As NBA teams have announced their jersey advertisers, I’ve dutifully covered the announcements and run photos of the patches. Simple.
But in recent weeks, a reader/commenter named Cole has been questioning my approach. He has repeatedly said (I’m paraphrasing here), “Why do you keep showing the ad patches? That’s what the advertisers want! You’re just giving them more exposure.” My initial response to Cole, which I repeated several times, was, “Look, news is news, and it’s my job to cover uni-related news, even if it’s news that I find distasteful.”
But after thinking about it a bit more, I’ve decided that Cole was right. Or, rather, we were both right. It’s entirely possible to cover the newsworthy aspects of an ad patch announcement without amplifying the advertiser’s message.
So: Yesterday the Knicks became the 17th NBA team to announce a uniform-advertising deal (a particularly annoying development for me, because it means I’m gonna have to see that fucking patch every time I’m in a bar this winter and glance up at the TV). If you really need to know the identity of the advertiser, I’m sure you can find that in some other corner of the internet. From a Uni Watch perspective, the only thing that really matters is (a) the Knicks are now in the ad-clad category and (b) their uniforms will look terrible as a result. How terrible? This terrible (click to enlarge):
That isn’t what their ad patch actually looks like, of course. But the net visual effect is the same: The ad patch ruins the jersey, and Mr. Yuk (yes, that’s really what he’s called!) also ruins the jersey. Same difference. Mr. Yuk also nicely captures the sense of uniform ads being toxic to the uni-verse, which they are.
Feel free to share those photos.
Now let’s shift into FAQ mode:
Are you going to keep doing this every time an NBA team announces a new jersey advertiser?
Well, ideally there will be no more NBA teams announcing new jersey advertisers. But if there are any, then yes, I hope to keep doing this.
More than half of the league’s teams have already announced their jersey advertisers. Aren’t you locking the barn after the horse is already gone?
Yeah, I wish I’d thought of this sooner. But hey, better late than never.
What if a team uses its ad patch for a charity initiative, as the Jazz have done?
I’ll gladly show that type of patch. Good deeds deserve positive reinforcement.
Will you be Photoshopping the ad patches every time you run an NBA game photo on the site?
I’d love to do that, but the reality is that it would be too cumbersome. I’ll continue to do it when teams announce a new ad patch, however. And I’ll do my best to avoid mentioning the name of any uniform advertiser, at least here on the blog.
What about on ESPN? What about Twitter?
I think it’s safe to say that Mr. Yuk will not be appearing on ESPN. As for Twitter, I’ll have to think about that going forward.
If you’re not going to be consistent about it, why bother?
Because this website is my personal space, a place where I can control my own personal message. If I can do that without rubber-stamping or amplifying the exposure of the NBA’s uniform advertisers, that’s what I’m going to do. Think of it as a small way of expressing mockery, outrage, and despair over the uni ads.
Isn’t it your job to tell us what’s happening?
I’m telling you the only things that matter from a Uni Watch perspective: The Knicks have decided to go ad-clad, and their jersey looks awful as a result. The other details aren’t particularly relevant from a Uni Watch standpoint and mainly serve to further the advertiser’s agenda, which is something I’d prefer not to do if I can reasonably avoid doing it. (As an aside: While I won’t mention the Knicks advertiser’s name, I will mention that their corporate slogan is “Make it beautiful,” which is particularly ironic in this context.)
What about putting Mr. Yuk over the Nike logos?
Don’t tempt me.
You’re such a hypocrite! You’re trashing these ads, but there are ads all over this website.
Sigh. We’ve been over this so many times. Here, read this.
Isn’t this a lot of fuss over a small patch?
I realize it may seem that way to some people. But uniform ads are a big deal to me, and so is the larger spread of advertising where it doesn’t belong. Obviously, we all have to choose our battles. This is one that I’ve chosen.
There are currently 13 ad-free teams. The regular season begins in six days. #NoUniAds
(My thanks to Steve Vibert and Nic Schultz for their Photoshop assistance, and to Cole for pushing me on this issue.)
By Alex Hider
Baseball News: The Cubs had a Reynolds Wrap ad on their tarp during the regular season. Now that it’s the postseason, they just have a plain tarp, because the advertiser isn’t an official postseason ad partner (from Kasey Ignarski). … This story breaks down how the Indians choose their jerseys (from Phil). … Esquire ran a piece on the best and worst baseball uniforms. No arguments here (from Jason Hillyer and Phil). … Astros IF Marwin Gonzalez is selling these shirts for charity (from Ignacio). … Tom Brady sighting at the Indians’ fall league game yesterday (from Aaron Bachmann and Robert Hayes).
NFL News: A Cowboys fan lost a bet with his wife over Sunday’s game and had to burn his jersey. Unfortunately, he decided to burn the jersey while he was still wearing it (from Brinke). … We may have mentioned this before, but the 49ers players wear jerseys with an ad patch during community events (from Ryan Maquiñana). … Curtis Akey was watching Manhunt: Unabomber, a show that takes place in 1995. One character appears in a scene wearing an Eagles jacket with a modern logo, which wasn’t introduced until 1996. … ICYMI from the baseball section: There was a Tom Brady sighting at the Cleveland Indians’ fall league game yesterday (from Aaron Bachmann and Robert Hayes). … NFL commish Roger Goodell wants players to stand for the national anthem, although it’s unclear how he intends to ensure that. Meanwhile, a labor union has filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board regarding Cowboys owner Jerry Jones’s threat to bench any player who doesn’t stand.
College Football News: The Gators aren’t the only Florida team wearing a wild one-off this weekend: UCF will wear space-themed helmets on Saturday against ECU (from Paul Kilgas). … Miami will go BFBS on Saturday against Georgia Tech. … A member of Northern Iowa’s band lost his or her instrument in the field goal netting during a game last weekend. … Southern Miss will wear 1980s throwback helmets for homecoming this weekend (from Ben Goss). … North Texas will go black/black/white this Saturday (from Garrett Gough). … The ACC Tracker has been updated for week six.
Hockey News: The Golden Knights went without advertising on the boards for their first-ever home game. Instead, they memorialized the Route 91 shooting victims with “Vegas Strong.” It was the first NHL game without advertising on the boards since — anyone know? … In that same game, the officials wore “Vegas Strong” helmet decals. … The Green Bay Gamblers will wear military appreciation unis on Oct. 28 (from Brian Kehrin). … The Spokane Chiefs of the Western Hockey League have changed their nameplate design (old on left, new on right) (from David Hein). … The Colorado Eagles are moving from the ECHL to the AHL in 2018-19 (from Wade Heidt). … New sweaters for Youngstown State (from Robert Hayes).
Basketball News: The Nuggets announced that they will retire Fat Lever’s No. 12 during their game against the Lakers on Dec. 2. Lever played six seasons in Denver, beginning in 1984 (from Mike Chamernik). … New uniforms for Cal (from Phil).
Soccer News: Jan Vertonghen appeared in his record-breaking 97th match for the Belgian men’s national team yesterday, and the team awarded him with a No. 97 jersey — including patches! (From our own Jamie Rathjen). … Tailor made for Uni Watchers: Hank Willis Thomas is a British artist that works in soccer uniforms (from Sean Kane). …
Grab Bag: Here’s an interesting look at the uniforms of eSports athletes (from Adam Lambert). … Benji King found a house in Bountiful, Utah, that has a Utes’ block-U logo built into it. … Australia is currently in the midst of a vote that could legalize gay marriage. Nike sent some Australian athletes sneakers that incorporate the Nike logo as a “Yes” vote (from Alan Evans). … It looks like a manufacturer confused Georgia and Georgia Tech on this golf shirt (from Mike Nessen). … Joseph Schmitt, a key technician on NASA’s early space suits, has died (from Tommy Turner). … The U.S. Army is bringing back the old “pinks and greens” uniform (from Ethan Sheets).
Click to enlarge
What Paul did last night: After work yesterday, I joined my friend Carrie in Manhattan to check out a pair of gallery shows. Our first stop was the David Zwirner Gallery, where we wanted to see the exhibit of wire sculptures by the late sculptor Ruth Asawa.
You can see the main exhibit room in the photo above — the stuff is completely amazing! Here are some additional photos (if you can’t see the slideshow below, click here):
If you want to see this show, it’s at David Zwirner, 537 West 20th St., NYC, through Oct. 21.
After that, we walked a few blocks to the Sikkema Jenkins Gallery to check out the new current exhibit of paintings by Kara Walker, which I wasn’t able to get good photos of (the work is very large and my pics don’t do it justice). Then we walked a bit on the High Line, where we came upon this sculpture, which seemed like an apt metaphor for any number of things (click to enlarge):
After all that art, we were hungry, so we went to my favorite Chelsea pub for burgers and beers. A very nice evening. Hope yours was good, too.
I remember getting Mr Yuk stickers in grade school to label poison control. A friend of mine has it as a tattoo.
at least they are teeing up the jokes for when the team plays terribly.
Yankees also had a “plain” tarp prior to game 4, but it was because the grounds crew flipped it over to conceal the ad that’s on it. The Cubs must have done the same thing. Is it because the companies that have their ads on the tarp didn’t buy ad time for the postseason, or aren’t “partners” of MLB during the postseason?
Yes, that’s exactly why. I’ll add that explainer to the text.
If I owned a team, there would be a full size picture of a baseball infield on the tarp.
Esquire ran a piece on the best and worst baseball uniforms. No arguments here (from Jason Hillyer and Phil)
Well, there’s one argument from me – the Orioles uniform described as “light blue” was actually heather gray!
Yeah, there was that, plus the writer didn’t like the Phillies in powder blue but loved the Cardinals?
Also, wondering why old timey players wore long sleeve undershirts in the summer? No sunscreen in the early 20th century, plus they’re wearing itchy wool jerseys.
I agree that the uniforms were pretty spiffy for the 70’s, but who are the Oakland Athletes? Lol.
I was surprised that the Esquire piece ripped on the White Sox script C hats from the late 80s/early 90s. I have always loved those.
They also called the White Sox the “White Socks” in several of the entries.
Yeah, that piece was terrible. Esquire lately publishes either excellent, biting journalism or lazy clickbait. This was the latter. The White Sox disco shirts were good, but the Phillies road blues were bad? And every uniform the Orioles have ever worn has been perfect? Also, the 2005 Nats were not sporting a “futuristic” jersey script. Literally the opposite going on there. From the piece, I draw two conclusions about the author: She has spent some time in Baltimore, and she’s never thought critically about baseball uniforms before writing the captions for that slideshow.
This really was awful.
Slide #5 indicates the 1940 Brooklyn Dodgers; however, the three players pictured appear to be Jackie Robinson, Don Newcombe and Roy Campanella, seven years before the color barrier was broken.
Get ready for more ad creep. I figure one day American pro sports teams will end up looking like Premiership Rugby or Soccer teams with the ads. Premiership rugby is one of the worst offenders. Sell ads all over the uniform, jersey, front and back of shorts in some cases, socks even in some cases.
The NHL seems pretty adamant in its stand against uni advertising. Time will tell whether that holds up, but for now it’s just one more reason why hockey is the greatest sport ;-)
Eh, those nightmare scenarios generally only happen with leagues that financially need it to survive.
Maybe. But while you might not consider the NBA’s current ad patches a “nightmare scenario,” they certainly didn’t need the ad patches to survive. And yet there they are.
The one thing I’ll say about the advertiser who shall not be mentioned on the Knicks uniform is that it appears larger than the others. The logo is on top, and the name is below, with the name appearing very wide. I’m assuming there is a size restriction, so this is probably more of a shape thing and not an actual size thing.
Tagging issue with the Green Bay Gamblers
“on this shipment of golf shirt”
A bit of Mr. Yuk history (it’s another fine Pittsburgh product): link
And Mr. Yuk seems like a reasonable solution here. Nicely done, Cole. #NoUniAds
…even if it’s news that I “find” distasteful.”
… ICYMI from the “baseball” section: There…
On the ad issue, I haven’t really cared either way how you covered the ads here on uni-watch but am glad that you are making the stand now. Keep up the good work.
Nitpicking here, but is it technically correct to say that ad patches always make jerseys “look awful”? I loathe the idea of uni advertising as much as anyone else here, but from a purely aesthetic perspective, it should be theoretically possible to have an ad patch that LOOKS good.
Disagree. Impossible to separate the aesthetics from the underlying unacceptability of uniform ads (at least for me).
Paul, would you say there are bad, and worse uniform ads? I agree they have no place on uniforms, but would consider a corporate logo (think goodyear) without text, rendered in the team colors is not as bad as an ad with the company name on it and in colors that don’t match the team. The first example is still awful, the second is much worse, no?
I do love the new ad reporting policy. I probably would have gone the minimalist route: “New York became the latest team to ruin their uniforms with ads. End story” But your mockery concept is certainly fun.
Paul, would you say there are bad, and worse uniform ads?
From my standpoint, there are no grades or shades of unacceptability. Creating a hierarchy suggests that the one at the top of the hierarchy is “better.” It’s like saying some shit doesn’t smell quite as bad as other shit. In the end, it’s all still shit.
I have been guilty of sometimes saying, “This patch doesn’t look quite as bad because [x].” That was wrong. I won’t be doing it again.
One exception to all of this: I admire the route that the Jazz and Qualtrics have taken, using the patch to promote a charity initiative. It really throws the greed of the other teams into starker relief.
NBA ad patches occupy space on a uniform that we previously were accustomed to being blank or occupied by elements such as striping, piping, or color blocking that contributed to the uniform’s overall design and the team’s visual identify. Instead of contributing to the design of a uniform, ad patches disrupt it. They are distracting, visually jarring, and detract from the primary design elements such as team logos and wordmarks. So even theoretically, it’s hard to think of a scenario where an ad patch would look good.
A really well integrated ad patch would probably be less visible and intrusive and thus effective AS AN AD, so we’ll probably never see one.
“Well, ideally there will be no more NBA teams announcing new jersey advertisers”
That’s cute, I have a feeling as you typed that, you know that’s not going to happen sadly.
I say just stop reporting on it, maybe just a mention on the ticker with mr yuk on the jersey. I feel it should never be a main story.
“That’s cute, I have a feeling as you typed that, you know that’s not going to happen sadly.”
It’s easy to be pessimistic. But that’s actually what the NBA wants. They either want you not to care, or if you do care and don’t like the jersey ads, to be so fatalistic about it that you consider it to be inevitable and irreversible. But the one thing NBA owners will respond to is money. If enough fans – not all fans, mind you, but enough – stop buying jerseys or stop coming to games that they feel it in their pocketbooks, the owners will reverse course.
Boycotting jersey purchases probably won’t be a factor here, because retail jerseys won’t include the ad patches (except for jerseys sold at the teams’ home arenas).
I like that the Knicks put a fan-reaction-to-ownership patch on their unis. Wait…
Come to this site to see what the new Knicks uniform looks like and no pics posted or linked??
Um, did you actually read today’s entry?
I did…still think the Knicks with an ad is News.
News is news unless you don’t like what is in the news I guess…love the site just disagree on an obvious Uni related story.
As already stated, today’s entry provides the essential news aspects of the story, which are (a) the Knicks now have an uniform ad, and (b) the ad makes their jersey look like shit. From a Uni Watch perspective, that’s all that matters.
As also stated, if you want to learn the advertiser’s identity and see photos of the patch, that’s easy enough to find on the internet. But I prefer not to further the advertiser’s agenda.
1. More proofreading: “2018-18” in the hockey section.
2. This article (link) implies that the last no-boards-advertising NHL game was sometime in the late 80s.
As an Islanders’ fan I can’t speak for other teams but there is YouTube video from the Nassau Coliseum of a game from the 1988-89 season (actually an exhibition against a Soviet team from Dec. 1988) with no ads on the boards, a preseason game from Sept. 1989 with about a third of the boards covered, and a playoff game from April 1990 with the boards completely covered. So at least for the Islanders, it would appear that the end of the 1988-89 season was the last ad-free-boards game.
Wasn’t there an NHL pre-season game in recent years which had no board advertisings? Does anyone recall?
If there was, I would guess it was probably a neutral-site game.
Today’s topic brings up thoughts that have always baffled me (and strike at the heart of why you have the naming-wrongs shirts).
Why do media follow along with the sponsor-generated names? Esp back when the sponsors were integrated into the name (I.e., “Tosititos Fiesta Bowl”). Why didn’t they still just call it the Fiesta Bowl?
There are many examples of music festivals,etc., that are “presented by” some corporation. But no TV or newspaper reporter refers to it as the “PNC World of Bluegrass” or the “Visa Cochella Festival.”
Fictitious examples, but you get the point. Now, when the official name of a venue goes from “Hoosier Dome” to “RCA Dome” that’s a little more understandable… Sort of. Still kind of dubious if it was taxpayer built.
I find the subject fascinating and wonder why the media play along, esp in sports.
Now, when the official name of a venue goes from “Hoosier Dome” to “RCA Dome” that’s a little more understandable…
If you’re using “official name” as the standard, well, the official name of the Fiesta Bowl *is* the Tostito’s Fiesta Bowl. (Or, rather, it was. Now the official name is the PlayStation Fiesta Bowl.) I’m not defending the use of the advertised name; just saying that “official name” is probably not the standard you want to be invoking.
Fun fact: When Invesco Field opened, one of the two Denver newspapers (I don’t recall if it was The Denver Post or The Rocky Mountain News) initially refused to use the new name. They called it Mile High. Eventually, though, they relented.
It was the Denver Post that refused to call it Invesco Field. Here’s a good story on it from the New York Times:
Ah, thanks for that!
Excellent point, the name / advertising only has meaning if it is used. Now obviously at the stadium and on television you can’t ignore the big signs written all over the place, but if an announcer or writer simply refers to the site/game without the sponsor, you can erode part of the impact, such that the corporate name never becomes part of the vernacular. I suppose the reason why that doesn’t happen is pretty simple, these companies aren’t just buying ad space on the stadium, etc, they also buy ad space with the media companies. So you can be sure if an announcer / reporter does not use the corporate names the media company with hear it from said company, and the reporter will hear it from their boss.
Journalism major here, and while this is just my personal opinion, the reason sportswriters refer to stadiums by their corporate names is because, well, that’s the name of the stadium, and the job of the journalist is to describe things accurately.
For example, if a game is taking place at Bank of America Stadium, that’s the factual information that should be reported, and it’s not the job of the reporter to make his or her own personal editorial decisions as to whether or not he or she thinks the stadium should be called as such.
Now, on a site like Uni Watch, where it’s understood that Paul is giving both news and opinion, there is going to be more leeway.
Certainly makes sense, just give the facts. Curious as to how this works when buildings with long held names are “renamed”. Typically you see journalist refer to it by the new name, and note the previous name for a bit, until everyone gets used to the new name.
To me the issue seems more about the ability to just rename a very public place. Granted many of these arenas are privately owned, but have high public visibility, use, and attraction. Ultimately one can put up new signs and declare a new official name all you want, but that only works insomuch as everyone else then uses the new name. Let’s just say everyone in Denver continued to call the stadium Mile High. The owners may call it something else and have new signs ups, but if 99% of the population calls it Mile High, isn’t that the name of it?
And nice to see they are still teaching the need to describe things accurately in journalism school, since so much of journalism now seems to be heavily editorialized with cherry picked data.
Is a journalist who writes/says “Washington football team” or “Cleveland baseball team” considered to be editorializing or just omitting information? Not trying to be a smartass here, I’m honestly curious.
Of course it’s editorializing.
And that’s fine, because *all* journalism is editorializing. The mere choice of which stories to cover or not cover, the choice of which people to interview or not interview, the choice of which quotes to include or not include, and so on — all of this involves subjective judgment, and that judgment is almost always informed by one’s predisposed notions (sometimes intentionally, sometimes subliminally). And that’s leaving aside the types of journalism that are *supposed* to be opinion-driven, like cultural criticism, opinion pieces, advocacy journalism, etc.
Truly “objective” journalism is a myth.
Paul, that’s not exactly correct.
If a reporter writes, “The Panthers beat the Lions by a score of 27 to 24.” that’s objectively true.
If a reporter covering the same game writes “The Panthers were lucky to beat the Lions who have lousy coaches”, then we’re getting into subjective opinion.
I didn’t say there’s no such thing as an objectively simple statement within an article. Of course there is.
But the mere choice of covering the Panthers/Lions game in the first place is an editorial choice. Journalism entails an endless serious of subjective choices regarding what is or isn’t newsworthy, each of which involves editorial assessment and judgment rather than objectivity.
Yet that does NOT explain why journalists don’t use the ‘official’ names for music festivals, motorcycle festivals and so forth. Sponsors are almost never recognized in those instances.
And does that explain newspaper journalists who don’t refer to the “Rose Bowl presented by AT&T”? Instead, writing it as just ” Rose Bowl.”
There’s a ton of subjectivity to this that’s not really covered by AP Style, etc.
I’ve noticed, both in the US and UK, I have seen outlets that do not have a partnership with a league refer to the non-sponsored name, but use the sponsor name when they are a rights partner.
This confused me once, in the UK, as I didn’t realize two different networks were referring to the same place.
Some BBC announcers, when mentioning a brand will add an impartial disclaimer. For example: “They have received an invitation to the PlayStation Fiesta Bowl (other gaming systems are available).”
They don’t do it when they talk about a partner, but they also don’t have to use the name every single time.
I like this approach to ads. Very good idea to everyone involved
I’m all for Mr. Yuk. I also believe that the ad patches don’t look good, whether they’re using a color scheme that blends in with that team or not. The same goes for the colossal Nike logo everywhere. It’s bad enough on the actual uniforms, but the socks and compression gear, too? So sad.
Hey Paul, what pub did you go to? I just started working in Chelsea and am looking for some good spots.
Peter McManus. 7th & 19th.
If you have an objection to glorifying the ad patches, that’s your prerogative. But doing what you did to the photos is journalistic malpractice on multiple levels.
For one, altering news photos is verboten for journalism, period. Also, you run a website dedicated to the aesthetics of sports, yet you are changing the aesthetics of uniforms by adding a big honking patch.
Again, your prerogative, and nobody says you have to post a photo or even the name of the company advertising. In fact, maybe it’d be best to just link to a news story that has the photos. But altering photos and changing the look of a uniform because the original doesn’t comply with your worldview? That’s not journalism. And since you break news here and on other places, you are a journalist who can be held to journalistic standards.
Joe, I believe this is the second time you have talked about “holding” me to certain standards. (The last time was when I interviewed the guy who claimed to have inside info on the 2016 Color Rash uniforms. If I’m confusing you with another reader, my apologies for that.)
In any case, here’s a thought: The only person who holds me to any standards regarding this website is me. If I’m not meeting some arbitrary standard that you’ve established, that’s not my concern. I’m perfectly comfortable with my work here.
Yes, I’m a journalist, but I’m also a cultural commentator, and the photos are a form of commentary.
Yes, altering photos is verboten — when they’re passed off as the real thing. But I’m not suggesting that Mr. Yuk is real. On the contrary, I explicitly stated that today’s graphics are not real (not that anyone couldn’t figure that out by themselves, but still). I chose not to further the advertiser’s agenda and instead chose to create a form of mocking commentary. You can agree or disagree with the commentary, but the form of the commentary is perfectly legitimate.
As an aside: When the NBA’s uni-ad program was announced, countless media outlets speculated on what the ads might be for particular teams by running Photoshopped images of ads on uniforms. Also verboten? Of course not — it was speculation, an “artist’s rendering,” and was always identified as such. Context matters.
Let’s take this point by point:
– A journalist isn’t held to just their own standards. They are held to the standards of, well, journalism. Fox News and InfoWars have their own standards they hold themselves to, but are they journalists? Hell no, but they think they are. Granted, it’s an extreme example, but it holds. You break legitimate news and write for one of the world’s biggest outlets, so you will be held to standards.
– Again, nobody in their right mind thinks these are being passed off as the real thing. You altered photos of a news item because you didn’t like the news. Very different.
– I’m not on here talking about other outlets. You are the leading journalist on sports uniforms. You’ve been very clear about what’s an artist’s rendering and what’s not, and that’s admirable. But news is news. Do you still want to be considered a journalist?
Joe, if this means you’ll have to stop thinking of me as a journalist, we’ll both have to live with that. As I already said, I’m completely comfortable with my work here. Let’s please move on. Thanks.
I’m a USF fan and alumnus, but I have to hand it to UCF athletics. That’s a good-looking helmet! UCF is a space-grant institution and located near the Kennedy Space Center after all.
I agree! I am a UCF alum and fan. I LOVE the space helmet. Lots of extremely cool features. I want to get one of the jersey patch shirts. And I hope that both UCF and USF go undefeated until The War for I-4.
David, I hope for the same. That would put the rivalry in the biggest spotlight it ever had BY FAR. UCF still has to visit Navy while USF has to host Houston and could have a bit of trouble at Tulane, but I like the I-4 teams’ chances of meeting at the Bounce House without a blemish.
Spot on! Actually, I think the whole uni is pretty sharp. Love what they did with the helmet though. Good job UCF.
I think it’s a neat idea. Wish Purdue would’ve thought of it. After all, UCFs 2 astronauts hardly compare to Purdue’s 23. Or, Navy’s 81, for that matter.
Good idea, though.
Really nice and uni-interesting (see safety-pinned number on back) photo up on Shorpy today.
Ooooh, that’s a good one! Thanks for sharing.
I applaud your approach here. It’s interesting to know when another team gives in, but I don’t really care about which corp is paying. They are all ugly and the first step toward Euro Hockey league uniforms.
The end result is the Warriors winning the title and when Steph gets asked about returning to the top of the pedestal he says “I’d really like to thank Rakuten. Without Rakuten’s support we couldn’t have made it here. Rakuten is a leader in … stuff and things. RAKUTEN!!! YEAH!!!”
Because more sports need the NASCAR treatment…
I don’t comment often (I think only twice before) and my opinion doesn’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy town, but “journalistic standards” and all that aside, I think what you’re doing it just kinda immature.
I understand it’s your website, and I come for the opinions you hold, (I’m also not about to boycott the site or anything or stop reading), but I just think your attitude about this is the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and going “la la la can’t hear you!”
Things happen in life we don’t agree with. When they happen to uniforms, you’re always logical and verbose in your viewpoints. You never don’t like something “just cuz. But it’s hard for me to take your mature and well-thought-out points seriously when you resort to using Mr. Yuk emojis.
Like I said, doing this isn’t going to change how often I read the site (every day!) or how much I like it, it just seems beneath you to do this is all.
Fair analysis. But I’ve been “logical and verbose” about uniform ads for years now. There isn’t much left to say without repeating myself, and in the meantime I’ve been giving the advertisers more bang for their buck by showing close-ups of their patches. I felt like I was normalizing the process, and I don’t want to do that. So I’ve decided to take a different approach that (a) doesn’t give the advertisers more exposure and (b) neatly captures my feelings about the whole enterprise.
This is a big machine we’re fighting here, and sometimes the best way to fight it is simply to fuck with it.
(As an aside, referring to today’s graphics as “emojis” really undersells the quality of the work. Look at the first image — Nic Schultz really made Mr. Yuk look like a patch!)
I chose to blur the ads a couple of weeks ago whenever I had to do a post or tweet that had a pic showing them. Glad a great mind like Paul’s is in the same boat
Those photoshops are fantastic! Damn near flawless.
Wow, I’m glad i clicked on the image and zoomed in so i could see the level of detail. Paul is right, it really does look like a real patch.
I wouldn’t pull the ad thing on twitter- unless you want to be suspended by ESPN
after looking up who they chose to have as an ad I cant help but laugh. So long to the triangle!
The only reason I want to know what advertisers appear on which NBA teams’ jerseys is to know what products and services to avoid.
To you and Paul and anyone else of like minded thinking. Y’all keep blaming the companies buying the ad space and not wanted to say the name of the companies and boycotting these companies. Is it their fault for buying ad space made available to them? Shouldn’t you be boycotting the NBA, or at least the teams that have sold ad space?
Forget the ad patch on the Knicks’ uniforms, let’s note the fact that they think they play in NEWYORK. For the past few years the has been almost no space between New and York and the lettering is too small. The ad patch makes a bad uniform worse. They need to go back to the early 70’s lettering.
Agreed. The wordmark as it stands looks like shit compared to the older wordmarks.
The Yankees’ road uniform suffers from the same defect regarding insufficient space between the words in the “NEWYORK” lettering.
The Cubs have had the Renolds Wrap tarp ad for a while. At least better than on the jerseys…
“A Cowboys fan lost a bet with his wife over Sunday’s game and had to burn his jersey. Unfortunately, he decided to burn the jersey while he was still wearing it (from Brinke).”
Not to make fun of third degree burns but since he lives in Vero Beach, this is another news story that should begin with “A Florida man…”
The real patch doesn’t look bad at least in blends in with the colors of the jersey
can u at least use a MR YUK whose color matches the uniform?
I think you’re missing the point of this exercise.
Or you could take your commentary ultra-meta (meta-meta? infra-meta?) and replace the ad patch with an American flag patch. Whole new levels of fierce cultural and political commentary there, but just sufficiently ambiguous that many would read it wrong in exactly the way that demonstrates the validity of each layer of the critiques.
Personally, I think the Mr. Yuk patch is almost laugh-out-loud funny in its whimsical design, so the effect of these doctored Knicks pix is to make me smile at something that would normally make me sad. Maybe a movement could be started: NBA fans, if you buy a be-sponsored jersey for your favorite team, sew a link over the ad.
two wrongs dont make a right.
btr75, I’m sorry, but you’re really missing the point here. Badly.
The whole point of using Mr. Yuk was for it to be ugly, not for it to “match the uniform.” It’s *supposed* to look ugly.
Paul – I love what you’ve done here! Great approach. Well thought out, well executed. You’ve made my day.
Thanks, Cole, and thanks again for pushing me on this issue. You were right.
Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about old baseball stadiums that had billboards plastered all over the outfield? Ebbets Field kinda comes to mind for that. Not trying to be a jerk, I’ve always wondered what your take on that was.
Not my favorite thing. But at least those were mostly local businesses, not mega-corporations.
I’ve written before about things that have link. Advertising in general, and advertising within the sports world in particular, is a great example of that. Started out OK and grew into something monstrous and out of control.
Agreed, it’s amazing how billboard advertising has exploded. In the 70s, I honestly can’t think of a ballpark that had advertising on the outfield walls. One of the ways you could tell you were watching MLB was that the fences were ‘pure’ and not covered with crap. Now ads are everywhere.
Those Youngstown hockey jerseys are for a club team. Hence why are they are as put together as a rec team for 6 year olds.
Paul – Interesting back and forth regarding your treatment of NBA advertising patches. Can you comment about your contract with ESPN and and duties/obligation you have agreed to regarding your posting on social media or here on Uni Watch? Obviously the NBA is a big part of the World Wide Leader and the advertising patches are part of the uniform but more importantly a source of revenue for the particular teams. I’m not necessarily disagreeing with your treatment of the advertising patches, just curious if you are contractually approaching something which may be forbidden or do you pretty much have a free hand with your social media posts/website.
I don’t discuss my contractual doings with ESPN. Thanks for understanding.
Mr. Yuk was a good choice for the stompover. If it were less ambiguous in such a small size, the sculpture at the end would also have been a good choice.
What’s kind of doubly odd about the NBA jersey ads is the roll out. Clubs showing a jersey with the patch on it to go along with the announcement of the sponsorship.
I suppose in a meta way, its the advertisers taking advantage of the broader uni-verse trend of making a fuss (press, social media, etc.) over any small alteration.
It’s a little unsettling that an corporation looking to expand its advertising would see the way we look for every tweak and ajustment and said, “There’s an opportunity here!”
Im a bit late, but kudos to the new approach of the NBA uniform advertising. A great idea IMO.
You mentioned in the ticket that Miami was going BFBS this Saturday. They were but now they’re not…
Thanks. I’ll run a correction in tomorrow’s Ticker.
What if Mr. Yuk wanted to be a uni advertiser for the NBA?
Name of fave joint in Chelsea?
What I don’t understand in your hatred of jersey advertising is why it is selective hatred. There are two advertisements on the jersey, the one you are covering up in the pictures and then the hideous Nike one on the other shoulder. Why is one advertisement fine and not the other? The jerseys have had advertisements for the manufacturers for years
If you’re even vaguely familiar with my work, then you know I’ve been strongly opposed to manufacturers’ logos on uniforms for nearly two decades now. I even coined a term — “logo creep” — to describe the spread of such logos. I have never said, or even suggested, that such logos are “fine.”
Paul, count one more vote in favor of how you are obscuring these hideous advertisements on basketball jerseys while still informing us that they exist.
Should Mr. Yuk be purple?