad, so I showed these pics to him. “Man, those were the days (I assume),” he assumes. “It’s kind of funny how Marquette is our rival but we’ve had some of the same looks over the years, including untucked jerseys and the multicolored stripes on the sides.”

Grab Bag: Someone has come up a much better design template for airline boarding passes (from Cody Dannen). … Mixed reviews for this year’s Boston Marathon apparel (from Tom Mulgrew). … Embarrassing situation for NJ Transit, which is scrambling to protect its logos after letting its trademark protection expire (from David Goodfriend). … British ballet dancers protested Russia’s anti-gay laws yesterday by dancing outside the Russian embassy with protest messages written on their ballet attire. … Went to the Jewish Museum’s website yesterday and was momentarily thrown by the way their favicon looks a lot like ESPN’s favicon. … Attention Seattle-area readers: Uni Watch membership card designer Scott M.X. Turner’s band, RebelMart, is headlining an all-ages show this Saturday at the Seattle Drum School. You know what to do. … The Australian Football League, which has always been NNOB, is trying NOBs for the first time. “Lack of space on the back of an AFL jumper will definitely crowd the name, and I’m not sure how easy some of the names (like Lewis-Thompson) will be to read on that small of an area,” says Leo Srawn Jr. … If you donate $50 to Northwestern, you get a pair of really ugly socks — and they don’t even have northwestern stripes! (From Dan Fuller.) … See these pink high school basketball uniforms? They’re provided for free by a company called ArmorZone (from Alex Allen). … New branding initiative for the U. of Colorado Boulder. … Here’s a good look at how some high-profile magazines are depicting Olympic themes on their covers. ”¦ Skip to the 16:01 mark of this video to see the bizarre “mod” officiating uniforms used by the National Lacrosse League in 1975 (great find by Marc Viquez). ”¦ Kevin Weir is happy to see that F1 care have finally gone back to a sloped nose, like Indy cars. “I disliked the jet fighter ‘nose in the air’ look they’ve had the last 10 years or so,” he says.

Comments (163)

    Question for you Paul,
    Has there been any word on if the NFL is going to abandon the “Semi-Standard Template Logo” for the Super Bowl?

    Note: I don’t remember if you have a name for it, but I figured, “It’s the NFL; it needs a name.”

    It’s often called the “Landor template,” because it was created by the brand design firm Landor Associates.

    We’ve already seen next year’s Super Bowl logo, and they’re sticking with the same approach. They’ll presumably be making some sort of adjustment the year after that, because it’ll be the 50th Super Bowl, and there’s no way they’re gonna stick with the Roman numerals and call it Super Bowl L.

    I wonder if it’ll be a permanent switch to regular numbers or just for a few seasons until the roman numerals look cool again. Super Bowl L looks kinda bad, but Super Bowl LV would look fine.

    I think they’ll use standard (Arabic) numerals for “Super Bowl 50, then go back to Roman for Super Bowl LI, LII, and so forth.

    Given the way the B1G née Big1T1en worked Arabic numbers into Latin letters, I can’t imagine the NFL not at least attempting some of the same. I’ll be sorely disappointed if there’s not both a prominent 50 and a big ol’ L, though one or the other may be subtle or negative space or something.

    But this is the modern NFL, so I’m fully prepared to be disappointed when they just stick a silver L underneath the Landor template and call it a day. Or maybe they’ll make the L gold and congratulate themselves for being innovative and edgy and shifting the paradigms or whatever.

    …and there’s no way they’re gonna stick with the Roman numerals and call it Super Bowl L.

    As bad as Super Bowl L (is for losers) might seem, I honestly see no chance of them changing it, or even featuring non-Roman numerals even slightly more prominently just becasue of that reason, whether permanently or just for the one year or five. The use of Roman Numerals has become so firmly entrenched as part of the Super Bowl mystique that it’s as much a part of the tradition as anything. (Of course I would have said that of the unique yearly logos before Super Bowl XLV, as well)

    Even back in May when the NFL awarded Super Bowl L to Santa Clara and Super Bowl LI to Houston, they didn’t even hesitate to call them by those names then. I don’t see that changing with T-minus 2 years to go to the big L.

    A few years ago, I though Goddell was working up to “L is for London” (or at least Los Angeles) but I guess we’re still a little while from having the big game “over there”.

    Yeah, try “never”.

    The corporate “partners” would never allow it. Setting aside the travel costs, the game would have to start at 11:30 if they want to keep their time slot.

    If we wanted to class it up, we could call it Super Bowl Cinquante.

    Or we could keep the roman feel by calling it Super Bowl

    Who’s with me?

    The glove numbers in the Kent Douglas photo are slightly confusing. He’s 19 and Hull is 9, yet they both have 27 on a glove (opposite ones, no less). Hull also has 27 on his right glove.

    Is this a manufacturer’s quirk, hand-me-downs, or switched up by training staff?

    That’s actually “627” on the gloves and I think the gloves were WinnWells. The 627 is the model glove that WinnWell had and was branded on ALL of those gloves, regardless of team or player.

    I would assume the NHL told them to cease and desist laster on so the uniform numbers would be able to be seen more clearly.

    I’m disappointed at the addition of NOBs on Australian Football League jerseys. Not just because I prefer nice big readable numbers, but also because it looks like the league is unilaterally forcing all the teams to add them. Why can’t each team decide whether it wants to add names, and if so, which uniforms to add them to?

    afl has more control over clubs than most of our leagues…it’s run more like major league soccer than nfl or nba…

    i also wanted to mention i had a moment of dyslexia…that should be “roberts-thompson”, not “lewis-thompson” (his first name is lewis)…

    my apologies to any aussies who may have noticed my faux pas…

    So… why DIY a blue Seahawks shirt-jersey when the team is going to be wearing white for the game? It’s really well done, but it just seems wrong.

    Because dark jerseys are more interesting to me personally than white ones, in general. Plus, less chance of catching a bad stain from an errant nacho. ;)

    Because dark jerseys are more interesting to me personally than white ones, in general.

    That is such a perfect answer. The tyranny of having to wear exactly what the players are wearing is total bullshit. Wear what you want, because you want. More power to you, Steve.

    Well I think if you’re DIYing a jersey out of a T-shirt I’d want to avoid using a white one as that might look more like you just grabbed a Hanes 4-pack at Wal-Mart as opposed to a color one which might look a little better.

    But I’d hardly call a desire to see a Seahawks DIY jersey that is being made and discussed at the time of Super Bowl XLVIII, and presumably because they are playing in this particular game this Sunday, in the same color combo that the team would be wearing in that very game, I’d hardly call that a “tyranny” that is “total bullshit”.

    It’s fine if he’d rather make a blue one. But’s it also fine to expect that it’d be in the white of XLVIII.

    More power to both you all.

    ..also I’d be interested in hearing from Steve how well last year’s 49ers Kaepernick shirt-jersey is holding up, a year down the road.

    The 49ers jersey is doing just fine, considering it’s been hanging in my closet, unworn since last year! Some of the graphics are peeling slightly at their corners, but nothing major. These are fun to make, and fun to be worn for a day during the game…but that’s about all the use I plan to get out of them. In fact, if the 49ers had made it again this year, I was planning on making a Gore jersey, just to go through the process again.

    As to the white vs. blue thing – I get your points. It’s just personal preference really – I wanted to make a blue one, not a white one. I don’t really care what they’re wearing on Sunday. In fact, (this year) I don’t really care who wins!

    (Oh…if I had made a Gore jersey, it would’ve been white, just to be different).

    Those Cylcones sweaters look more like they’re promoting the new Captain America movie a few moths early. Same design as Cap’s uniform from the first movie.

    It’s a ploy. No one is going to actually move to Los Angeles. Build Us a New Stadium or We Move to LA has become a standard negotiating tactic. The NFL doesn’t actually want a team in LA, they just want to have the threat of putting one there. What city can they use as an idle threat if the Rams do move back? Birmingham? London? Not gonna happen.

    Well, ok, maybe the Raiders would make the move, because they’re the Raiders and pissing off the rest of the league is kinda what they do.

    LA today : NFL :: DC 1971-2004 : MLB.

    However valuable an NFL franchise in LA would be to the one team located there (very) and to the league as a whole (somewhat), the negotiating leverage of a move-to-LA threat is more valuable to the other 31 teams (very) and to the league as a whole (very). As with MLB and DC, a team will only wind up in LA if either the league winds up with an orphan team that has to be put somewhere and/or every team that wants to extort government handouts has been satisfied.

    I wonder what is the MLB go to threat city nowadays? Las Vegas? Charlotte? Portland?

    And for much of that 1971-2004 period, (say mid-1980s to 1998) I’d argue it was actually Tampa-St. Pete moreso than Washington before Tampa Bay got the Devil Rays. Just look at the White Sox, Giants, A’s etc… After the Padres almost moved to Washington in 1974, once Tropicana Field nee Thunderdome nee Florida Suncoast Dome was built we were constantly wondering which team was going to move there.

    Ignore that – I’m an idiot with a reading comprehension problem. Oh, for en edit button to save me from myself.

    I think St. Louis will be the next NFL threat.

    There really isn’t a baseball one – nobody takes Vegas or Charlotte seriously. Maybe Portland, if they hadn’t tossed baseball aside for soccer, so not there either.

    Really, the best relocation option I see is… Brooklyn. Has the population and corporate base to support it, love of the game and instant marketing dominance. Of course, the very possibility would be the only thing capable of getting the Steinbrenners and Wilpons to work together.

    Wanting to reply more to Rob H., I would argue that Portland is probably the most bandied-about city for relocation. It would be a no-brainer for the A’s and I could see the Timber’s stadium being a temporary home for the team until a new stadium went up. It could even be a permanent home if renovated right. I think Charlotte and now Nashville suffer by being in the Braves region (even though they easily are more than 100+ away from Cobb County). Would not be surprised if the Rays took a flyer on their current AAA town, Durham, NC. Austin/Round Rock, San Antonio or some place in between on I-35 could be a good landing spot for a National League franchise (would have been my spot for the Ricketts to threaten to move the Cubs to).

    A year or two back had a really good post on possible MLB relocations. In short, 1) local government budgets are so screwed from the recession that nobody is moving anywhere for a while 2) TV rights have become so lucrative every single team would fight tooth/nail to protect their domains.

    My opinion; Portland would be top of the list – but Vancouver might be more likely since Seattle would have less sway over TV rights. Carolina still needs a few years of transplanted NYers.

    Pipedream: Rays move to Havanna as relations continue to thaw. Baseball diplomacy people, give it a go.

    I think Ben has the right of it. The combination of losing the DC threat and the collapse of municipal and state finances since 2006 gives MLB very little leverage to exact new public subsidies. But at the time, MLB had finished extracting maximal public capital for just about every team that could plausibly have sought more, so we’re in a bit of a lull anyway. MLB can afford to mostly take the next five years or so off from new capital demands on the public purse.

    So the question really is, what will be the viable relo threat in the 2019-2029 window? Havana, sadly, will likely not be an option in that time. (My dream: Marlins move to Havana, become Los Cohetes de Cuba.) A number of cities with fast-growing populations and economies may be MLB-viable by then – Charlotte, every city in Texas that doesn’t already have a team – but would any be seen as a viable relo threat by incumbent localities? I’m not sure. DC made for a true “holy shit, they’d really do that” relocation threat for almost any team in the country. If I’m at the negotiating table representing my city or state and my local team implies that their walk-away option is Charlotte or Austin, I’m not sure I take the threat all that seriously.

    Isn’t Montreal now the biggest market without a baseball team (excluding things that are really off the map, like Mexico City)? There are 3.8M people in the Montreal metro area.

    I would love to see the return of the Havana Sugar Kings, though…

    There was talk of a team in Monterey, Mexico a few years back (rich city, close to the border) but I think the “security situation” has taken that off the table as well.

    My top cities for MLB relocation are Indianapolis, Louisville, OKC, and Salt Lake.

    All four have strong AAA franchises and are (at least somewhat) outside of the markets of other franchises. I don’t think Portland is a viable option–losing a Triple-A team doesn’t look good, and Jeld-Wen stadium no longer baseball-ready.

    I disagree with you there, because Kreonke has never made public threats to leave Missouri. And every step of the way, he gets more leverage over St. Louis. Why would he start now, in this manner?

    And the Raiders and Chargers will still have their leverage – that shiny new LA stadium would need an AFC team, after all….

    If the Chargers and Rams relocate to LA, it creates the further need for expansion (San Diego and St. Louis). If you add on that a team is going to relocate to London by 2020, and that club is Jacksonville, then you’ve got three cities (now Jacksonville) that could get expansion teams if ownership groups came about. Then all you need is one more city (Memphis, because they got screwed when the NFL gave a franchise to Jacksonville) and you’ve got a new division in one conference. Find four more cities and you’ve got 5 divisions in each conference by 2030. Or, 4 divisions of 5 teams, which is more manageable.

    Is it likely to happen? Probably not. But with the NFL wanting to expand the playoffs, and the NHL and NBA talking about expansion coming in the next decade or so (or sooner in the case of the NHL), I think the NFL is going to want to keep pace. And they’re going to have to add 8 teams unless they want to go back to three divisions, which I don’t think is a good idea in a league with more than 32 teams.

    Plus, more teams would justify a longer schedule for the season.

    Would it dilute talent? Probably, since there should be less talent in the system.

    NB Stan Kroenke’s main business is commercial real estate. The sports teams are a great diversion for him and, are likely somewhat profitable, but the amount of land the fellow controls is substantial. The leverage it gives him for the Rams could simply be a nice bonus to a run-of-the-mill deal at his day job.

    Sounds great but keep it in perspective, median household income was $7,743 per year and a postage stamp cost $0.06.

    And you could get a new Corvair or Volkswagen for under $2000 and a big car cost $4000-$5000.

    As valuable as LA is to NFL teams as a bargaining chip for stadium politics in existing markets, the money generated by an NFL team in that city is more valuable. All of the league’s media, marketing, and sponsorship deals would garner more dough. The big issue with the NFL in LA is no suitable stadium exists or seems imminently likely. Until that issue gets settled, Los Angeles will remain without an NFL team.

    While I agree that a stadium is a prerequisite to any LA relo, I’m not persuaded that the marginal increase in league merchandising and sponsorship revenue comes anywhere near the value of the relocation threat to the league and to teams individually. 80% of the NFL’s capital is provided by government. At the moment, the move-to-LA threat is the primary means that the league and individual teams have to maintain and increase its massive public capital subsidies.

    If nobody in LA were paying to watch football, or buying NFL merchandise, maybe opening that market would be worth the risk to the league of having to finance more of its own capital. But LA is a rich NFL market already; a team would provide only a marginal boost in the league’s revenue streams. So to me the tradeoff looks like a few tens of millions in new annual revenue versus many hundreds of millions in capital assets.

    Not concretely, no, I don’t. However, when I’m SoCal, or when I see pictures from LA, my anecdotal experience is of seeing about as much NFL gear being worn as anywhere else in the country. So I assume that the merch side is relatively strong to begin with. That leaves TV: Do national NFL broadcasts perform significantly differently in LA than in other major cities with teams?

    No idea.

    The NFL deliberately obscures merchandise data (except for puff pieces like “the 20 best-selling jerseys this year”). If it weren’t for the Packers’ annual reports to shareholders, we wouldn’t know nearly as much about the league’s finances as we do.

    It sure seems likely that the LA is already a fertile market for the NFL. But to what extent? Could it be improved by a local team or two? We honestly have no way of answering those questions.

    What is the need for the vulgar language? (i.e. Steph Curry’s shoes). Not saying kids read your site but is it really called for?

    Words like “fuck” and “shit” are perfectly fine words. They add emphasis, capture a vernacular/conversational feel, and extend the range of verbal expression. Would I want to use them in every sentence, or every paragraph, or even every day? No. But I use them occasionally in my writing, when they feel right (just as I say them occasionally in my everyday chatter).

    It’s worth noting that most of history’s great writers, including Shakespeare, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and Stephen King, have used vulgarities. I’m not saying I’m in their class (I’m obviously not), but why shouldn’t I have access to the same toolkit they used?

    Or they’re lazy placeholder words for inarticulate folks.

    Not saying that’s true of anyone here, but Scorcese’s use of profanity in Wolves of Wall Street (or Mamet’s in a play like Glengarry Glen Ross) is a good example of the current non-Shakespearean employment of those words: they’re the stock-in-trade of people who really aren’t capable of expressing themselves in any other language. (It’s also worth noting that nothing hurt Howard Stern’s career quite like moving to a venue where he was completely uncensored: you can’t shock when there are no longer any restrictions.)

    That’s not to say there isn’t a place for profanity, as Paul argues, to add emphasis, or tone. Some things are so egregious that profanity seems the only reasonable response. Genocide. Prejudice. Congressmen who threaten to toss reporters off balconies. But privileged young millionaires who wear obnoxious sneakers?

    Or they’re lazy placeholder words for inarticulate folks.

    This is a useful fiction to tell sixth graders, because you don’t want sixth graders to start saying, “fuck” and “shit” every other word — but make no mistake, it is a fiction.

    There is nothing more inherently lazy about the reflexive use of “fuck” or “shit” than there is about the reflexive use of “really” or “just” or “iconic” or “beloved.” All language, including profanity, is susceptible to lazy overuse, but profanity is hardly unique in that regard.

    I think most of us would agree that there’s a time and a place for words like “fuck” and “shit.” Now, your choice of time and place might not match mine, and that’s fine — but trying marginalize a certain class of words with the “lazy” tag doesn’t fly.

    If I have to hear that asinine “it shows a lack of vocabulary skills” line one more time in my life, I’m going to fucking scream.

    Cort, I hate to break this to you, but satellite radio has allowed Stern to do more, and his popularity has grown immensely because of it.

    When Stern announced he was moving to satellite, Sirius’s subscribed listeners jumped from 800,000 to about 4 million. It is estimated that of the current 25 million subscribers, 60% joined to listen to Howard Stern alone. Furthermore, SiriusXM added 2 million new subscribers last year.

    Terrestrial radio, like newspapers, is the medium that is suffering. Everything is cookie-cutter and repetitive. There are no innovations any longer.

    Stern’s move to satellite was the best thing he’s done ever, and his fans, his crew, and himself will tell you that.

    But isn’t “reflexiveness” another way of saying “lazy”? For the record, I don’t like “beloved” and “iconic” anymore than I like overused curse words (I can’t bring myself to type them. Yes, I’m repressed. Sue me.)

    Teebz, is that why he joined the cast of “America’s Got Talent”? By moving to satellite radio, Stern isolated himself from the people who find him outrageous, and feeding on that outrage is what made him a national name. According to a report released last week, less than 12 percent of Sirus subscribers listen to Stern, and 95 percent are unwilling to pay extra to have access to his show.

    During the Cold War, Philip Roth (a guy who was a master of artful salaciousness) once commented that in the East, nothing goes and everything matters, while in the West, everything goes and nothing matters. That’s an apt description of Howard’s career, pre and post Sirius. Stern used to be funny and outrageous. Now he’s just boring.

    But isn’t “reflexiveness” another way of saying “lazy”?

    Sure. But what I’m saying is this: All language is susceptible to this problem, but only one class of language — profanity — is routinely marginalized with the “Only lazy, inarticulate people talk that way” argument.

    That’s bogus. Is lazy/reflexive language a problem? Sure. But singling out only one type of language for that critique doesn’t work.

    I’m not singling out swearing, Paul. I drive in Houston. Believe me, there are times when the only thing you can do is swear. If you have a character who uses “Jesus” and phrases like “I’m blessed” in every other sentence, you know a lot about how that person thinks, and how he or she want to appear to the world. Same with “iconic” and “beloved” and all the rest. Saying “I’m blessed” in response to every question is no more an articulation of faith than cursing every other sentence is an expression of indignation or outrage. It’s just a something you do because you can’t think of anything else to say.

    The more I think about it, the more objectionable I find the “they’re just words” argument. Swear. Don’t swear. It’s your web site and your rules. But to make a claim that words don’t have cultural or social connotations is weak. In fact, it is a component of the pro-“Redskins” argument: “Get over it. It’s just a name.”

    I understand now. You don’t listen to Stern. Totally get it now.

    His “move” to America’s Got Talent is, as he puts it, a job. Nothing more, nothing less. He nearly walked away in negotiations this summer because he doesn’t need the money nor the hassle. But he likes doing it, so he signed on again for another year. And he likes Heidi and Mel and Howie, and he enjoys their company. So he doesn’t need to be outrageous to be popular because he’s still a massive draw on that show.

    Secondly, is he “boring” now to you because he doesn’t need to rise up against the FCC every day to defend his own principles? Personally, he’s a helluvan interviewer, and by not having to break mid-interview for a required commercial break, his interviews are far more entertaining and organic.

    I’m not gonna sway you to get you to listen because everyone is entitled to their opinion of the guy. But the report you cited surveyed a mere 800 people who subscribe to SiriusXM out of the over 25 million subscribed. That sample size is nowhere close to what anyone would consider “legitimate survey numbers”. But good for those 800 people.

    The more I think about it, the more objectionable I find the “they’re just words” argument. Swear. Don’t swear. It’s your web site and your rules. But to make a claim that words don’t have cultural or social connotations is weak.

    Straw man argument. I never said “they’re just words,” and I never claimed certain words don’t have certain cultural or social connotations. I simply said all language is susceptible to lazy/reflexive overuse, and that singling out one class of words for that specific critique is a weak argument.

    Of course words like “fuck” and “shit” have a different impact than “iconic” or “beloved.” That’s why (or at least one reason why) “fuck” and “shit” should be used sparingly. Moreover, it’s why *I* use them sparingly.

    Would I want to live in a world where every sentence includes “fuck” or “shit”? No. But I also wouldn’t want to live in a world where “fuck” and “shit” don’t exist. I don’t think we need to impose the latter in order to avoid the former.

    Not to mention that the social prohibition of such language generally owes its origins more to cultural elitism and class bigotry than any real ethical program.

    I grew up in a working class house, in the Rust Belt.

    We were taught that there were things you said, and things you didn’t, and ways you behaved, and ways you didn’t.

    It was probably a function of my parents’ latent self-hatred for our proletarian roots.

    Facetiousness aside, just because it begun as class bigotry perpetrated by elites doesn’t mean that it can’t disseminate through society. In fact, like most forms of popular value myth, dissemination from top down is its very modus operandi. Religious orthodoxy for example has long been used as a method of controlling behaviour by instituting prohibitive values which are then themselves adopted and policed by the very people they are supposed to control. It’s Michel Foucault’s “panopticon”.

    But as for your comment above on the Redskins, these words are not intrinsically offensive, or negative. It is the context which dictates that. Have you ever heard of “rule 34” (if it exists there is porn of it)? It’s the same with language – if a word exists there is a context in which that word symbolises something completely abhorrent. The difference with words like Redskin is that we are in a situation where the predominant usage of the word is in abhorrent contexts.

    Moral of the story: yes the cultural context of a word is significant, but what should come above all else in the judgement of somebody’s language is what they mean by it – are they upholding the cultural value of the word, challenging it or merely being neutral. These are the considerations that should come into play when considering what a person means when they use a word rather than is that a word my mother would be upset with.

    I was looking on some insight into the Manning/Skiba Giants memorabilia scandal. Did I miss it?

    I’m really not liking that look. The logo just doesn’t fit with the rest of the uniform. Besides, if the Seahawks had been the Kings instead, they’d have switched to metallic gold by now.

    The logo just doesn’t fit with the rest of the uniform.

    Yeah, you’re probably right, they would have screwed it up and modernized it by now. Maybe somebody could whip up a “modern” version of that 1974 helmet logo to match the rest of our uni. I kinda like, though, keeping the 1974-era logo with a 2014 uniform template. Sort of a nice juxtaposition of the new and the old.

    metallic gold

    Remind me, which gold is that again? The yellow one or the not yellow one?

    Think Saints helmet.

    Ah, that’s right. Whenever I think of ‘metallic’ I think of, like, Steel beams, and such, so I think of the Steelers, who wear (what I call) “yellow” pants. So I tend to prefer to think of one color as gold and the other as yellow, just so as there’s no confusion.

    You do realize that we’re on the same page in regards to the whole yellow/gold thing, right? I only threw in “metallic” so that the non-enlightened would know what I was talking about.

    Oh, yes… My mostly-in-jest original response wasn’t trying to dig at you, as much as to point out how simpler it would be if we’d all call them “yellow” and “gold” – you wouldn’t have to use a qualifier such as “metallic” in the first place.

    But then for us to impose that tyranny of a viewpoint on others would surely be bullshit.

    “Third World” Championship… has a totally different sound to it today. I picture a game played by two teams wearing discarded Championship merchandise from the losing team.

    According to the ticket, it wasn’t Super Bowl III, it was the Third World Football Championship, apparently contested between Haiti and Laos.

    I’ve got a question about L.A.

    After Super Bowl VII, the NFL apparently decided that Super Bowl games played in the L.A. area would be held at the Rose Bowl, not the L.A. Coliseum. (Nor, apparently, did the NFL consider having one at Anaheim Stadium after the Rams moved there in 1980).

    Someone asked me recently if the NFL might consider putting Super Bowl 50 in the Coliseum since that’s where the first one was. I said no, because (1) L.A. is not an NFL market anymore, and (2) the Coliseum is a sh*tty facility not up to NFL standards, let alone Super Bowl standards. The question also came up (as it does every year) of whether any NFL team has played a Super Bowl in its own stadium or city; no, but the Rams came close, playing Super Bowl XIV at the Rose Bowl 14 miles from the Coliseum.

    Which got me thinking: If (aside from having over 10,000 more seats) the Rose Bowl was good enough for a Super Bowl but the Coliseum was not, why did the Rams (or even the Raiders later) play at the Coliseum instead of the Rose Bowl? I’m guessing that UCLA or the NCAA might have had some kind of veto over an NFL team playing there, or maybe the Rams, Raiders and NFL didn’t think they could fill over 100,000 seats every week. (The Raiders certainly couldn’t; by the mid-’80s all their home games were blacked out and all their prime time appearances were on the road.)

    If anyone knows more about this, please share.

    The reason that there is NFL team in the Rose Bowl is because the city of Pasadena has a yearly limit on events there. Any changes would have to go through the homeowners in the Arroyo. There are really expensive homes around the Rose Bowl, and it’s owners are pretty vocal (and influential) about any change to the number of events. Even if they are to approve a change in the number of events, you have the issue of parking. There are not that many paved lots around the Rose Bowl. At UCLA games and for the Rose Bowl game the adjacent golf course is used for parking (except for the greens). The only instance when the courses are not used is when it is raining or if it rained a few days before.

    The Under Armor Notre Dame final designs will likely feature some sort of logo at the collar just as Notre Dame did before they had the adidas logo there. Past uniforms have featured the monogram logo, shamrocks and even a little golden dome in the late 90s; but if I had to guess they will go back to the monogram logo.

    Paul lauding DeMaurice Smith & MeAngelo Hall coming forward to support his side’s view of the “Redskins” name debate suffers from the usual small sample size qualifications as the discussion in general. Big ups for mentioning Mr. Smith’s race as well, but Paul should note that in the Cold War between White People (CWbWP), black people are only used by the right side to assault the other Palin lovin’ side. What actual black people or fans of the Redskins logo think about it is irrelevant to any discussion (because they are not as powerful or rich as Mr. Smith, obvs). Very Leninist Paul! And if we know anyone who cares for the poor and voiceless, it’s surely noted progressive Paul Lukas. Sadly, Paul’s offendedness at the logo is more important than what any of those (invisible) people think (“Unless they hate the logo, then please privately email me with photo proof of your race, please.”).

    I am also a huge fan of a 5,000 word piece in noted “reactionary” magazine “Think Progress” detailing the entire episode, I am sure it changed a lot of minds from all the progressive white people who read it and also hate “other” white people.

    Let’s waste some more words so people like Paul can assuage his white guilt and assert his moral superiority. Keep f**king that chicken, I for one love our new Cultural Marxist overlords.

    Meanwhile, I just bought that sweet Braves hat. Awesome logo.

    You are factually inaccurate: I did not “laud” DeMaurice Smith. I simply reported what he said and pointed out that his race runs counter the “only white people care about this issue” narrative that many people have perpetuated.

    The rest of your post is a mix of baseless assertion, petulant name-calling, and nonsense. Have fun.

    I recognize “Keep f**king that chicken” from somewhere… what is that a callback to? Was it that hockey dude that told the other guy to go eat another doughnut or something?

    Actually, while Stewart may use it on TDS, the phrase was uttered by Ernie Anastos during a live spot (with weatherman Nick Gregory). I searched for the vid on YouTube, but Fox has taken it down.

    wait a minute phil, jeff would never just randomly comment, he is hyper selective in offering his opinions in threads, so maybe he’s right.

    Why is it that Paul has guilt for pointing out the obvious racism built into the name, yet all those who defend the Washington Football Team feel no guilt whatsoever?

    If you have to rationalize and resort to name-calling over an issue with valid academic and real-world merit, shouldn’t you feel guilty for the immense amount of ignorance you’re showing, especially being entirely dismissive of the whole discussion? That alone should be the number-one reason for those defending the Washington team name to maybe keep their yaps shut: you don’t want to listen what the other side has to say.

    Which is kinda how the whole oppression of Native Americans began – you don’t want to listen to them or anyone who supports them. And that, in itself, is racist as per historian George Fredrickson, who said, “[R]acism is a social or collective phenomenon, not simply a matter of individual behaviour. It involves a relationship between groups of people, one oppressing and the other oppressed. Of course, these groups are made up of individuals. People in the dominant group may actively practise racism, passively allow it to go on or consciously try to challenge it.”

    So what say you now, O Mighty Defender of Your Team Name?

    Posts like Chris’ just overcomplicate the issue. Bottom line: it’s an offensive term to many today. Whether it was innocuous “back in the day” or “what race/number of people are offended today” is not relevant, as are politcal or class arguments. As has been pointed out before, if a team was named the “New York Jews” supposedly in honor of a Jewish coach 50 years ago and had a yarmulke-wearing profile on the helmet, I don’t imagine anyone would think that was appropriate if a Jewish group believed the name and logo were offensive. Stop bringing up “white guilt” and all that bullshit. I’m white, and feel no personal guilt over the plight of Native Americans. However, I can recognize they received a substantial screwing from our government, regardless of the reasoning at the time.

    Back to the issue: on the grounds that some find the name offensive and a slur, I don’t understand how anyone could think it’s OK for the team representing our nation’s capitol to use it. That said, it’s certainly Mr. Snyder’s choice whether to change the name or not. If he doesn’t though, he and other supporters of the name should accept that there will be those that question its use, and if they choose, argue the issue on its actual merits, not a bunch of side-show crap.

    Several schools in the Houston Independent School District are being made to change their nicknames, based on school board contentions that they are insensitive. It’s been covered here, at some length.

    The controversy this has engendered is amazing. The people from Westbury High (nickname: Rebels. mascot: a guy who sort of looks like Ole Miss’s old mascot. Student body: almost 100% African-American and Hispanic, with students of Mexican descent predominating) have been sanguine: as long as they can keep their school colors, they’re OK with it. The people at Lamar High (nickname: Redskins) are apoplectic. The outrage far, far exceeds the issue.

    It’s a dang nickname. No having to give up their children for adoption, or undergoing forced sterilization, or being herded into exile in the New Mexico desert. They are being asked to choose a new name for their sports teams. Anyone who’s honest would admit that at the very least, “Redskins” smacks of outdated sensibilities.

    I can’t figure out why it gets people so worked up.

    I’m going to go thumbs up on the San Jose jerseys. The red is a bit meh (although it does have a certain late 80s/early 90s Liverpool charm) but the home I like very much. In general I don’t think it’s really possible to screw up a simple contrasted sleeve pattern (though Arsenal certainly have tried over the past decade or so). I think the new logo is pretty nice too. A good example of how you can make simple patterns and shapes do good things when the composition is just so. Bonus points for the clipart truncated icosahedron ball in the logo too.

    I really like the bridging of NASL and MLS in the new Quakes branding. The MLS from the start introduced whacky manufactured names and I’m happy to see them go away. Names like Real Salt Lake irritate the hell out of me but I really find it charming to have what I consider “heritage” names from the NASL days. While they may not meet the standard European tradition names like Sounders, Timbers, Whitecaps and Earthquakes have tradition in their own areas and that should be remembered. I also really like the broken Chevron pattern, it reminds me of split tectonic plates, perfect for a teamed named Earthquakes.

    Soccer faces a problem in logos in that the design of the ball constantly changes so any rendering is bound to look dated, but I agree the ball in the new logo does look a little clip arty but not enough to spoil the overall look for me.

    Im wearing an adidas-branded Tennessee t-shirt as I type this. Damn.

    Not joking, totally serious: Why the “damn”? Like, will you no longer be able to wear that shirt? If so, why? It’s still a Tennessee shirt, isn’t it? Isn’t that more important than its maker’s mark?

    Not trying to be a pain. Genuinely puzzled by the implied line of thought. But I don’t buy or wear any of this stuff to begin with, so this is a case where I’m totally divorced from the states of mind people have regarding this type of situation. Enlighten me!

    I should have been more specific. It’s actually a long-sleeve gray tee with orange checkered numbers on the front and back (#16, natch), modeled after the Smokey Gray jerseys the Vols debuted this past season. Now that it looks like those unis are no more, I don’t like that the shirt doesn’t match the team’s on-field aesthetic.

    Now, I knew when I bought it that there was a chance the jerseys might never be seen on the field again (especially since they’re 0-2 in them), but I was hoping I’d get a little more mileage out of it before it became an outdated look. I still really like the shirt, and of course I’ll keep wearing it. The timing is just annoying.

    Adam’s line about matching “the on-field aesthetic” sums it up. People, particularly people who read this site, are spending money on a shirt with the expectation that it will look like the ones the players wear. Little things — sleeve stripes that are a little too wide, inaccurate number fonts, the wrong “maker’s mark” — are aggravating.

    When the manufacturers’ logos are incorporated into the shirt design, like in the Seahawks jerseys or the Adidas stripes on many soccer shirts, or are enormous (le Coq Sportif and Puma logos on some soccer kits are HUGE), they become part of the team identity, almost a secondary club logo.

    For the persnickety (and again, most people who care enough to come here are pernickety about uniforms), wearing a shirt with last year’s manufacturer’s logo is an uncomfortable no man’s land: not current, but too recent to be considered a throwback. It’s just an old shirt.

    ” People, particularly people who read this site, are spending money on a shirt with the expectation that it will look like the ones the players wear. Little things – sleeve stripes that are a little too wide, inaccurate number fonts, the wrong “maker’s mark” – are aggravating.”


    You know, there is a simple solution to this, Cort…

    It’s just an old shirt.

    Right. But what’s wrong with wearing an old shirt? I’ve never understood this. But again, I don’t buy or wear any of this stuff, so I’m obviously the one who Doesn’t Get Itâ„¢ here.

    I don’t buy ’em, either. Fat guys have no business in polyester.

    But when I go to a game, and some guy is sitting next to me, dressed in an Adidas-produced shirt, when his team is dressed in Nike, I find it irritating.

    Look, in 1975, my dad gave away his 1966 Ford F-100 pickup, because it had 100,00 miles on it and it had a lot of body rust. But it ran great. Last year, I nearly bought a ’66 Ford F-100 pickup, with TONS of body damage and no transmission, with an eye toward restoring it, as a tribute to my dad.

    All told, it would have cost me 25 grand to fix it up, which is a really stupid way to spend 25 grand, so I passed. Dad’s been dead for 35 years. He doesn’t need a truck.

    “A little old” has no value. “Really old” becomes a token of cherished memories and sacred traditions. That’s part of the reason that people can make a living selling, say, 40 year old hockey posters, but next year, “Phoenix Coyote” merchandise will be filling the aisles of Glendale dollar stores.

    “next year, “Phoenix Coyote” merchandise will be filling the aisles of Glendale dollar stores.”


    All the more reason not to have bought it in the first place.

    If you must spend money on team gear, why don’t you buy a “classic” (throwback model) or some sort of memorabilia that isn’t the “newest,” which would eliminate it being “a little old” (and hence, of no value to you) rather quickly?

    Not trying to bust your chops, but if it bugs you so much, avoid it. And if someone wearing a Rbk/adidas shirt when the team is in Nike bugs you…well, you’ve probably got other issues ;)

    Cort, I totally understand being “aggravated” that one’s own jersey is subtly different from what the athletes are wearing. If I’ve just dropped $80 for a baseball jersey – never pay retail, people! – only to discover that Majestic put the sleeve stripes on the fan merch differently than the real thing, I get peeved. (I don’t have this response to changes over time; a jersey is from when it’s from, and last year’s jersey demonstrates as much team loyalty as this year’s.)

    What I don’t understand is being “aggravated” when someone else’s jersey isn’t quite “right.” I mean, unless you gave him the $200 to buy a jersey and he got the wrong one because he’s some kind of moron, what’s it to you? That seems to cross the line for me from aesthetic appreciation into antisocial aggression.

    I don’t mean this as like a personal attack; heaven knows I do a fair amount of counting-to-ten when I realize that I’m projecting my own aesthetic preferences onto other people and judging them for it. (Except people who buy Yankees jerseys with JETER 2 on the back and fail to invest the few minutes to seam-ripper the NOB off, them I mentally scowl at, but that’s mainly because Yankees fans’ Jeter-slobbering annoys me in general.) It’s just that if I found myself getting “aggravated” because the stranger next to me in the stands was still wearing a Reebok Vikings jersey, I’d see that not as a sign that the idiot in the next seat needs to buy a new jersey, but that I need to get control of my idiot self. Which, as I say, is something I’m no stranger to having to do!

    PS: I have in-laws in Phoenix, and I look forward to sending them a list of Phoenix Coyotes stuff to look for on clearance next fall.

    What I take away from Cort’s comment is buy up all the bargain basement Phoenix Coyotes stuff I can get my hands on and stick it in a storage locker for 40 years.

    Of course I still have a crap-load of 1987 Topps baseball cards that are still virtually worthless.

    This year’s SB ticket is the first without the “AFC-NFC World Championship Game” title. Can’t believe they kept it for that long!

    Jerry Seinfeld was on with Mike & Mike yesterday morning, and they swapped out his Starbucks cup for a Super Bowl mug during a commercial break, prompting Seinfeld to quip, “So you took away the Starbucks cup and put it in a Super Bowl mug. What, you don’t think they are getting enough press?”

    That line is good, but it would have been much funnier if he had been drinking Mud or Cafe Grumpy.

    Is anyone else experiencing the annoying pop-up that shows up on the page for the Super Bowl tickets?

    I really like those rumored LA Galaxy jerseys. Usually I think Adidas templates get too cluttered with superfluous stuff, but if their entire theme is “lots of little stripes,” it works well.

    Some people may not have liked the F1 cars jet-fighter “nose in the air” look, but their new sloped noses are also a bit jarring. In that slideshow, check out the Toro Rosso in the last photo – I’m not sure you can transit that image without brushing with the anti-porn transmission rules. It looks like it should come standard with a condom.

    It makes me sad that more ink has been spilled over the use of the Redskins name than the efforts at improving the social and economic conditions of the victims of its use. I find something incredibly arrogant and hypocritical in the approach.

    You’re assuming (a) that people who are advocating for the name change are not also advocating for other improvements for Native Americans; (b) that addressing the name change and addressing other improvements for Native Americans are somehow mutually exclusive; and (c) that changing the way Native Americans are culturally represented, including representations by sports teams, will have zero practical effect on Native American life.

    All of those assumptions are false.

    But let’s say, for the sake of argument, that everyone advocating for the name change is indeed “arrogant and hypocritical,” as you put it. Would that mean all of those people are wrong? No, not necessarily. It would simply mean that you had successfully indicted the messengers while failing to address the message. That’s a good approach if you’re running for office or trying to pander to gut emotional responses, but it doesn’t work here — not even hypothetically, and certainly not for real.

    Think harder.

    Also, how do you know from a factual standpoint that more ink has been spilled over the name change issue than the efforts at improving the social and economic conditions of the victims of its use? There’s absolutely no way for you to know that. Just because the name issue has been reported on lately doesn’t mean more effort has been applied to it than anything else. Not a very well thought-out comment.

    Paul, it’s pretty clear that most high profile folks bringing this issue to the forefront aren’t doing anything else but focusing on the irrelevant issue of a name change. Do I know this irrefutably? No. Is it possible someone somewhere is doing more than writing a column about this issue as part of their employment? Sure (I hope). It’s also pretty clear that most of the ink used in reference Native American issues is about racially insensitive names. I don’t disagree that the non-issue of the term being challenged in public sports consciousness MIGHT bring attention to the more important day to day circumstances of many of the 2.4 million Natives still on reservations and under concurrent Tribal and Federal Jurisdiction. So I don’t disagree to the possibility that merely changing the name from the Washington Redskins to Washington (insert generic name here) might have some affect towards the betterment of the membership of the tribes whom are being exploited for sales of NFL merchandise. I don’t agree with the sophistry behind the insistence that these effects are LIKELY to be certain as a reason for continually pushing the movement for change. In otherwords, I don’t think that those advocating for this type of change can rest on the laurels of victory once the name change is accomplished. Will it change? Undoubtedly, and I suspect Snyder and company know it. If not now, probably in our lifetimes. But what is the net effect? I submit this moral handwringing over a football team’s moniker will do nothing practical to actually advance the real cause. Why? Because little has improved for those members of the tribes who are less subjected to exploitation because the NCAA has prohibited Native imagery and use (with a few notable, documented exceptions) in the last twenty years.

    The issue of the use of Native mascots, team names, and the like isn’t new. I recall the name Redskins being objected to by several respected journalistic papers as far back as the 1980s. Did it raise awareness? Certainly. Has that continued today? Undoubtedly. Is it more to the forefront? Certainly. Has it made a bit of difference, say, in the economic opportunities presented to the victims (one of the justifications for an attatched precondition to allow an NCAA school keeping the name that I’ve seen espoused here and other places)(i.e., in other words, did it spark some real and necessary change?) No. Not according to the 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census, which pegged poverty levels at 25% for Native Americans.


    Having Robert Griffin III’s multi-million dollar paycheck come from the Washington “Generals” or “Stars” instead of the Redskins doesn’t really do too much for the 20% of Native households making less than $5,000 per year.

    The fallacy that I object to are the assumptions made across the board, including the assumptions about my short post, and as a result, me. I submit that the simple act of a name change that will come will do absolutely nothing practical. Do I know it? Well not irrefutably, which is what I believe the standard expectation of level of proof demanded by scribes such as yourself when the reasons behind this cause are questioned. I think the body of evidence, however, suggests clearly and convincingly that no practical help will result for the impoverished Chippewa, Menominee, Ojibwa, etc. Native.

    The empathy is laudible, the heart’s in the right place, but it’s misguided, in my opinion. I think the evidence (voluminous and probably better addressed elsewhere than this forum) is quite convincing that once the name has been changed, not much else will be.

    Good points, Joe H. However, saying one shouldn’t call an African-American “nigger” or writing about that probably won’t help inner city plight, etc., either. Doesn’t mean it’s OK to do it.

    I think Paul should use all the profanity he wants on his site. But if he used it a little less, it might be more meaningful or powerful the times he does use it.

    Where I live, however, using too much profanity tends to make people uncomfortable. But I probably care too much about what other people think of me.

    But if he used it a little less, it might be more meaningful or powerful the times he does use it.

    I don’t think I use it that often. But “that often” is obviously a flexible standard — we each have our own version of it. The only one I can follow is my own.

    That’s the REAL problem with this issue in particular, Paul (and I submit the larger political problems we face, but that’s for another day). There is an automatic assumption that my original post was an “insult” when it was a short comment about what I believe to be the misguided effort at an irrelevant issue to live, flesh and blood people, and two, that I’m on one side or the other, as well as the belief that the popular print sport journalistic adoption of the movemant is quite hypocritical in that when the victory is won, the game is done, with other windmills to defeat. And yet nothing really has changed.

    No effort is made to delve into the crux of the matter. There is no consideration the position from all angles. Not much thought given towards meeting in the middle. There is this mentality that the Pro-Redskins name folks MUST conquer the Progessive Offensive Name Police, and vice versa. A missed opportunity.

    As far as I can tell, I haven’t openly declared my allegiance for one movement or the other, and there’s an assumption that my objection to one of the most prevailing justification for the pro-name changers clearly indicates (along with my use of the objectionable term, I suppose) at least, my indifference to the movement or at most, that I sleep at night in NFL branded authentic Washington Football Headress.

    The real issue I believe to be not whether a team calls itself the Redskins, Indians, Chiefs, Braves, etc., or whether it’s genuine in claim of “honoring” the Native (for $80 a replica jersey, for example), but the primary fact that all of this is so much ado about nothing, and nothing of real good or consequence will come of it, other than sports journalists will be free from having to type the term.

    There is an automatic assumption that my original post was an “insult”…

    Joe, come on. Your initial comment consisted of two sentences, one of which was devoted to calling people on one side of the argument “arrogant” and “hypocritical.” Yes, that means your original post was an insult.

    You’ve totally redeemed yourself with a series of thoughtful, articulate posts — good for you (and for all of us who get to read what you have to say). That’s great, but please don’t pretend that your original comment was anything other than a form of name-calling, because that’s literally what it was.

    Let’s move on. Thanks.

    Tim, with respect, I don’t think the terms are equivalent, historically. They are different terms for different ethnicities. In your scenario, the debate is framed in the context that in order to say one, you must accept the other.

    I disagree that the framework of the debate is such as you’ve posed it. I understand that’s also a common ground in support of the name change, but I believe the hard, historical evidence is convincing, all biases aside, that the terms are unique and quite different. And as such this ground in support for the change is false as well.

    Not really the time or place to delve into these similarities of treatment by the historical establishment of both ethnicities (needless to say of the fascinating historical treatment of the Native to African in the history of this land), and the historical context and usages of both terms (which I’ve seen here and elsewhere), except that I don’t accept your premise as valid.

    “I reject your reality and choose to insert my own in its place.” In all seriousness, I don’t think them being historically equivalent (or not) is relevant at all to the conversation. You had originally posted that you thought the argument over the name was a lot of talk, no action, sort of proposition. My point was that might be so, but it doesn’t mean using the nickname is OK. Pick whatever racial slur you like, historical equivalent or not.

    such a traitor to cats. have either of yours even attempted to scratch your eyes out for your blasphemous promotion of dogs? well mine are organizing a hit squad to take you out, and chowderhead in particular is a stone cold killer. so watch for the hit when you least expect it this weekend my couch hotel proprietor.

    besides, everyone knows the kitten bowl is vastly superior as the AFL to the puppy bowl’s NFL status.

    puppy lover.

    just so you know, i can’t stop the hit squad, they organize independent of me in some dank basement with a swinging lightbulb. but if they treat your hit like an average bird flying into the studio… do NOT get distracted by jesco chance or marlow swatting at you from the high places in your apartment, they will do that, and it can be disconcerting for a bird. but they are just trying to herd you, don’t let them play your fears, because the moment you think you have your out, and you dart for the window, chowderhead will jump up and swat your sack, and and you will hit the floor dead. she may or may not do a dance, and may or may not say puppy bowl that motherscratcher over your corpse, i’m just looking out.

    stand strong paul lukas, stand strong

    “Below, from Spring Training 1946, Stan Rojek and Gene Hermanski are nicely lined up to show the back-and-forth of the past.”

    The caps are quite different, too.

    Regarding Stan Kroenke’s purchase of 60 acres in Inglewood, I’m seeing a lot of “it’s too small”, but is it?

    I spent my lunch break goofing around on Photoshop today, looking at Kroenke’s latest land acquisition to see how it might work for an NFL stadium. (I posted this on the Creamer board, but you guys might like it as well.)

    Admittedly, this is very unscientific, but I took the plot of land as seen on Google Maps.

    Looks narrow, but I checked to see if you could fit the Coliseum (seating capacity 93,000) on that plot. Turns out that you can, with some good room for parking left over.

    Hell, if Kroenke wanted to, he could add a full-sized replica of the Rose Bowl and still have some room left over.

    Those are just the local Los Angeles stadiums, but they’re college, so maybe that’s apples to oranges. Let’s see what happens when I put my local stadium on this map. Keep in mind that it houses stadium facilities for two teams, just as I presume the LA stadium would.

    Still no problem. But what if those seats aren’t enough? I think FedEx Field still has the largest capacity among NFL stadiums, so let’s see what that looks like.

    And just because everything’s bigger in Texas – JerruhWorld fits too!

    And that’s before we even ask the Hollywood Park people if we can buy any little pieces of their lot (which may or may not be an option, I honestly don’t know).

    Now, those are all stadiums built for other sites. An architect would come up with something to work within, taking best advantage of, this site’s unique layout.

    So whatever anyone wants to say about this Inglewood site, “too small for an NFL stadium” doesn’t seem to be a terribly valid criticism.

    It still shocks me that the fact that Stan exercised his option when the Rosenbloom kids put the team up for sale caught the St. Louis media off guard. The local scribes stress all along that Stan wants to keep the team in St. Louis, it’s a good football town, etc.

    I am pretty convinced that he’s moving the team. I don’t know why, I have no proof, but as a Rams fan, I just think he’s pulling up stakes. And the objection that “the NFL won’t let them move” doesn’t hold water for me…Al Davis proved that.

    If they move, that’ll make 2 NFL teams that left town. I won’t know if I should stay a Rams fan or not. I hope I’m wrong.

    FWIW, the Metrodome in Minneapolis sits on 17 acres, which includes a fair amount of mostly sidewalk space around it. No parking to speak of on the plot, but in terms of the actual structure of a stadium, that seems like a comfortable minimum.

    in regards to the baseball hall of fame selling Braves hats with an Indian head logo; do you think, even if Washington changed the name of it’s NLF team, that companies would still sell “throwback” apparel with the in question name and logo’s?

    also, are those ashtrays in the Twins locker room?

    FYI, the video from the National Congress of American Indians isn’t just “an ad.”

    It’s obvious that they’re organizing a campaign around the issue: “Change The Mascot”

    Ad is a good start. They could stand to begin developing a brand identity around the issue (as their website visuals are pretty basic). i.e., Smoky the Bear, or even something that’s just a type treatment of “Change the Mascot.” They need to keep fleshing out that identity. It’ll help.

    The Super Bowl tickets thing is pretty cool but the picture for this year’s game is not the one I have seen. This year’s tickets look very similar to the recent ones, large Lombardi trophy in the center and a sunset skyline of New York in the background. I don’t have a picture myself but friends going to the game have posted them on Facebook.
    I’m guessing the picture they used was just a placeholder.

Comments are closed.