Skip to content

Just in Time for March

Made in March_Family _H Made in March_Family Short _H

For all of today’s photos, click to enlarge

As you know, it’s physically impossible — impossible! — for a college basketball team to wear its normal uniform during the postseason. With that in mind, Adidas released a bunch of March Madness uniforms yesterday. As you can see above, the jerseys are fairly conventional, but the shorts all use two-tone color blocking and somewhat oversized logos.

Louisville has already been wearing this template all season long — here’s how it looks on their home and road unis — and I kind of like it. Here’s a closer look at the eight new designs:


Louisville_Hero_Sq Michigan_Hero_Sq Nebraska_Hero_Sq NC State_Hero_Sq Texas A&M_Hero_Sq UCLA_Hero_Sq Wisconsin_Hero_Sq

A few thoughts:

• Obviously, the whole templating thing, creating a collective sense of “Team Adidas,” is noxious. But as templates go, I like this one a lot better than, say, this one.

• While I’m cool with the color-blocking, I don’t care for the big logos.

• One step forward: Only one school with sleeves!

• Two steps back: Two schools with grey home unis instead of white.

• I’m wondering if there’ll be any mixing and matching, because I think a lot of the home shorts would probably look good, or at least interesting, with the road jerseys (and in a few cases vicey-versey). Would anyone like to mock up a few of these for us?

• Very keen to see the UCLA designs on the court — they look really nice.

• Odd that the Texas A&M jerseys still have the color-blocking on the shoulders. Never liked that look, and it definitely feels like too much when paired with the color-blocked shorts.

•  Finally, it’s worth noting that Adidas also has new uniforms for Indiana, but not in the color-blocked template:

(My thanks to Phil for his assistance with this section.)

• • • • •

G-Man: It had previously been reported that Marlins outfielder Giancarlo Stanton, whose 2014 season was ended by a fastball to the face, would be wearing a facemask during spring training, and possibly during the regular season. It turns out that his mask stakes out some new territory in MLB headgear.

As you can see at right (and can click to enlarge), Stanton’s mask is not the standard plastic extension that we’re used to seeing. It’s made of carbon steel, more like a football mask (Stanton was apparently concerned that a plastic guard might block his vision) and has a stylized “G” — Stanton’s first initial. Further details are available here.

This is, to my knowledge, the first personalized batter’s mask in MLB history. As a one-off, I’m cool with it — it’s fun. But if it kicks off an arms race of players constantly upping the “Look at me” factor, as seems likely, then we’ll look back at this mask as the launch pad for a whole new chapter of stupid.

Several emailers and tweeters noted yesterday that the NFL would never allow this; in fact, they’ve already banned it. It’ll be interesting to see if MLB has anything to say about it.

• • • • •

And speaking of MLB headwear: The two caps shown at left will apparently be making appearances during the upcoming MLB season — and it sounds like there are others on the way. One at a time:

• New Era Cap Talk reported yesterday that the Diamondbacks would be wearing that purple cap for Thursday home games. New Era’s own website confirms this and adds the following: “The 2015 MLB Special Events Collection consists of fitted caps that will be worn by teams throughout the season to commemorate historic moments or unique promotions.” This was all news to me, and it wasn’t clear which Arizona throwback jersey would be paired with the cap (lots of options: cream vest, cream sleeves, purple alternate, etc.), so I contacted Dbacks media czar Casy Wilcox. His response: “At the moment, there’s nothing we can confirm but we hope to have additional information within the next week or so.”

• New Era’s website says that the navy-brimmed Red Sox cap will be worn on May 5 (a home game against the Rays). The listing includes the same info about “the 2015 MLB Special Events Collection.” It’s not clear what this promotion is about, but May 5 is, of course, Cinco de Mayo, so maybe it has to do with that. (Update: Commenter Howard points out that the Sox are doing a Carlton Fisk bobblehead giveaway on May 5, so the cap is presumably part of a throwback uniform they’ll be wearing.)

I’m assuming that anything referred to as a “collection” will involve more than just two teams, so there are probably more surprises still in store.

(My thanks to Brendan Hickey and Phil for their contributions to this section.)

• • • • •

Power Rankings reminder: In case you missed it yesterday, the Uni Watch Power Rankings are back, with ratings of all 30 MLB teams’ uniform sets, from first to worst. How did your favorite team do? Find out here.

• • • • •

’Skins Watch: The ’Skins have filed court papers arguing that the government’s cancellation of the team’s trademark protection constitutes a violation of free speech rights. ”¦ Capitol Hill High School in Oklahoma, whose teams have been called the Redskins, has chosen four possible replacement names.

Baseball News: Matte red batting helmets for Houston. ”¦ The double-A Binghamton Mets are selling team-branded yarmulkes (thanks, Phil). ”¦ Remember that custom-designed bat I was raffling off last week? That same company is now making custom bats for six college programs. ”¦ New uniforms, with a Teddy Roosevelt them, for the Frisco RoughRiders. Additional info and a video here. ”¦ The A’s have an ambidextrous pitcher in camp, and he has a really cool glove (from Chris Cruz). ”¦ Here’s our first look at a Padres player wearing the brown-pinstriped throwbacks that the team will be wearing for five Wednesday-afternoon games this season. ”¦ Latest team to be wearing those new pullovers with the unusual collar: the Royals. We had previously seen two Mets players wearing this style (from Mike Vamosi). ”¦ Interesting cross-sport promotion by the Fresno Grizzlies and Las Vegas 51s, both of whom will be wearing Jerry Tarkanian-themed jerseys on April 10. ”¦ New custom spikes for Maine. ”¦ European golfer Richard Sterne is playing the Joburg Open this week, and his caddie has been wearing a Mariners trident cap (screen shot by Douglas Ford). … New road uniforms for the Visalia Rawhide.

NFL News: Here’s a look at NFL teams’ color values (from @mauimattipus). ”¦ Someone has ranked all 32 NFL helmets. ”¦ Bills coach Rex Ryan has a new Bills-themed pickup truck, although it seems the buffalo is charging in the wrong direction.

Hockey News: The Russian hockey club Avangard Omsk wore brutal red/blue camouflage jerseys the other day (from Rob Yasinsac). ”¦ Pure gold here: a Steve Nash combination hockey/basketball card! ”¦ St. Paddy’s Day jerseys on tap for the Chicago Wolves (from Steve Johnston). ”¦ Utah Grizzlies going pink in the rink tomorrow.

NBA News: The Suns debuted their new sleeved grey alternates last night. Additional photos here. ”¦ Kevin Garnett, now back with the Timberwolves, wore a Malik Sealy tribute armband on Wednesday night. ”¦ The NBA — or, rather, la NBA — has announced this year’s Latin Nights schedule. ”¦ The Cavs wore their navy alts last night, which left Golden State wearing white on the road.

College Hoops News: Holy moly, look at these incredible two-tone Purdue road unis from the late 1960s (great stuff from Jeff Demerly). ”¦ Here’s a ranking of history’s 20 worst college hoops unis. ”¦ Why just do color vs. color when you can have sleeved color vs. color? That’s Wofford vs. Mercer last night (from Derrick Light). ”¦ And still more color vs. color: Murray State and Eastern Illinois. ”¦ Pink-trimmed unis last night for the Iowa women’s team (from Kary Klismet). ”¦ Small note in this article about the Mt. St. Joseph’s women’s team: “The team wore special gray jerseys for the first game at Xavier’s arena. The NCAA prohibits schools from giving gifts to players, so they bought them for $22.”

Soccer News: New kit sponsor for Chelsea (from Yusuke Toyoda). ”¦ Also from Yusuke: “The Italian club Parma is in deep debt, can’t pay wages, and is now having its players wash their own uniforms because it can’t afford to do laundry.”

Grab Bag: Tonight I’ll be going to see the “hockey rock” band the Zambonis, who’ll be playing just a few blocks from my house. They’ve promised to “dig deep in the band wardrobe vaults and bring some odd/weird/cool jerseys” for me to see. ”¦ This is cool: an old matchbook extolling the virtues of Durene. ”¦ An art museum in Atlanta is celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Coca-Cola bottle by running an exhibition on the bottle’s design. ”¦ London’s bike-share program has a new corporate sponsor.

•  •  •  •  •

Emancipation Day: Nineteen years ago tomorrow (well, it was actually Feb. 29, but that date doesn’t appear on the calendar this year), I walked out of my office at Billboard Books for the final time and began life as a full-time freelance writer. I’d been freelancing on the side for the previous two and a half years and had decided it was time to take the plunge. Haven’t had a regular job since then. (Also haven’t had employer-subsidized health insurance or most other job-related perks, but of course I knew what I was getting into in that regard.) At the time, I thought of going freelance as an experiment. I guess we could now say the experiment has been a success. Good thing, too ”” after 19 years of working at home, I’m now pretty unemployable in any conventional sense of the term. The mere thought of going to an office gives me a rash.

Anyway, as I like to remind people each year on this date, the moral of the story is this: If you want to change your life or reinvent yourself, don’t just sit around fantasizing about it ”” go ahead and do it. Even if the experiment doesn’t work out, at least you won’t be wondering about what might have been.

Of course, maybe you already like your life just fine the way it is, in which case more power to ya. Either way, have a great weekend.

Comments (84)

    The Red Sox wore something similar to those caps in the 90s, for a couple of games. There was also the white Good Humor ice cream man caps. I want to say it was 1997?


    I’ve scoured the internet for one of those red caps with the white B – they don’t seem to exist. Too bad, because they’re really sharp, I think.

    I hate the Red Sox, but I am glad that I still have one of these in my collections. I agree they look really sharp.


    The “special events” collection reminds me of when MLB, during the 2013 season, compelled some teams, including the Red Sox, to wear their batting practice caps during regular season games. Though in that case, the cap had a red bill.

    Paul — think you forgot a “not” in describing the face mask. “Is not the standard…”

    Couldn’t get through all the helmets due to ads but seeing its a Dallas TV station, I’m assuming the Cowboys were number one, and they have the Steelers fourth-worst. (That’s an exception, not the rule.) And how does the Bengals helmet rank so high?

    As for the Red Sox hat, it’s a throwback from the 1970s. I like it personally. For some reason them and the Cardinals look better in red hats, and while St. Louis kept them for their home uniforms until recently making it their standard hat, the Red Sox went back to the navy hats. I’m guessing it looks good because too many teams have gone the navy route. The Indians look better in navy, but the Braves could potentially look good in a red hat. And the Yankees keep their hat as-is.

    “how does the Bengals helmet rank so high?”


    Perhaps you’re letting your conference allegiances get in the way of your judgment. There is nothing good about the Bengals uni, but that helmet is one of the best in the NFL and has been since 1982.

    I happen to love the Stillers helmet if ONLY because they refuse to put the decal on both sides. It’s an endearing quirk and one that probably ranks it higher than it would otherwise be ranked. But think about it objectively — how STUPID would it be today if a team introduced a helmet with one blank side and one logoed side? Incredibly. But because the Stillers have done it this way and for so long, it’s reached semi-iconic status. But from a pure design standpoint, it’s incredibly stupid.

    I’m one of those folks that has never cared for the Bengals helmet. I can’t really put my finger on why though. Just not a fan.

    I think the Bengals may be a good example of the distinction between aesthetic quality and design quality. Aesthetics, there’s no accounting for taste. It’s an awesome helmet, and you’re just wrong. (Kidding! Your dislike for it is no less valid than my liking of it.) It either does or does not look pretty depending on one’s personal taste.

    But as a matter of design, I think it’s not really a matter of opinion to say that it’s one of the best-designed helmets in the NFL. It clearly and immediately communicates the team identity, and it’s utterly distinctive from every other helmet in the NFL. If all you see is a white or silver helmet at the edge of a half-second replay clip, you may not know which team the helmet represents. But the tiniest, briefest glimpse of the Bengals helmet will confirm, without the possibility of ambiguity, that it belongs to a Bengals player. That is the ultimate test of any helmet’s design quality. Very few other helmets in the NFL – heck, in NFL history – are so distinctive or so expressive of the team’s identity.

    It’s like, aesthetically, Salvador Dali has never done anything for me. I find most of his work unpleasant to look at. It doesn’t look pretty to me. Yet I can appreciate the masterful conception and technique of a Dali painting. Would I put Dali high on a list of my favorite artists? No. Would I put him high on a list of the best artists? Yes.


    ArrScott, I never liked Dali either. But that was based seeing his work in books, on posters, and later on the internet.

    Then I saw some of his work in person. Madonna, at the Met in NYC.


    It was profoundly moving. I must have spent an hour in that one room, walking around and looking at it from different angles, and just sitting and looking at it.

    Similarly, Cloud Gate in Chicago is a sculpture that has to be seen live and interacted with. It just doesn’t work in pictures. I put Jackson Pollock in the same category.

    My takeaway was that art viewed live can be an utterly different experience than art viewed in a book or on a monitor.

    I think you mean 1981, Phil.

    Amusingly, I was impressed by the Bengals’ helmet as a kid watching Super Bowl XVI – the first meaningful NFL game I can remember watching with any intent – but I rooted for the 49ers for that game. Probably because as a Michigan kid, I was resisting anything from Ohio. XD

    Shit, yes — 1981. Was rushed and literally couldn’t remember what year they changed. I remembered they were in the 1982 Super Bowl, which was the first year for the helmet, but that was actually the 1981 season…

    good catch. Dammit.

    Re the Bungles’ helmets. I really like the way they look from the side, but hate their look from the front or top. Not sure why that is…

    I’m weighing in rather late today, but that NFL helmet article is a particularly irritating example of typical “ranking list” jackassery, probably typed up by some pop culture hack who doesn’t even watch football.

    “Bears — If they were black — instead of deep dark blue — they’d move way up this list.”

    “Jets — Even Joe Namath struggled to look cool in green and white.”

    “Giants — So many options, so little creativity. Caps button broken?”

    “Lions — Their blue always looked like the JV compared to Cowboys’ blue.”

    “Vikings — Looked better in old, outdoor Metropolitan Stadium.”

    “Falcons — Nasty black bird would make [a] cool gang symbol.”

    “Redskins — Politically incorrect, and awesome.”

    I would have thought that some clueless kid banged out this tripe. But no…


    The guy is fifty years old! And has apparently been covering sports since ’86.


    Red Sox have Caralton Fisk bobblehead promotion on May 5. Expect to see the hat again on Luis Tiant bobblehead night later in the year.

    RE: Helmet ranker guy….

    I don’t agree with many of his thoughts. And then he offers up this gem:

    “Think about the iconic emblems of sports. Yankees’ pinstripes. Cowboys’ star. Celtics’ green four-leaf clover.”

    Um…… It’s not a four-leaf clover. Never has been.

    Iconic and Ironic being just one letter apart. And that letter is G, which stands for Greatness.

    re: color blocked BB uniforms. Too bad Maryland isn’t one of the teams getting the block treatment – but using their flag’s blocking rather than solid colors!


    The “Redskins” believe that the First Amendment governs their right to make money from a trademark? They must be getting desperate – you can’t trademark lots of words; nothing prevents you from saying them though.


    Yes, those that are obscene or offensive are not allowed to be registered trademarks in the USA.

    However, is that not at odds with the First Amendment? And, let me take an extreme example, aren’t there industries (say, pornography) where the line for obscene or offensive are different than in others? So, if the line for “obscenity” or “offensiveness” is arbitrary and capricious (because it changes), could that not be a First Amendment violation? It’s an interesting argument not meant to be thrown out so lightly.

    No, because your hypothetical pornographers are not prevented from using obscene marks in trade, just as the Washington NFL team is not prevented from using the a (possible) racial slur in its branded materials. There’s no censorship here.

    And more specific to Blackhorse v. Pro Football, Inc., your concern that the decision might be arbitary or capricious because standards change doesn’t come into play. The petitioner argued that “Redskins” was obscene at the time USPTO granted the trademark registration, and the trademark shouldn’t have been registered in the first place.

    I think the point Anthony’s making, however, is that the purpose of the trademark statute is to ensure the integrity of commercial speech – which it achieves by granting the registered holder of a mark certain legal protections against use of the identical or substantially similar mark in a manner that results in consumer confusion. If that’s the case, then, the morality (or immorality) of a given mark is entirely without consequence, and denying protection on those grounds is inherently arbitrary and capricious.

    In short, the Redskins are engaging in an entirely legal business, albeit in what many (most?) perceive as a coarse and insensitive way. But why does that fact alone make them any less deserving of trademark protection than, say, Kleenex or IBM? And if it does, how to reconcile that with the societal notion that truth is derived from free expression in the so-called “marketplace of ideas”?

    Sorry if I misconstrued your words, Anthony.

    In short, the Redskins are engaging in an entirely legal business, albeit in what many (most?) perceive as a coarse and insensitive way. But why does that fact alone make them any less deserving of trademark protection than, say, Kleenex or IBM?

    Because trademark law specifically excludes certain types of marks from trademark protection, that’s why.

    Now, you can argue that that aspect of the law should be changed — that’s a legitimate point of view. But the law is what it is, at least for now.

    There’s certainly a good discussion to be had whether a government agency should determine whether one entity is or isn’t deserving of protection based on decency.

    Though the ‘Skins are hardly the first entity to be denied trademark protection for the same reason (see In re Mavety Media Group Ltd, 1923) so they’re not being singled out. And the petitioner successfully argued harm, so at least legally speaking, it wasn’t without consequence.

    Plus, USPTO isn’t alone here – FCC regulates the private use of public airwaves based partly on decency of content.

    “The law says what it says” hardly speaks to its constitutionality. If that were the case miscegenation statutes would still be on the books, to name just one.

    The statute as written denies registration to marks the USPTO decides are “disparaging.” It hardly warrants mention that this determination is wholly subjective. Hell, the Redskins’ mark itself is proof of that – what once passed muster is now deemed disparaging. Understandably, the Redskins’ appeal challenges the USPTO’s substantive reversal of course in that regard.

    But nor is their constitutional argument entirely devoid of merit, at least not as I understand it. There’s authority (post-Mavety) at least arguably holding that denial of trademark registration is a Government-imposed “penalty”. If that’s the case, and if that penalty of non-registration is based on the speech’s content (which here it would be), then the constitutionality of the statute under which that penalty is imposed may well be subject to judicial review under a “strict scrutiny” standard. That standard requires the Government to show that the statute not only serves a “compelling” Government interest, but that it serves that interest in the most “narrowly tailored” way possible. Generally speaking, most statutes reviewed under that standard fail to satisfy it.

    Now I’m neither an IP nor a constitutional lawyer, so far be it for me to opine on the likely success or failure of this argument. Just saying that while it may be a bit of a stretch, it’s not totally far-fetched.

    There may be 2 complaints…one covering a violation of the 1st Amendment (“free speech”, which allows them to use the work Redskins as they have been…referencing football operations, team history, staff, etc) and one covering a 5th Amendment violation (“due process”, which allows them to profit from the ownership of private property)…are both being raised simultaneously in this latest go-’round?

    “… Here’s a look at NFL teams’ color values (from @mauimattipus). … ”

    Very helpful. Look, that disastrous abandonment of orange by Cleveland becomes clear: it’s less orange (and more red) than the Bengals. And how sad that most of the greens tend to dark dark black-green. Every NFL green team (except the Seahawks’ neon highlighter trim) are darker than Dartmouth Green. Bad trend.

    I really like the two-tone color blocking on those basketball shorts, but except in KU’s case Adidas sure screwed the pooch by using letter logos on the shorts rather than depicting the school mascot. WTF purpose does having an oversized “UCLA” emblazoned on both jersey and shorts serve, in the exact font and color scheme? Or having a “W” at the expense of Bucky Badger, “NCS” instead of the Wolf, etc.? You can’t go big like that and play it timid at the same time.

    Also, re those 1960s Purdue unis: Rick Mount HAS to have sported the worst hair of any player in NCAA basketball history. Though Purdue’s shooting shirts from that era were no less awesome than the unis:

    Purdue’s were the first two-tone basketball uniforms I’d seen. At first I thought they sucked, but they grew on me. IIRC they later dropped the black shorts and kept the same template in all-gold. I think Kansas State did something similar at that time, with a lavender jersey and purple shorts.

    I agree, about the letter logos instead of mascots. To me that’s a bigger problem in college sports. It seems a large majority of teams have gotten away from fun mascot logos and instead just use block/cursive letters to represent their teams. I think there is room for both, and times that one is more appropriate than the other. But some teams (my favorite included) have all but abandoned the mascot logo. I’d love to see them make a comeback.

    Too bad that Purdue photo on the left (in the ticker link) isn’t in color. The Warriors (yes, Marquette was the Warriors back then) look as though they were wearing just white with dark trim, but not so! Check the color photos of those unis:


    Marquette had some awesome uniforms during my youth!

    Meant to include this photo, too. Another shot of those beauties! (you can just make out the yellow on the side):


    Ivox-Those Purdue-style uniforms were a very popular way of doing road sets right up to the early ’70s.My high school wore Orange jerseys with Royal pants until 1974.

    And the color photo of Marquette’s “bull’s eye” is done incorrectly. The front bull’s eye was centered, not touching the stripes. I know I’m right, we sold many, many sets of SandMark “bull’s eye” uniforms.

    Anf the new color blocks featured today are just a variation of another SandMark design.

    Yes, correct on the circle, Terry. The SI cover shows correctly. I linked the first photo to show the color on the side and hadn’t even noticed the circle being off-center. Nice catch!

    Marquette had so many good looks during that era.

    Never thought of that circle as a bullseye before. :)

    I remember as a kid thinking it looked like a stock car number.

    “Very keen to see the UCLA designs on the court – they look really nice.”

    I’d love to be able to get past the stupidity of “March Madness uniforms” and agree with your assessment because you’re right, they look good. But I can’t get past the stupidity of it, especially in UCLA’s case.

    I know UCLA’s current uniforms are not their originals, I know they have had other designs before and occasional special uniforms, blah, blah, blah. But UCLA’s uniforms are iconic, and it’s idiotic that they would wear these. I know why it’s done and that makes it all the more distasteful.

    And, for the record, I’m not even a UCLA fan.

    I don’t care for the new UCLA designs. I like the UCLA script on the football helmets, but don’t care to see it translated to the basketball unis.

    Speaking of UCLA hoops designs, the women’s team has been going white and pink, and the gymnastics team added pink trim this month:

    If UCLA kept it to blue and gold, that would have been a fine-looking alt.

    I really like the ones for Kansas, Michigan and Wisconsin. The others…pffft.


    I agree with your post on the UCLAns uni history.

    Indeed they are iconic and still have that serious cache even in todays’ crass marketing of NCAA team crapola. It’s that crass marketing which explains why there are so many combo unis being introduced in the game today. For good or for evil (mostly evil but we are in a uni-renaissance so to speak)

    It is simply to maximize a revenue stream for the Uni-makin’/NCAA/Coaching Complex (who gets the $$$)or as the atheletically inclined Greeks called em – Gorgonzagas. So yeah, the greedy get all the money and the players who wear them, create the history and stories in them,
    get …. zippity doo dah.

    As for UCLA… the unis are about as good as it gets in brand name recognition – good looking uni’s and 11 National Titles will do that for you.

    I, for one, do not like the “blocked” basketball unis. Looks to me like they ran out of one color of fabric and had to patch it together. I guess I am more of a classic uni guy. The larger logos don’t bother me as much as the court filling logos on the hardwood itself do. Agree with poster above about mascot logo on shorts instead of repeating the initials.

    i know Rex was trying to get as much visibility of the logo as possible, but i’m a positioning guy….. don’t face it backwards. it’s like the bolts on the Chargers shoulders….. bugged me since it came out – those bolts are Charging backwards.

    see my comment on Rex’s truck above (I agree).

    I also agree on the Chargers’ “upside down” shoulder bolts!!

    Show ’em how, Charlie.

    It’s actually fitting since Rex’s offense will likely be moving in the wrong direction most of the time.

    Shouldn’t the Visalia Rawhide link be in the baseball section of the ticker, not the NFL section?
    Also, on the link for the Frisco Rough Riders, a commenter pointed out that the Roosevelt Mascot’s legs are in the position for a left handed hitter on his follow through, but the mascot is batting right handed. And on their cursive “R” logo, the drop shadow is inconsistent, and disappears in the top space inside the “R”.

    It’s not a drop shadow, it’s a second R (for Rough Riders) peeking out from behind the first one.

    But yeah, the batting thing bugs the heck out of me. It’s surprisingly common in mascots over the years. I can understand – not forgive, it’s a crime against the craft – a designer who isn’t a baseball fan creating such an image. But it boggles my mind that team execs, people who watch baseball for a living, wouldn’t catch it and demand a correction.

    I looked at it just long enough to conclude it looked shitty, didn’t stop to think why that might be. But on second glance I noticed that TR’s hat is reversed on the primary and the alternate as well. And wouldn’t you know it, the alternate (better-looking) logo is also the historically-correct one.

    The best part of the crappy adidas unis is that only half of those teams will likely make the tournament. I guess they still have their conference tourneys, but if UCLA loses their first game there we’ll only have to see that nonsense one time

    I know Paul wasn’t trying to slight anyone, but this is the worst thing (slight exaggeration) about being an alum of a “directional school”. I emailed Rand McNally years ago about having my school labeled as “Northern” instead of “North”. I haven’t looked recently, but I know for several years afterwards they still had it wrong.

    Of course, since nobody uses paper maps anymore, maybe it’s not that big of a deal.

    It’s weird – the state university campus in Greenville, NC is East Carolina, but the UNC constituent campus in Cullowhee is Western Carolina.

    Five Hall-of-Famers in the 1984 NHL Entry Draft class, though only four of them are enshrined in Toronto – Mario Lemieux, Patrick Roy, Brett Hull, and Luc Robitaille, while Glavine is enshrined in Cooperstown.

    I thought the Suns uniforms were great last night, except: Sleeves (gah!) and most players had black knee sleeves or full on black leggings – which made the great subtle black sunburst on the shorts get lost in the mix for the most part.

    The dress is clearly white and gold (to me) although my wife and two daughters see it differently.

    This whole dress craze is fascinating from many standpoints, but it has caused me to re-think my perceptions versus others’ even as regards to sports uniforms. What may be a pleasing hue or color combination to me may not be so to others.

    Maybe I should not be so judgmental and instead be more flexible and forgiving. Or maybe I will become even more annoyed when others are judgmental about perceptions that are different than theirs.

    I am a changed person. Maybe not for the better.

    While I’m cool with the color-blocking, I don’t care for the big logos.
    Just make the numbers bigger, and everything will be fine.

    Here’s a ranking of history’s 20 worst college hoops unis
    As a v-neck t-shirt wearer, I take offense to Evansville’s old sleeved jerseys making this list. Those looked great. Also didn’t think Syracuse’s two-toned throwbacks deserved such a dishonor. I liked a few others, but I won’t argue their being on here, and the rest definitely deserved it. #20 should have been #1, by the way.

    Is Adidas making up for missing that mid 90’s ridiculous uni craze? These shorts look like the replica crap at the school’s bookstore. The whole two-tone color scheme is just difficult to look at.

    Well, the ’90s are back – kids are wearing snapback caps, The Tonight Show is basically a one-man ’90s retrospective, and Fresh Off the Boat is as much ’90s nostalgia as it is a coming of age/fish out of water narrative.

    Paul, congrats on Emancipation Day! I left my last real day job in 1996 (Actually, I was laid off, but it turned out to be a good career move) and have worked primarily from home too. May you never succumb to the desire to trade your freedom for a steady corporate gig.

    Official statement from Pirates: “The classic gold P stands for Pittsburgh and is worn by our players, coaches and fans with a great sense of pride. It is absolutely sickening to everyone within the Pirates organization, and to our great fans, to see this murderer wearing a Pirates cap in this old photo.”

    Last graph of link.

    I’m going to catch a ton of flack but…

    The new Phoenix Suns uni’s dont look that bad. Tons better than the other ones Adidas has come out with. The gre(a)y really sets it off IMO.

    Question: What if an Adidas school not listed here (ie-Cincinnati is currently squarely on the bubble) makes the tournament? Will they get the color block treatment?

    Paul – has it been weird not having co-workers over the last 19 years? As in, people you see in person everyday?

    Congrats on 19 years of living the writer’s dream! May you spend the rest of your career in freedom and continue to give the Uni-watch community information and enjoyment. Thanks, man.

Comments are closed.