Gear up for the 2020 MLB Season with new gear from Nike Everything

bama header

By Phil Hecken

Tonight, at 7:15 (Eastern), the Alabama Crimson Tide will be playing host to the Mississippi State Bulldogs in Bryant-Denny Stadium. For a team as steeped in tradition as the Tide is, they may look a bit different than you’re used to. You see, tonight Roll Tide will be ready for combat.

Alabama had a shitload of Nike cash thrown its way has decided to honor tradition by breaking with tradition by wearing an “alternate” uniform in this evening’s matchup. Unless you’ve been living in a cave, you’re well aware of Nike’s 2010 Pro Combat line of football apparel. Each one of the uniforms is “special,” and the wearers are apparently granted some kind of magical powers upon putting one on. Each year (or at least this year and last — but we can probably expect it every year) Nike selects 10 of its prized schools for the “honor” of donning the “Pro Combat” line. This year, Alabama caved was one of the chosen ten.

Now, before you start writing death threats in the comments, I want to explain that by and large, I happen to actually like the Pro Combat uniforms. In some cases, I wish the teams who’ll be wearing them would actually switch to them. And I don’t really have a problem with “one-offs” (although it now seems as if you don’t have an alternate or one off, the recruits will be turned off). That being said, however, I detest the way Nike is promoting these uniforms.

Before I do that, lets look at the uni the Tide will sport today. Taken solely as a uniform, it’s not too bad. From the front, it looks pretty much like the standard ‘bama gear. The helmet appears normal, and from the back, it looks fine (and NNOB, which is nice). I don’t like the vented and truncated pants stripes, but even that isn’t too bad. From the stands or a long shot on the TV camera, most people probably won’t even notice much difference between this and the standard Alabama uniform. Ah, but the devil is both in the details and the attitude Nike has taken towards this entire uniform promotion.

Lets take a look at how Nike themselves are promoting this:

Tradition is no small thing at the University of Alabama. With 13 national championships and 22 Southeastern Conference titles, there’s no question that the perennially dominant Crimson Tide is one of the most decorated and respected college football programs in the country. This year, the defending national champion will suit up against Mississippi State on Nov. 13 in the innovative Nike Pro Combat System of Dress, a uniform that respects Alabama’s heritage and speaks to success yet to come.

OK, that’s not too bad. National championships, tradition, heritage. There’s also Discipline, Commitment, Toughness, Effort and Pride. Shockingly, humility is not one of the qualities listed. What else does Nike have to say about the uniform?

The balance between the classic and the contemporary shows up in subtle design details throughout the uniform. Oversized jersey numbers remain, but they are coded with a Cool Grey-and-White houndstooth check. It is a tribute to legendary Alabama coach Paul “Bear” Bryant, who could always be found on the sidelines in his signature houndstooth hat. A replica American flag is sewn on the right shoulder of the jersey to honor service members, as the uniform will be worn two days after Veterans Day. In accordance with U.S. Army regulation, the flag appears with the star field facing forward.

Ah, yes. The houndstooth. So subtle you probably won’t even see it, but it’s there — on the jersey numbers and on the helmet stripe. In a way, it’s kind of cool — but it’s also completely unnecessary and unless you’re standing next to the players (which you won’t be), you won’t even see it. To use Paul’s “good or stupid” test, you can probably figure out where this one falls. As far as the flag on the shoulder, I’m not opposed to it per se — but I do question why it’s on there. Is it because the game is being played “two days after Veterans’ Day”? And to “honor service members”? That’s fine and noble, but why bring the military into this?

OH, right…because it’s a Pro Combat uniform, and nothing appeals more to the baser instincts of the kids Nike is hoping to hook on this concept than equating football to war. They’re not putting the flag on the uniform to honor America or anything. It’s to honor service members. If that’s the case (and it is a noble thing to do so), why aren’t all Nike uniforms adorned with a US flag at all times? Are the troops only important two days after Veterans Day?

Lets see what else is special about this uniform:

The jersey is rendered in Team Crimson, a color strongly associated with the team since a 1907 game against in-state rival Auburn. Coined by a sportswriter of the time, the Crimson Tide moniker is derived from the red clay mud found in the south. White pants are defined by a truncated Team Crimson doublestripe on the side of both legs, with the school’s “A” logo at the hip. A wide stripe with houndstooth pattern bisects the Team Crimson helmet. Gloves have an all-over houndstooth pattern with a script “A” on each palm. The fingers are imprinted with values instilled by Coach Nick Saban, reading from pinkie to thumb: Discipline, Commitment, Toughness, Effort and Pride. “Roll Tide” is printed on the inside cuff. Footwear in corresponding team colors completes the commanding ensemble.

And a partridge in a pear tree. I’ll reserve judgment on the uniform until I see it on the field. Honestly, though? I kind of like it. But for a team as steeped in tradition and with a uniform that has remained pretty much unchanged for decades, isn’t this pretty much AFAS (alternate for alternate’s sake)? I don’t know if I’m more upset that this uniform is so close to what they currently wear, or that it isn’t even more outrageous. I mean, if you’re going to push this whole Pro Combat on your schools, shouldn’t the uniform really SCREAM “toughness”?

You know what really bugs the though? The way that the Nike design team makes these uniforms out to be so much better than anything out there. The lightweight jersey is “23% lighter than current designs. Less weight equals more speed.” (insert eyeroll) The “Vapor Jet Glove” — there we go with the military allusions again — is also lightweight and has some space-age technology that will obviously enable mere mortals to catch rockets. The pants are actually “49% lighter” than what they currently wear. If this uniform is so good, shouldn’t they be wearing it for every game?

But here’s the best part — or the worst. Take a look at and a listen to this hype machine. Sounds great right? Like all opponents will simply bow before the “tidal wave that bleeds crimson.” We find “our Alabama player at the foot of an oncoming mountain of water.” Nice.

Perhaps the guys who came up with that mental image don’t remember Hurricane Ivan, just a tiny storm that only had a tiny impact on the Alabama coast in 2004. A thirty-foot storm surge and 25 foot wave heights caused massage damage and death in Alabama. So what better way to get your uniform design across than to depict a tsunami-sized wave of destruction in your graphic.

Really? C’mon Nike — death, war and destruction may sell, but this one is really taking it too far. You already had to scrap your West Virginia ad campaign because some found it offensive. I’d certainly say this falls into a similar category. It’s insensitive at best, and repulsive at worst. After all who died in Katrina and the Boxing Day tsunami of 2004, you’d think Nike would consciously or unconsciously try to avoid that type of imagery.

Image is everything, after all.


CollarBlue Shirts New Shirts

Yesterday evening the Rangers debuted their new 2010-11 third sweater. Uni Watch’s resident AFL fan, Tod Hess (aka “aflfan”) posted a bunch of photos in the comments section, so I asked Tod if he’d like to review them. He graciously agreed.

Here’s Tod:

The New York Rangers introduced their third uniform on Friday night at the NHL store in New York. The NHL posted several pictures of the uniforms on Facebook.

• The first picture is of the 85th anniversary patch. I like the patch on the shoulder (not that they had much choice with the diagonal New York).

• The next picture I saw was the inside of the collar with the “Established 1926” printed on it. To me this is useless as no fans will see this.

• The third picture is of the Rangers retired jersey numbers on the tail of the jersey. This is my favorite part of the uniform; a nice touch that I don’t think has been done before.

• Ryan Callahan shows of the full uniform from the side. I like the whole look, the darker blue than normal, the diagonal New York, the laces, the red pants to break up the blue, for Reebok it is a great job.

• The other two shots are Henrik Lundqvist showing off the goalie look and Marian Gaborik with a close up on the jersey.

Overall, I think it is a great job of a third jersey (and we all know Reebok has some clunkers out there) and give it an A.

Thanks Tod. Even though it’s the Rangers … I have to admit, this is a pretty sharp jersey. Not so sure about the retired numbers on the hem, but I’d need to see it in action before passing judgment. Unlike their Liberty sweater, which I thought had too much red and appeared almost “midnight blue,” this new jersey strikes a better balance, and, from the photos, doesn’t appear as dark. Good job by the Rags Broadway Blueshirts.

Here’s a graphic of the new jersey.


colorize thisColorize This!

Occasionally, I will be featuring wonderful, high-quality black and white photographs that are just begging to be colorized.

Last weekend, we had a special request from Uni Watch historian Terry Proctor for a bit of assistance in colorizing three photos for the Rochester Amerks Booster Club web site. Terry has written the team’s uniform history for the first 25 years, and along with local collector Dave Parlet, has almost completed the project. Dave has provided pictures of his sweaters plus other vintage AHL sweaters for the page. Between them, they have compiled just about every era of Rochester uniforms, except the first two versions of the striped sweater.

So Terry provided me with pictures of Stan Smrke, Mike Nykoluk and Tommy Williams. I opened the “floor” up to our colorizers, and five of you took up the challenge. As expected, the results are terrific. Lets take a look at their efforts:

George Chilvers took on the challenge of colorizing Mike Nykoluk.

Daniel Schmeidler did a bang-up job with Stan Smrke.

Michael Ferry tackled all three: Stan Smrke, Mike Nykoluk and Tommy Williams.

Ian Carr also found Stan Smrke to his liking. And

Dylan Buell, like Michael Ferry, colorized all three Amerks: Mike Nykoluk, Stan Smrke and Tommy Williams.

Great job by everyone. I’m sure Terry will be extremely appreciative of the efforts and whichever ones are eventually chosen will be a wonderful addition to the website. Thanks to all!


For this weekend, a bit of a challenge for anyone who is up for it. This past week, Paul ran two sets of wire service photos, one yesterday, and another one on Wednesday specifically targeted to sweaters. Two photos from those batches really stood out for attempts at colorization.

The first one was this full panoramic shot of the 1918 Chicago Cubs. Paul showed that along with Marc Okkonen’s rendering of that uniform. Now, if you look at the photograph and then at the sketch, clearly those socks aren’t correctly depicted. I’m pretty sure the “CUBS” wordmark rendered in blue with a red outline is correct, as is the blue bill on the cap. But there is no way the striping on the stirrups is blue-white-red on a white stirrup. The question is — is the majority of the stirrup red or blue? And are the stripes blue-white-blue (on a red field) or red-white-red (on a blue field)? My money is on red-white-red on a blue field.

If you look at the Cubs’ sock/stirrup patterns from 1900 through 1917 and 1918 through 1935, they are almost entirely a blue-dominant sock.

Here’s this week’s challenge #1: colorize the full panoramic photo or this smaller section. Use any combination of colors you’d like — I’m not sure of the actual pattern — and let’s see how what looks “best.” Might even be interesting to use different patterns on the same photo, just for giggles.

Paul also showed some incredibly amazing “sweater weather” photos on Wednesday. One of which really struck me: Doc Crandall of the St. Louis Terriers. The Terriers were a Federal League team that only existed two seasons (1914 & 1915). According to Okkonen, their colors were navy and white, so we might safely assume the sweater’s main color is navy. As to the placket, collar, sleeve and waist stripes — looks like white or off white. The patch is probably red, white and blue.

So give it a shot, colorizers. Pick one or both photos and see what you can come up with. When you’re done, send them to me and I’ll feature everyone’s efforts next weekend. OK? OK!


all sport uni tweaksUni Tweaks

Catching up with the tweaks, but they keep coming in (which is good), so lots to get to today. If you have a tweak, change or concept for any sport, send them my way.

You guys have been pretty great keeping to the ~50 word limit per team tweak, and it’s greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Now, on to today’s tweaks:


Starting off the show is Andrew Lobeck, who has some NFL submissions:

Vikings: I took the old school uniform and made three uniforms out of it. The Home purple is darker on the jersey and I also added a yellow alternate jersey.

Giants: I changed the pants colors to white for all three jerseys. I also added more blue to the away jersey and changed the collar colors on the Home and alternate jerseys.

Titans/Oilers: I went back to the Oiler logo and old jerseys but I added a red alternate jersey.


Next up is Andrew Levitt, who has taken on the Ducks. Yes, the Ducks:

I’m not a big fan of the Oregon Ducks mix-n-match style. I believe changing the uniform weekly detracts from their team identity. I attempted to take their school colors and current unis and tweak them in to a standard home/away/alt triptych.

~Andrew L.


And our third tweak today comes from Alex Zeese, who (obviously) submitted this prior to the Nats unveil earlier this week. Too bad the Nats didn’t see this:

so with word that my hometown Nationals are going to be fixing their uniforms I thought I would submit a simple but elegant idea I have for what they should go with.

-Alex Zeese


Closing down the show today is the one and only Jim MotherVilker, who has a set of Astros that only he would wear:

When you think of the Astros, what’s the first thing that comes to mind — trains? Cursive jersey fonts? Pinstripes? I didn’t think so. You probably think of astronauts, as I do. So, let’s give the Astros an astronaut concept. We’ll keep the black, but swap out the brick red for the old orange.

Home whites inspired by Apollo program: Button-down jersey — a reminder of the hose valves on the space suits. More details in the uni picture.

Road grays inspired by Mercury program: Pullover jersey and elastic-waist pants

Orange alts inspired by Shuttle program: Zipper or velcro jerseys. No stirrups (they’re on my template, but I couldn’t color over them well enough). With this concept, I didn’t think they’d be appropriate. Don’t hate them just because of that, Phil

No mix ‘n match here. I also envisioned using the old Astros logo,
but putting the Earth or Moon where the Astrodome is. It looks like a mission patch, which would be good for these unis. The Astros should make a different “mission patch” each year, and wear it from liftoff on opening day until touchdown at the end of the season.

Thanks to all who submitted this week. Back tomorrow with more.


That will do it for today, folks. Enjoy the rising tide of crimson this evening. Just one announcement from Paul:

Teevee news: About half a year ago I was interviewed for an NFL Films segment on the “10 Greatest Uniforms Ever,” or something like that (I honestly don’t recall all the details). I’ve just been told that the segment is about to start airing on the NFL Network, as follows (all times eastern): Today at 12:30pm, and Tuesday at 1pm.

Of course, neither Paul nor I have the NFL Network, so hopefully one of you enterprising Uni Watchers can DVR the segment and then find a way to post it to You Tube? Possibly? That would be swell.


Will there ever come a time that a new generation looks at images of NBA World Champion Michael Jordan and makes fun of his “short shorts”? — Jim Walaitis

191 comments to Image…is Everything

  • The Jeff | November 13, 2010 at 7:28 am |

    So how many years need to pass before it’s acceptable for a sports team to make a reference to a past tragedy?

    Chicago Fire… Atlanta/Calgary Flames… San Jose Earthquakes… I’m sure there’s others.

    Besides, they are the Crimson Tide… there’s pretty much only 2 ways to make that sound tough – either a wave of destruction, or a cliched “water running red with the blood of thy enemies” thing. The other option is just a calm beach with a red tide rolling in… and that’s more disturbing than tough.

    • Dootie Bubble | November 13, 2010 at 8:17 am |

      I’m pretty sure they were named after “that time of the month” which is less deadly than a tsunami but not necessarily less dangerous.

      • scott | November 13, 2010 at 8:59 am |

        The Worcester Tornadoes of the Can-Am League explicitly reference a deadly 1953 tornado that touched down in the city. There may have been some controversy when the name was chosen for the team’s debut in 2005, but I don’t get the sense fans find it distasteful.

    • jdreyfuss | November 13, 2010 at 9:24 am |

      That does seem like Phil is going out of his way to find fault. After all, people name their sports teams after disasters associated with their regions all the time. See above or the Miami and Carolina Hurricanes, Iowa State Cyclones, Tulsa Golden Hurricane, etc.

      This isn’t like the WVU strip mine thing where the ad is essentially glorifying an ongoing and still relevant problem in the state. This is Nike using the imagery the school itself is trying to evoke with its team name and famous cheer.

      • EMD | November 13, 2010 at 11:25 am |

        I have no problem with the Tide imagery associated with Alabama. That’s the team name. If WVU’s team were the Strip Miners, perhaps the imagery would make sense. But they’re the Mountaineers, which might have been appropriate to show the player on a mountain top.

    • K. McInnis | November 13, 2010 at 3:38 pm |

      Huntsville’s (AL) minor league hockey team, once called the Channel Cats, changed their name to the ‘Tornado’ after the a new owner bought the franchise in 2000. He named it after the to outbreak that killed 21 people in the city a decade before. People were outraged and stopped going to games (team sucked anyway). The next season, the evil angry catfish returned for a year and then folded for good.

  • Terry Proctor | November 13, 2010 at 7:43 am |

    Many thanks go out to everyone who colorized the Amerks pictures for me. They will make a valuable addition to the Amerks Booster Club website. The winner for the first-year uniform as worn by Mike Nykoluk is George Chilvers. And for the second-generation “flag” sweater as worn by Stan Smrke the winner is Ian Carr. Both of these renditions show the bright colors of the uniform in all of their glory. I’ll let Phil know as soon as the pictures are up on the ABC web site. Again, “Thank You” to everyone who participated.

    • Terry Proctor | November 13, 2010 at 9:08 am |

      I also sent Michael Ferry’s Tommy Williams picture to the web site.

    • Ian Carr | November 13, 2010 at 4:37 pm |

      I…am flabbergasted. I only took on the project to see what I could do. It never crossed my mind that I would do anything nearly good enough to ACTUALLY be used. I am honored and delighted to have my submission used on the website. I look forward to seeing the picture up on the website.

      I really want to thank all those who took the time to post tutorials on the colorization process. Those guides gave me a lot of useful information. It was a harder process than I imagined it might be, but VERY enjoyable. I’m looking forward to doing some more.

  • JTH | November 13, 2010 at 8:16 am |

    In a comment that came in late last night, this link was posted.

    Has this been mentioned before? I don’t remember seeing anything about it. That’s a terrible move. It’s even worse than the Dodgers putting the cap logo on their sleeves because the Dodgers just put a logo where there was none but the sock-in-diamond logo was a great one. Now there’s just a redundancy.

    Of course, I’m sure we’ll see the jersey that still has that logo more often than not.

    • scott | November 13, 2010 at 9:02 am |

      The White Sox seem to hardly ever wear the gray uniforms anyway, so it probably doesn’t much matter. But why would the Sox drop the patch with a unique logo for one with the cap logo?

    • concealed78 | November 13, 2010 at 9:38 am |

      I haven’t heard about that either. Definitely not an improvement. Then again, the dated fat stripes on it still bother me, and it’s still very bland overall.

      • JTH | November 13, 2010 at 10:56 am |

        Ditching the secondary logo sucks but I’ll take the “dated fat stripes” over the minimalist approach that too many teams are taking these days where there’s no piping or striping whatsoever.

    • Richard | November 13, 2010 at 2:33 pm |

      I can envision the thought process that went into it. Someone saw the logo on the All Star practice jerseys and liked it. The Sox also share spring training facilities with the Dodgers (who have the LA patch) and Reinsdorf has a bit of a Dodger fetish. Maybe even someone’s personal OCD tick had to do with not having the logo represented on all 3 uniforms.

      Regardless- I haven’t seen anyone react positively to the change.

      I’d be surprised if this one lasted.

  • traxel | November 13, 2010 at 8:34 am |

    Phil, I’m really liking this new colorization segment. Wish I had the time to participate.

    JTH, that Sox news is horrible. I absolutely cannot stand redundancy like that. And to remove the best thing they had going makes it even worse.

    The NFL does that all over the place. Too many teams put the helmet logo on the shoulders, usually in a dinky looking way. Then with the vector too big, it just looks awful. There is no need for a logo to be repeated four times at shoulder level and above.

    • LI Phil | November 13, 2010 at 12:14 pm |

      “Phil, I’m really liking this new colorization segment. Wish I had the time skills to participate.”


      i KID ben — if you go back to the tutorials, especially the one that THE jeff helped on, you’ll find that it’s not as difficult as you might think — time consuming, yes, but once you get a feel for it, it goes much more quickly…start small and build up to it

      thanks for the kind words tho

  • traxel | November 13, 2010 at 8:51 am |

    jimmothervilker, I think the Astros ought to use this logo right now. Pay homage to THE original dome. Especially since Enron Juice Box is so dumb.

    Why is it dumb? Let’s see here.
    1. It was not enough that it was built in the roid era where balls were flying out of the park at record pace, they had to make the left field dimension SHORTER than regulation. I heard a player say one time that when left handed releif pitchers were hitting opposite field homeruns, we have a problem.
    2. That homerun train thing. I can accept it coming out of its station and chugging along. But when it is done, its lights go off and it has to back up all the way back into its home. Travels down a dead end. That is just enraging.
    3. The stupid hill and flag pole. I really have no problem wih the idea of either, but they didn’t originate in Houston. It’s like stealing someone else’s patent. Crosley Field and I think one other had a hill. Tiger Stadium had a flagpole in play and Yankee Stadium had the monuments. NOT HOUSTON.
    4. Enron. This is what you get when you sell your naming rights. I refuse to call it anything else. The place deserves a name like that.

    Come to think of it, the Astros have never had a good place to play. Any roofed stadium is bad for baseball. And the old Colt Stadium looked like an oven with no shade. The team couldn’t even keep their original name. I do credit them for the sunrise though. Always loved that. And all of this garbage just to say, jimvilk, I like your conceptions.

    • scott | November 13, 2010 at 9:10 am |

      Enron Field/ Minute Maid Park this past season was only the 11th easiest stadium to hit home runs in, according to ESPN’s park factors. Just in the NL, Coors Field, Miller Park, Great American Ball Park, Wrigley Field and Citizens Bank Park were all easier places to go deep. Yes, the park does favor hitters, but I don’t think it does so in an outrageous way as you imply. And I rather like Tal’s Hill – there’s nothing else like it in the majors right now, though a couple of minor league teams (Albuquerque and Johnson City) do play in parks with hills.

    • jdreyfuss | November 13, 2010 at 9:36 am |

      I like the pole in play, but Tal’s hill has a tendency to make easy plays much harder. I was also disappointed to find obstructed views in a stadium built in 2000 the one time I had a chance to see an Astros game.

    • concealed78 | November 13, 2010 at 10:04 am |

      A few years ago I made a crude tweak of what MMP would look like without the Crawford Boxes:

      The arched pattern doesn’t really make sense this way, tho; or at least really sticks out.

    • Jim Vilk | November 13, 2010 at 10:57 am |

      Thanks, Ben. Too bad I couldn’t fit the Gemini program into the tweaks as well…

      I don’t mind the flag pole and the hill, but if they’re going to have a train, it should carry a rocket, eh?

      I could even see changing the name of the team. The current unis are a real disconnect with the Astros name.

  • robert | November 13, 2010 at 9:10 am |

    i get so sick of you guys flipping everytime war is compared or linked to football. as a u.s. marine, i have never talked to anyone who is at all associated with the military who takes offense to this kind of stuff. really i think we all know war is war, and football is football, we’re not stupid so who cares if nike or whoever tries to mesh the two. in fact most people see these type of things as a sign of respect. it doesnt matter if nike is doing it to make a buck, becuase thats the way this country works and guess what when we are fighting in foreign land we know we’re figting for a capitalist nation. lukas and/or phil when you guys serve, and put your lifes on the line for this country then you can start voicing your opinion about this type of stuff but until then just leave the topic alone and keep writing about uniforms

    • jdreyfuss | November 13, 2010 at 9:33 am |

      I personally don’t have a problem with the football=war metaphors or even calling the program Pro Combat. I do have a problem with what looks like disingenuousness. This marketing scheme has always looked like Nike justifying its hype by saying it’s for the troops, rather than actually being for the troops.

      The hideous, but sincere, alts Under Armour did this past weekend for the Wounded Warrior Project looked a lot worse than the PCs on the field, but they passed the smell test a lot better.

      • Paul Lukas | November 13, 2010 at 9:39 am |

        Exactly. And Under Armour partners with the Wounded Warrior Project for those uniforms. Much more credibility, much less self-congratulation.

    • Paul Lukas | November 13, 2010 at 9:34 am |

      >it doesnt matter if nike is doing it to make a buck,
      >becuase thats the way this country works

      Ah, the “It’s just business” argument. An oldie but a goodie. Such a handy all-purpose rationale, it pretty much covers any possible objection to anything. Well done!

    • StLMarty | November 13, 2010 at 9:42 am |

      Yeah… and I flip out every time you get so sick.

    • jdreyfuss | November 13, 2010 at 9:42 am |

      Also remember, this is a blog, not a news website. One of the freedoms that we are all indebted to you and your fellow Marines for is the freedom to state our opinions freely, no matter how subversive or contrary they may be.

      While people in the military may not have a problem with Nike’s marketing scheme, it’s Paul and Phil’s right to voice their opinion on it. This website has become fairly influential and it’s likely one of the forces keeping the manufacturers from crossing the line from silliness to true disrespect the way Nike did with VA Tech a couple years ago.

    • JTH | November 13, 2010 at 10:30 am |

      I truly hope that the majority of our military does not share the sentiment that they’re really just fighting to protect corporations’ bottom lines.

    • RS Rogers | November 13, 2010 at 11:15 am |

      What really irks me about the whole Pro Combat thing, aside from the way they usually disrespect the flag by putting it on an athletic uniform, which is against the law, is that the whole thing involves a bunch of the most physically gifted, mentally tough young men in the country playacting as soldiers. Which might be fine if this were 1993. But we have two wars on. If young men of fighting age want to bask in the language and image of being warriors, they should enlist in the armed forces. If you’re of age to enlist and you have the physical gifts of a top athlete but choose not to serve your country, then you should be ashamed to have people speak of you and try to dress you in the way Nike and its abetting colleges are doing in the Pro Combat campaign.

      • George | November 13, 2010 at 12:06 pm |

        What really irks ME is, that “the fingers [on the gloves] are imprinted with values instilled by Coach Nick Saban, reading from pinkie to thumb: Discipline, Commitment, Toughness, Effort and Pride.”

        I am absolutely shocked that they forgot to put in “Quitting”. LSU and the Dolphins can attest to that being the one value that Nick Saban instilled in their fanbases…

      • scott | November 13, 2010 at 12:07 pm |

        Can you point out where it’s “against the law” to put a flag on an athletic uniform? Because if that’s the case, a lot of teams are going to be in big trouble.

        • jdreyfuss | November 13, 2010 at 12:18 pm |

          U.S. Code, Title 4, Section 8(j):
          “No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform. However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic organizations. The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing. Therefore, the lapel flag pin being a replica, should be worn on the left lapel near the heart.”

          Flag desecration is protected speech and thus can’t be prosecuted, but it is still both illegal and disrespectful

        • Paul Lukas | November 13, 2010 at 1:10 pm |

          >>Flag desecration is protected speech and thus can’t be prosecuted, but it is still both illegal and disrespectful<< The simple fact that it's protected speech means it is NOT illegal. The Supreme Court has specifically ruled that flag burning and other forms of flag desecration are legal.

        • EddieAtari | November 13, 2010 at 8:52 pm |

          Right, Paul. And since the statute reads “No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform,” (the operative word being “should”), use of the flag is discouraged by Uncle Sam but not prohibited.

      • -Monty- | November 13, 2010 at 1:52 pm |

        I’m not sure that most of the players think of themselves as play-acting as soliders or combatants. Some probably do, most probably don’t.

        Still, that being said, I wouldn’t be so quick to argue or denigrate what RS Rogers has written here. The U.S. is indeed engaged in two “wars” (in quotes, because the U.S. hasn’t actually been engaged in “war” since 1945). This is absolutely a time when men of ages 18 to 25 should be respectful and mindful that thousands of their same-aged countrymen are in harm’s way. I’m sure that the vast majority are. However, the sentiment still stands. Those between the ages of 18 and 25 that might be play-acting combat or military “games”, including video games, with no mind toward the real thing, are being somewhat disrespectful (which is a right and privilege that they have, thanks to those who are and have put themselves in harm’s way over the past 200+ years).

        And Paul, the flag code and First Amendment are not mutually exclusive. The laws of the United States say that one may not use the flag on an athletic uniform. It’s therefore “illegal”. The Constitution of the United States says that one has a right to desecrate that flag as “free speech” under the First Amendment. (Keep in mind that the First Amendment doesn’t actually provide citizens with any rights or protections from any entity other than the Federal Government. For example, I will not allow someone to burn a flag on my property. I will hit them with a baseball bat to stop them. Their Constitutional rights are preserved, while the fractured arm is real and painful and will absolutely stop them from burning the flag on my property.) Since the flag code does not carry a penalty, it becomes moot. A good analogy would be this: The First Amendment provides me the right to stand in a crowded theater and scream “Fire” without Federal government intrusion. My right to do so is Constitutionally protected. However, this does not preclude my local police force from arresting me for inciting a public disturbance, or various other crimes related to damage, including even manslaughter if someone gets killed in a stampede out of the theater.

        I’ve been flabbergasted for years at the sight of the American flag on uniforms. It’s a perfect example of someone’s ostensibly well-intentioned idea of honoring the country being manifested in a misguided and ignorant display (the most horrible example being both the ridiculous singing of “God Bless America” at baseball games and the more ridiculous, misguided, and blatantly incorrect insistence that “fans remove their hats” for it).

        • Paul Lukas | November 13, 2010 at 2:33 pm |

          Yeah, but if I want to burn a flag on MY property (which, I hasten to add, I do NOT want to do), and if any municipal, state, or federal entity tries to enact a law that makes such an act illegal, it would take me about five minutes to get an injunction blocking the law’s enforcement and another 10 minutes to get the law struck down altogether. Yes, you can come up with all sorts of special situations where I can’t burn a flag (like if I do it on your property, or if I do it at a place full of flammable materials, or if I do it while standing in the middle of a busy highway), but you could say the same thing about, say, juggling (fine in my house, not so fine in *your* house if you don’t want me there).

          Such special situations notwithstanding, flag burning has been legal since 1989, the end.

        • -Monty- | November 13, 2010 at 3:03 pm |

          Absolutely correct. I agree 100% with your entire first paragraph. I also agree with your last paragraph, but hasten to add that flag burning has also been *illegal* since 1789. It is legal under the Constitution and illegal under U.S. Code.

          It’s a crazy world. Did you know that it is illegal to be either male or female and work for a corporation in the United States? The federal laws have become so convoluted that one can find both code and case law supporting the notion that it is illegal to have gender and be employed.

          Fun facts to know and tell.

        • jdreyfuss | November 13, 2010 at 3:26 pm |

          While the idea that flag desecration is illegal under statute but protected by the Constitution is counterintuitive, what it really means is that flag desecration is allowed but frowned upon, exactly the reason why teams shouldn’t put a flag patch on their uniforms.

        • Alec | November 13, 2010 at 4:15 pm |

          How do you get rid of a tattered flag?

          Burn it.

          US code
          Title 36 ch 10 ss 176 (k) The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning.

        • LI Phil | November 13, 2010 at 7:33 pm |

          smart alec

      • EddieAtari | November 13, 2010 at 9:00 pm |

        If they are putting Old Glory on the right shoulder, why not go all out and stick the Crimson Saltire (the Alabama state flag) on the left? I’d make a mock-up tweak, but I’ve already digressed…

  • Kevin | November 13, 2010 at 9:26 am |

    Does anybody know what the red patch with a black circle in the middle that both Aston Villa and Man United are wearing is for? Game is on ESPN2 at the moment.

    • Ryan B | November 13, 2010 at 9:48 am |

      It’s a poppy. Veterans/Remembrance/Armistice Day was Thursday. It’s possible this is the first game they’ve had since then, so they decided to wear the poppies today.

      • JamesBN3 | November 13, 2010 at 10:44 am |

        While Remembrance Day is always Nov. 11th, most of the major public observances are held over the weekend of the 2nd Sunday of Nov. This evening, the British Legion’s Festival of Remembrance will be held at Albert Hal, and the national remembrance ceremony will be held tomorrow at the Cenotaph in Westminster.

        There have been a few teams that have been wearing poppies the past 2 weeks, virtually every soccer and rugby team playing the UK this weekend will be wearing poppies.

  • concealed78 | November 13, 2010 at 9:31 am |

    I’m surprised they didn’t say the combat uniforms would make the Crimson Tide players walk on water.

    Does Nike just sit and try to think of the most ridiculous ideas, just to see if we take notice? Either that, or the people at Nike take a lot of narcotics.

    • EMD | November 13, 2010 at 11:30 am |

      It’s called advertising, and it happens every day. I work in the field, and there’s always a clamor to do something fresh, new, innovative or different.

      I have no problem (as I stated above) with the imagery. The writing is over the top, but it’s no different than how BMW describes their latest engineering marvel, or how amazingly succulent the ribs at (Damons, T.G.I.Fridays, other crappy national restaurant chain) are.

      • concealed78 | November 13, 2010 at 12:08 pm |

        I find it’s excessive, tasteless and obscene, or as the younger generation would call it: “X-treme”.

        I’m getting a little tired of having to hit my mute button so much during commercials. Doesn’t need to be so loud, either. I know it’s the advertiser’s job to get our attention & shove the product down our throats, but it’s just too much sometimes.

        • EMD | November 14, 2010 at 4:57 pm |

          Get off of my lawn!

      • Paul Lukas | November 13, 2010 at 1:11 pm |

        >It’s called advertising, and it happens every day.

        And the response to it is called cultural criticism, which also happens every day. The notion that advertising and marketing are somehow above any critique (as exemplified by the endless invocation of the “It’s called [whatever]” construction, which we see here in the comments all the time) is lazy, reductive, and erroneous.

        • -Monty- | November 13, 2010 at 2:00 pm |

          Amen, Paul.

          Not only is the response called cultural criticism (which many of us think is an obligation, not just a right), but we also have the ability to reject the advertised products. I have personally never owned a pair of Nike shoes, and don’t intend to. I’ve had Puma, Brooks, Adidas, New Balance, Converse, PF Flyers, Reeboks, Keds, Spot-Bilt, and even Jox. I do not like Nike’s insidious invasion of the fields of play, nor their use of bribery to browbeat schools, leagues, and teams into exclusive contracts, so I vote with my wallet. No Nikes here.

        • EMD | November 14, 2010 at 4:56 pm |

          I never said they were not above criticism, Paul — stop reading things into my comments that aren’t there!

          I’m trying to say we act like it’s somehow a new frontier in crassness, but it’s been happening for the latter half of the 20th century and well into this one.

          I am attempting to give the audience here a look into the world and business climate (in advertising) that produces such things – good or bad.

          For the record, I am NOT a fan of the Pro Combat series. There are a lot of things Nike does well, and this hasn’t been one of them. That said, the anti-Nike zealotry on this site seems to be fueled by a lot of assumptions (correct me if I’m wrong) about their motivations, ethics, and behavior.

          I don’t assume to know what was in each and every Nike employees’ hearts when they created the Pro Combat series. Perhaps it’s just dollar signs and they are cold, evil, people. Perhaps it is an affront to our military, but most of those from the military are okay with the uniforms and expressions.

          Describing their actions as “insidious” may be just as over the top as the Pro Combat language.

  • Terence M.K. | November 13, 2010 at 9:50 am |


    That’s a Rememberance Day Poppy. I UK and Canada it is akin to our Veterans Day. “In Flanders Field the Poppies grow…”


    The retired numbers on the Rangers Sweater are on the inside back hem and will only be available on purchases at the MSG team store as well as I think “established 1926” on the inside shirt collar is a great touch!

    Terence M.K.

  • Whorish Choad | November 13, 2010 at 10:16 am |

    I looks to me like the retired Rangers numbers are actually on the inside of the jersey like the collar script. Interesting detail, but not one the fans will see.

    • aflfan | November 13, 2010 at 11:52 am |

      Looking at the new pictures on com you are right. Couldn’t tell last night from the Facebook pictures. Again, useless if the fans can’t see it.

    • Alec | November 13, 2010 at 2:28 pm |

      A Rangers jersey without the drop shadow for the numbers=stupid

  • JamesBN3 | November 13, 2010 at 10:21 am |

    England’s rugby team is wearing their new “anthracite” (that’s Nike-speak for dark grey) unis today against Australia.

    Not a bad look, and a huge improvement over last years purple change strip.

    But the question is why? England’s traditional all white outfits don’t clash with the yellow and green the Wallabies wear. I guess it is in the contact with Nike that they wear the alternate uni at least once a year for so thatmore jerseys can be sold.

  • BSmile | November 13, 2010 at 10:42 am |

    I really hope that somebody takes on colorizing the 1918 Cubs panoramic…that would be epic! I’ve done a few myself, so I know how long a process it can be. Here’s one I did of the 1937 All-Star Game:


    • CraigD | November 13, 2010 at 2:58 pm |

      Excellent color job. Interesting that the S in that CBS banner is backward.

      • Randy | November 14, 2010 at 12:51 am |

        Actually, that CBS banner is upside down.

  • jeepnut | November 13, 2010 at 10:48 am |

    I’m surprised I haven’t seen any discussion of the Michigan Hockey Team’s throwback jerseys for the Big Chill at the Big House.

  • RS Rogers | November 13, 2010 at 11:06 am |

    Regarding the flag patch, it’s not patriotic. And this:

    In accordance with U.S. Army regulation, the flag appears with the star field facing forward.

    Is the purest of bullshit. Yes, that’s the Army regulation for wearing the flag. On Army uniforms. And if anyone wants to wear a flag on his sleeve according to Army regulations, all he has to do is go to his local Armed Forces Career Center and join. The. Army.

    For civilians, the rules of flag etiquette and respect are set not in the Army manual but in the U.S. Flag Code, which is an actual federal law. It was put on the books a century ago, but the rules it defines were the standard of respect for the flag for decades before that – at least back to the Civil War era. And according to Title 4, Chapter 1, Section 8:

    (j) No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform.

    In short, putting a flag patch on a football uniform is no different than spitting on it or burning it. You wouldn’t take the flag, rub it in the dirt and mud, rip it up, step on it, throw blood on it, and call that “patriotic” or “honoring” our troops. But that is exactly what will happen to each and every flag that is sewn onto a football uniform.

    Having pointed this out before, I know that someone will try to argue, “But that’s just a flag patch, not the flag itself.” That’s wrong. For one thing, try this mental experiment: If you’re the sort of person who wouldn’t normally burn the flag, would you be willing to burn a flag patch instead? Of course not. Which is why the Flag Code regards, and has always regarded, anything that looks like a flag as a flag. If you take out a piece of paper and a couple of crayons and you draw a blue square with the Cornflower crayon and you draw nine red stripes with the Cerise crayon, you’ve just created an American flag, and all the customs of respect that you’d accord to a storebought 3×5 nylon flag apply to the flag you’ve just drawn.

    If you wouldn’t tape a flag to the ground and trample on it to show your “honor” for the troops, then you shouldn’t sew it onto your football uniform, either.

    • scott | November 13, 2010 at 12:13 pm |

      Just an observation: it seems the only ones offended by the United States flag serving as a patch on athletic uniforms are people who have never served in the military. Sort of like how it’s not American Indians, by and large, who are offended by sports teams using their imagery.

      • LI Phil | November 13, 2010 at 12:21 pm |

        there are a lot of americans who are offended by having a commander-in-chief who’s never served a day in the military either…

        does that make them (or the commander-in-chief) any less patriotic or their opinions any less valid?

        and because some native peoples may not be offended by sports teams using native imagery, does that mean that NONE are? should their opinions be discounted as well? even if a majority aren’t offended, the views of the minority should be completely ignored?

        • The Jeff | November 13, 2010 at 12:58 pm |

          Ignored probably isn’t the best word… but, basically, yes.

          Free speech isn’t supposed to stop just because it pisses someone off.

          As long as we’re only talking about offending people, and not any actual harm or other differential treatment, the extreme minority really doesn’t matter. There’s plenty of things that offend me that I can’t change.

      • jdreyfuss | November 13, 2010 at 12:22 pm |

        You’re probably right, but the difference is that the flag doesn’t only represent the military. It represents all of us.

      • Paul Lukas | November 13, 2010 at 1:07 pm |

        >>Just an observation: it seems the only ones offended by the United States flag serving as a patch on athletic uniforms are people who have never served in the military.<< This is such a ridiculously sweeping statement, it demands scrutiny. Exactly what are you basing this statement on -- the comments of six or seven people on this web site (whose military involvement you can only guess)?

      • RS Rogers | November 13, 2010 at 5:59 pm |

        Just an observation: it seems the only ones offended by the United States flag serving as a patch on athletic uniforms are people who have never served in the military.

        How do you know? But more importantly, why does it matter? Does the flag belong to service members and veterans? Because that’s the logic that underpins this statement, and if it’s a valid logical statement, then it must also be true that those who have not served have not right to display the flag, or indeed to show respect toward the flag at all. Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance or holding one’s hand over one’s heart in salute to the flag during the national anthem would be reserved for soldiers and veterans.

        It’s really pretty simple: If one has standing to show respect to the flag, then one also has standing to object to disrespect to the flag. And since the flag belongs to all Americans, military service has no bearing at all with regard to concern for proper flag etiquette.

    • Greg W. | November 13, 2010 at 2:34 pm |

      But it’s just a patch.

      • jdreyfuss | November 13, 2010 at 2:55 pm |

        Paul, since why a patch is problematic has already been mentioned twice, maybe you should just use 4 U.S.C. §8(j) as your banner headline next time you mention flag patches.

  • Jim Vilk | November 13, 2010 at 11:07 am |

    Now THERE is a set of Ducks unis I’d wear.
    Nice big number font. Not sure about the alternate, but what the hey.

    Nice work, Andrew Levitt.

    • M.Princip | November 13, 2010 at 11:21 am |

      I like these concepts, kudos to Andrew, but (and it’s a BIG BUTT) what Andrew did with those wings needs to be refined or cleaned up a bit.

      • Jim Vilk | November 13, 2010 at 11:23 am |

        Yeah, just a bit, though.

  • JTH | November 13, 2010 at 11:13 am |

    Ha! I just noticed this at the end of that article about the WVU stip-mining ad.

    The uniforms (which look pretty slick, if we may so so), will be worn by the Mountaineers for the annual Backyard Brawl, the team’s Nov. 26 battle with in-state rival Pittsburgh.

    The state of journalism is in the terlet.

    • Jim Vilk | November 13, 2010 at 11:20 am |

      Oops. “…if we may so so”? Double oops.

      They may say so (or so so), but I like the regular WVU unis better. A modern design I actually like and they go and take it away from their biggest game of the year.

      • JTH | November 13, 2010 at 11:28 am |

        I just wonder if the writer thinks that Pittsburgh is in West Virginia or that West Virginia is in Pennsylvania.

      • LI Phil | November 13, 2010 at 12:02 pm |

        “A modern design I actually like and they go and take it away from their biggest game of the year.”

        yeah…i can imagine the uproar if they did that for the big game in the horseshoe this year


        • The Jeff | November 13, 2010 at 12:15 pm |

          You’d be surprised how many of the Buckeye “fans” here are just anti-Michigan more than anything else.

          Hell, back when the App State upset game occurred, stores here in Columbus started selling Mountaineers shirts. I found it rather sad.

          …and it really shouldn’t be called a big game unless both teams are ranked anyway

  • Jim Vilk | November 13, 2010 at 11:16 am |

    Andrew Lobeck, I like the Giants tweak a lot.
    I was staring at the Vikes’ road whites for a while wondering what looked weird, and I remembered – no LSU stripes. Your set is consistent, but I miss the LSU stripes.
    And the only thing missing on your Oilers are blue pants for the roads…and even the alts. That red was a little shocking with the Oiler helmet, so maybe blue pants would lessen the blow. I know most people on here would disagree, but I said it anyway. Good stuff.

  • Macky | November 13, 2010 at 11:20 am |

    LoL, another Lukas Nike bashing. It’s beating a dead horse.

    • Jim Vilk | November 13, 2010 at 11:22 am |

      Uh, Mr. Lukas is off today, so it’s another Phil Nike bashing. Just sayin’…

      • Jim Vilk | November 13, 2010 at 11:25 am |

        NTTAWT, Phil…

    • Paul Lukas | November 13, 2010 at 11:54 am |

      LoL, another reader who can’t read. Lukas is off today.

  • Jim Vilk | November 13, 2010 at 11:28 am |

    Alex Zeese, your Nationals tweak is pretty cool. I’d like it even better with just the curly W on the chest, but yeah, I’d wear your design.

  • Magik | November 13, 2010 at 11:49 am |

    Thanks for the Info! After a lot of searching, this was the most helpful article. I am glad you took the time to write it. Thanks!

  • Zach | November 13, 2010 at 11:52 am |


    Saw the NFL Network show last night that you were on and what can I saw awesome job! Wish I knew how to record it and upload to youtube so you could see it.

    • Paul Lukas | November 13, 2010 at 11:56 am |

      The producers are sending me a copy. Several people have told me it turned out well (the whole show in general and my screen time in particular), which is nice to hear. Looking forward to seeing it.

    • M.Princip | November 13, 2010 at 12:29 pm |

      Paul had some great input on monochromes, the Broncos vertical stripe socks, and a bunch of other uni tidbits, since, he’s featured throughout the hour long episode. Of course, nothing new to us around here, yet absolutely fantastic to see this feature and discussion on the NFL Network.

      Now, our “10 Greatest Uniforms Ever” would not feature the cheerleader, or pop warner uniform taking up valuable spots(yes they did go there), however I guess it’s a start for the NFL Network, and the common football fan when discussing uniforms. Nice production ta boot, kudos NFL Films.

  • Dan | November 13, 2010 at 11:53 am |

    To Andrew Lobeck:
    I do believe I made the exact same Vikings tweak and it was posted on this site in July. I also posted one that was very similar to the Titans/Oilers tweak.


    While I have to believe these were unintentional, I just wanted to let you know that I did make two tweaks that were very similar to yours.

    • The Jeff | November 13, 2010 at 12:05 pm |

      No offense, but it’s not like either one of those are really a new idea. People have been wanting the Vikings to revert back to what they used to wear from pretty much the moment they introduced their current uniforms, and I’m sure there’s plenty of people who wish that the Titans had never bothered with the name or uniform change.

  • Michael | November 13, 2010 at 12:17 pm |

    Georgia Tech has broke out the navy blue jerseys vs. Miami today at home.

  • Pat | November 13, 2010 at 12:29 pm |

    I understand that the whole “pro combat” line is offensive to you guys, however the whole West Virginia thing sounds like a bunch of activists got that one canned. When I saw the picture I wasn’t remotely offended. Nor was I offended by the wave in the background of the Alabama picture. Their name is Crimson Tide after all so a water motif would be acceptable. I personally think you guys are a little bit jaded towards Nike. They are after all a company that’s trying to make money. So do you expect them to just keep everything status quo and have it work out for them financially. I highly doubt it. I enjoy traditional looking jerseys as much as the next guy but all the newer stuff is ok as long as you embrace it. Go Ducks!

    • Paul Lukas | November 13, 2010 at 12:36 pm |

      >They are after all a company that’s trying to make money.

      Funny coincidence: Every other company out there is also trying to make money. And yet most of them somehow manage not to pander to the worst aspects of, uh, everything as part of their business plans.

      >I enjoy traditional looking jerseys as much as the next guy but all the
      >newer stuff is ok as long as you embrace it.

      Um, EVERYTHING is ok “as long as you embrace it.” Let’s try to come up with better arguments than this, shall we?

  • Pat | November 13, 2010 at 12:45 pm |

    Watching the NFL network uni show made me want to rank the unis according to my own opinion. Here are the criteria. I discounted the alternates or throwbacks and went with the color and white jerseys only. I generally prefer the traditional looks to the more modern designs. My rankings differed quite a bit from the NFL networks. Again this is just my opinion.

    Uniform rankings
    1 49ers
    2 Packers
    3 Colts
    4 Redskins
    5 Titans
    6 Saints
    7 Jets
    8 Steelers
    9 Broncos
    10 Chargers
    11 Lions
    12 Cowboys
    13 Browns
    14 Dolphins
    15 Raiders
    16 Rams
    17 Bears
    18 Eagles
    19 Ravens
    20 Patriots
    21 Seahawks
    22 Chiefs
    23 Buccaneers
    24 Giants
    25 Vikings
    26 Falcons
    27 Bengals
    28 Texans
    29 Bills
    30 Cardinals
    31 Jaguars
    32 Panthers

    • Gusto44 | November 13, 2010 at 1:02 pm |

      What’s your ranking of all Division 1 football uniforms(roughly 123).

  • aflfan | November 13, 2010 at 12:54 pm |

    I don’t know if this has been mentioned before but after tonight’s game the Hartford Wolfpack are changing their name to the Connecticut Whale.

  • interlockingtc | November 13, 2010 at 12:56 pm |

    I really like the looks of the Rangers third jersey.

    However it is marred by that NHL logo on the collar. Looks like a food stain.

    And the retired numbers in the hem? Eh. Somebody in corporate looked at the prototype and said, “There’s just not enough there. The thing is too plain. It won’t sell. Put something somewhere…I don’t know what…then get back to me”

    • Teebz | November 13, 2010 at 1:37 pm |

      But you can’t even see them, and they are only on jerseys for the fans who bought one at MSG or the NHL Store.

      The retired numbers are on the inside of the jersey, as shown here by Rod Gilbert. How stupid is that?

      Answer: The very definition of stupid.

      • aflfan | November 13, 2010 at 1:57 pm |

        Kind of like a women wearing sexy underwear if she is not going out for the night and doesn’t have a boyfriend/husband.

        • Teebz | November 13, 2010 at 2:17 pm |

          She can wear whatever she likes, but I’m guessing that she’ll opt for comfort over function if she’s home alone. ;o)

          If the players aren’t wearing it, why would I, as a fan of the team, want to wear it? Those numbers already hang in MSG, so why do they need to hang in front of my crotch? And why are they printed upside down if you’re supposed to be able to flip the hem up to show everyone your tight, six-packed midriff?

          I call BS. And the Rangers are rolling in it.

        • Paul Lukas | November 13, 2010 at 4:23 pm |

          Wow — I guess there’s no point in a woman feeling sexy unless it furthers the goal of male arousal, huh? Nice….

          Nothing wrong with dressing all sexy-pants (or sexy-underpants) even if there’s nobody else in the equation. Speaking as someone who works alone at home every day, I can attest that it’s often quite satisfying to dress nicely, even if there’s nobody around to see it but myself. Of course, my definition of “dressing nicely” usually means a vintage jersey, not a suit and tie, but you get the idea.

          All of that said, I don’t like the numbers on the Rangers’ inner hem, or the slogan on the inner collar. All of that strikes me as the kind of thing that a middlebrow franchise does to try to establish highbrow cred. In other words: gimmickry. The Rangers are already a highbrow franchise, with a long, proud history. No need to gimmick it up — just wear the nice heritage sweater, be proud of your history, and the rest takes care of itself.

        • aflfan | November 13, 2010 at 6:18 pm |

          It was probably a bad example but what my point was if no one (meaning the fans) why put it there, it is a waste. If I had known that those were on the inside of the hem when I made my write up I would have given it a B.

        • aflfan | November 13, 2010 at 6:19 pm |


          It was probably a bad example but what my point was if no one (meaning the fans) is going to see it why put it there, it is a waste. If I had known that those were on the inside of the hem when I made my write up I would have given it a B.

  • Pat | November 13, 2010 at 1:00 pm |

    All I was trying to say about Nike being out to make money is that we can’t necessarily expect them to always look at things the way that us non-multibillionaire corporations would. I wasn’t saying I 100% agree with them all the time, but I do still feel sometimes you guys are a bit harsh on them just because their Nike. I’m not a huge Phil Knight fan either because he seems a little arrogant, but then again I’ve never met the man in person. I am from the northwest so I will admit that I could have completely drank the Nike kool aid, however I doubt it because I’m currently wearing a pair of Adidas sweatpants with a ridiculous three stripe logo creep going all the way down the leg.

    • Paul Lukas | November 13, 2010 at 1:05 pm |

      So the only entities qualified to assess Nike’s work are other multibillionaire corporations?


      Yes, they’re a business. And like any business, their business practices are open to discussion and critique. That’s part of what happens here.

    • LI Phil | November 13, 2010 at 1:15 pm |

      ok, perhaps you’re not understanding the concept of what im upset about

      first of all, im NOT anti-nike…nor am i against the tide uniform (if you read the article, i admitted to liking the concept, and you know i’m a huge fan of the ducks’ uni machinations)…so please set aside for a minute your seemingly pre-conceived notion that i’m against swooshie in terms of their actual product

      what bothers me, and has for some time, is how nike is MARKETING their product — it’s a UNIFORM — nothing more, nothing less…but they (and others — the three stripes and vector are JUST as guilty) are marketing this basically as a complete reinvention of the uniform, hyping it like those who wear it will be endowed with mystical powers…and apparently they’re doing a great job of it

      that is their *job* (the marketing/ad men) yes…but HOW they are going about selling it is what bothers me — maybe using an image of a destructive act of nature or a football player in the middle of a battlefield is something that appeals to you and is cool … i’ve fortunately never been through a cat 4 hurricane or lost a leg (or worse, a life) in REAL battle, but there are people who have…and i’m sure they wouldn’t wish it on anyone

      equating a college football player to a world war two combat soldier is just flat out wrong…and quite frankly, it’s sickening…i am sure the 3,000 (roughly) who perished in katrina are none too thrilled with the storm surge wave nike is using to promote the “rising tide” … show that picture to anyone who survived the 2004 pacific rim tsunami and you just might send them to therapy

      images are powerful…they are used to SELL things, yes — we get that…but sometimes those who push their products really need to THINK about what those images mean

      again, it’s not just nike — people have been glamorizing harmful or distasteful things for decades in order to get people to buy them

      does nike have every right to do it? absolutely…i don’t discount that right, but it doesn’t mean i have to be happy about it; if they want to make “new, fresh, hip” uniforms — more power to them — some of them i actually like quite a bit…but they really need to stop equating the athletes who play a game with real soldiers who face the real prospect of death every time they put on their uniforms…real, soldier uniforms

      • George N. | November 13, 2010 at 1:52 pm |

        And yet it’s interesting how football for ages has used war and battlefield terms in its description of the game: “down in the trenches”; “the QB is the field general”; even, to maybe a lesser degree, “that guy got blow’d up”.

        I can’t help but think about Kellen Winslow Jr.’s rant about the Volunteers, talking about “it’s war” and “they will kill you, they’re out there to kill you” and the classic “I’m a f–king soldier!” I wonder how many people at Nike HQ saw that video and thought “hey, the kid is onto something here….”?

        It’s the Winslows of the world who are Nike’s target audience. And it’s working. I don’t particularly care one way or the other, but I can totally empathize with Paul’s and Phil’s points.

    • Richard | November 13, 2010 at 1:53 pm |

      Profit motive explains business behavior and is the window to understanding why they do what they do. Understanding corporate behavior has some usefulness in offering criticism (like making it glaringly obvious when they’re pandering or looking to manipulate consumers).

      That doesn’t offer immunity from critique. Understanding why someone does what they do doesn’t invalidate opinions of their behavior.

      • Paul Lukas | November 13, 2010 at 2:40 pm |

        The notion that “It’s the profit motive” or “It’s just business” is a sufficient explanation for corporate behavior is reductive and offensive. It implies that every human interaction can be boiled down to its monetary value and that every business decision is self-justifying. It also implies that businesses have no civic responsibilities and no cultural role to play in civic life. I (and many others) reject all of this.

        • Richard | November 13, 2010 at 3:11 pm |

          If you’re offended, take it up with the entities that act that way, not me for pointing it out. Corporations exist for two purposes: to make money and insulate owners from personal liability.

          It is the explanation of the behavior. Do as little as you can get away with while charging as high a price as you can get away with- that’s why (especially large, publicly held) companies do what they do.

          It’s why Comcast customer service is garbage, why national food chains put out mediocre product and why it took laws for car makers to install seatbelts. And when you can sell something extra for a premium, all the better.

          When it comes to the Nike stuff- no one ever lost money pandering to over the top macho nonsense when it comes to football. So they’re coating their product in it hopes of making people think they’re getting something premium, selling more t-shirts, and charging accordingly.

          Explanation, not excuse. When people want something more or different from a company, success comes from understanding why they do what they do.

        • Paul Lukas | November 13, 2010 at 3:16 pm |

          >If you’re offended, take it up with the
          >entities that act that way

          I do, all the time, on this site. Perhaps you hadn’t noticed..?

  • -Monty- | November 13, 2010 at 1:17 pm |

    So, AGAIN, a pro sports team can’t tell the difference between “anniversary” and “season”. The 2010-2011 season is the Rangers’ 85th SEASON, not ANNIVERSARY (and even that isn’t true, thanks to the entire lockout season, which makes the 2010-2011 season the Rangers’ 84th season). The Rangers’ first season was the 1926-1927 season. So the 85th Anniversary is the 2011-2012 season.

    I suppose one could say that the franchise was awarded in 1926, but again, that makes 2011 the 85th anniversary, not 2010.

    • Teebz | November 13, 2010 at 1:34 pm |

      Considering that they play in the 2010-2011 season, when would you be happy for them to commemorate their 85th anniversary? The last three months of next season only?

      The anniversary commemorates the franchise’s founding, not the number of seasons on the ice. Huge difference.

      • -Monty- | November 13, 2010 at 2:05 pm |

        Yes. 85th anniversary of the founding of the Rangers franchise is 2011. Not 2010.

        • Teebz | November 13, 2010 at 2:11 pm |

          Right, and it’s November 2010. It’s not like this was brought about last season or in January of this year. The 2011 year starts mid-hockey season, and they are doing exactly what is right.

          Otherwise, they only get to celebrate their founding from September to December next season, and that’s just stupid from a marketing standpoint.

      • -Monty- | November 13, 2010 at 2:22 pm |

        P.S. Thanks to the 2004-2005 lockout and cancellation of the entire season, the anniversary seasons and number of seasons of all NHL teams that existed before 2004 are the same. NHL teams are the only pro sports teams in the U.S. who can put “50th anniversary” and “50th season” in the same logo. Unlike the entire American Football League, which erroneously promoted 2009 as the “50th Anniversary Season”, when in fact it was the 50th season, and 49th anniversary of the first season.

        • Teebz | November 13, 2010 at 2:30 pm |

          The Rangers have said nothing about seasons. The team was founded in 1926, as noted by the “Est. 1926” on the 85th anniversary patch and the “Established 1926” on the collar.

          Nowhere does it say “85 seasons”. It’s the anniversary of the founding of the franchise, not how many seasons they have played.

          While this complaint has more footing for a large number of teams that commemorate the number of seasons played, it still has nothing to do with how the Rangers have framed their anniversary year.

        • JTH | November 13, 2010 at 3:54 pm |


          The AFL was founded in 1959.

      • -Monty- | November 13, 2010 at 2:57 pm |

        So, to actually answer your question, I would be happy for them to commemorate their 85th anniversary during the season which is the 85th anniversary of their first season. That means 2011-2012. To go a step further, the logical manner in which to kick off said celebration would be to start it on the 85th anniversary of the awarding of the franchise — the franchise’s “birthday” if you will — which would be May 15, 2011. It should have been on that date that the new patch and jersey would be unveiled, along with all of the plans to celebrate the 85th anniversary throughout the 2011-2012 season.

        To put all this another way, the Rangers’ season ends on April 9, 2011 (and believe me, their season WILL end that day). So you’re saying that celebrating the 85th anniversary of the Rangers during a period of time that ends 85 years plus one month before the Rangers even existed on paper is somehow the right thing to do? I was born in June 1961. Using your logic, I should be celebrating my 50th birthday (i.e. “anniversary of the date of birth”) right around now. Actually, according to your logic, I should have started celebrating my 50th birthday in September of 2010, then continue celebrating up until around May 2011, at which point I stop the celebration a month before my actual 50th birthday.

        • Randy | November 14, 2010 at 12:59 am |

          An attempt at simplification for those who refuse to get it. (And please allow me to ignore the lockout season for this exercise.)

          The Rangers were founded in 1926. That was their first season. The 1927 season was their first anniversary season. 2026 will not be their 100th anniversary season, 2027 will.

          Also, the New Millennium started in 2001.

  • Pat | November 13, 2010 at 1:22 pm |

    On another subject I heard you describe BFBS on the NFL network program as a team wearing black when it wasn’t part of their color scheme. Now I’m not always a fan of black jerseys but why would Philadelphia having a black alt(which I know they don’t have anymore) be considered bfbs if black is an accent color on their normal jerseys? Stanford’s black jerseys I totally understand but if black
    is already an accent color then how can it be bfbs? I’m just curious as to the logic behind that because I didn’t see how a team with black as an accent already be considered bfbs.

    • Teebz | November 13, 2010 at 1:41 pm |

      Have you ever visited this blog before?

      I must say “welcome” since it appears this is your first time here.

  • Pat | November 13, 2010 at 1:55 pm |

    I now see the light. I totally agree with your argument Ll Phil. I do get that they are just jerseys and it is a hype machine. As far as the war motif I get it that it can be offensive to some. I get there are a lot of people that were deeply effected by Katrina(which happens to be my wife’s name but that is another subject entirely). However, I don’t see how having a giant wave graphic in the background is offensive. If we went with that line of thinking then it would be a slippery slope as to what wasn’t offensive anymore. I mean thousands of people die every year in car wrecks but if I put a speeding vehicle in the background of a graphic I shouldn’t have to worry that people would be offended. You know the easiest way to get rid of offense is to simply not be offended. To understand that people don’t always know or understand what we’ve been through personally and that sometimes people can just be plain ignorant, rude or stupid frees us up to not judge people by what they say or do. That being said I 100% agree that it is simply a hype tactic. The companies are looking for ways to produce more jerseys that they can sell to make more profit and that sometimes those companies can be insensitive to deeply important issues of others. I can see now that you’re (probably) not a Nike hater. Ok you’re not a Nike hater. You can’t be if you love those beautiful Oregon jerseys. I was at their game last week and I have to admit those ninja all blacks were pretty slick.

    • George N. | November 13, 2010 at 2:16 pm |

      I think it’s all about the context. A tidal wave in the background of a Nike Crimson Tide Pro Combat ad? Not a big deal. That same tidal wave in the background of, say, an LSU Pro Combat ad? Or a Nike Va Tech Pro Combat ad with a guy holding a gun? If that’s your handiwork, look in your inbox for that “please see me in my office NOW” e-mail from your boss and get ready to be escorted out by security at the end of that meeting. Thank you for your service, we’ll mail your stuff to you.

      SOME things will always be hurtful to SOME portion of society. That’s unavoidable. Then there are the lines that just should not be crossed. I think Nike’s marketing skews more toward the former than the latter.

      • LI Phil | November 13, 2010 at 2:30 pm |


        ivan wasn’t deadly enough for me to be upset

        i guess it’s ok for miama too (hey they ARE the hurricanes)

        i’m sorry, but i know people who lived through andrew and i’m pretty sure they’re never going to forget it or will “stay” when the NHC says “go”(one woman with whom i worked was not a native floridian, but was there on vacation with her boyfriend…she was so petrified by andrew that she will never go back to florida — even during non-hurricane season)

        i get that “death sells” and that we all want to appear “fearless, tough, warriorlike” … certainly the ratings for the NCAA’s flag football aren’t charting — we like to see hitting, bone crunching, helmet-to-helmet, “i will kill you” “im a fuckin soldier” testosterone-infused COMBAT…wait…did i just buy into the hype? holy shit, it’s working

        hey…again…im not opposed to advertising…if you want to make a caffeinated alcoholic beverage that looks like a can of soda, you probably won’t be shocked to find out that it appeals to 18 year olds

        just don’t be surprised to find that some people might not think it’s such a good idea and will call you on it

      • jdreyfuss | November 13, 2010 at 2:40 pm |

        I don’t even know if it would be offensive in the back of an LSU ad if LSU had Tulane’s team names. It’s all about context. Even the WVU one wouldn’t be as bad if they were the Miners.

        • jdreyfuss | November 13, 2010 at 2:52 pm |

          I should probably say that the WVU one would still be tasteless no matter what, but at least Nike could point to it and say “This makes some sense.”

          Same with the Ohio State ad, but then how do you make something badass out of a chestnut?

        • LI Phil | November 13, 2010 at 2:58 pm |

          ” how do you make something badass out of a chestnut?”

          and you have to because…?

          a hundred year old (more or less) rivalry with michigan isn’t ENOUGH? and how will they top this next year?

          /tis paul’s *one way ratchet* (such an apt descriptor) firmly at work

        • jdreyfuss | November 13, 2010 at 3:30 pm |

          I’m not saying they should have put the war background up. I said it was tasteless. However, I do see Nike’s line of reasoning, even if that line is skewed.

          They should have put an image of Woody Hayes in the background. That would have been more badass and appropriate at the same time.

  • thom | November 13, 2010 at 1:58 pm |

    i HATE the nyr as much as anyone but they got this jersey right. although i don’t know about the retired numbers thing. that seems stupid. maybe just a “1926” on the back collar and skip the inside one but other than that good job you @#$%!

    jim vilk’s logo idea is cool except maybe 1 tweak, replace the dome with maybe a half baseball os something we could decide on later?

  • Matt Lesser | November 13, 2010 at 2:19 pm |

    As an Equipment Manager for the Crimson Tide, I can tell you that today’s jerseys are NOT NNOB.

    Roll Tide.


    • George | November 13, 2010 at 3:13 pm |

      “Roll Tide”. Oh yes, the Tide will roll until he gets bored and enticed by another job. At which point Nick Saban will swear up and down that the rumors are all false and he bleeds Alabama crimson.

      And then a few days later you’ll be watching him on ESPN being introduced by his new school or whatever pro team was stupid enough to buy into his spiel.

      You have been warned.

  • Pat | November 13, 2010 at 2:19 pm |

    So exclusive contracts like Adidas has with the MLS, NBA, NFL & NHL(through their Reebok arm). Yeah so Adidas isn’t part of the evil machine too. Get real.

    • Teebz | November 13, 2010 at 2:31 pm |

      The NHL is exclusively Reebok for all on-ice uniforms. Adidas has nothing to do with the NHL’s look.

      • Inkracer | November 13, 2010 at 11:13 pm |

        Except that, as Pat as pointed out, Adidas owns Reebok…

  • Pat | November 13, 2010 at 2:37 pm |

    Reebok is owned by adidas!

  • Chris | November 13, 2010 at 2:46 pm |

    Did anyone watch the ManU-Aston Villa match this morning? It was early, and my eyes were still a little weary, but I swear that one of the ManU players had no name or number on the back of his jersey. He looked to be a right wing or midfielder.

  • Pat | November 13, 2010 at 2:47 pm |

    The “it’s a profit motive” isn’t a justification of their actions but simply an explanation of behavior. I personally never intended to use that argument as a justification for what they did, but only as a glimpse into the logic behind their actions. It wasn’t a stamp of approval on what they are doing. It was a way to explain why they were doing what they were doing

    • Paul Lukas | November 13, 2010 at 3:00 pm |

      Yeah, but that implies that there are no people involved — people with brains and consciences and morality and responsibility. The company isn’t some sort of brainless organism blindly sucking up profit like a dog tracking a scent — it’s run by people, and people are civic entities.

      Is the profit motive a window into corporate behavior? I suppose, although that seems a bit “duh” to me. In any event, leaving it at that, and not seeing that there’s more to the picture, strikes me as a woefully incomplete way of assessing things.

      • Richard | November 13, 2010 at 3:34 pm |

        People working for any group are paid to achieve the ends of the organization, so those goals tend to drown out individual viewpoints. Someone in Nike can validly say something is in poor taste, but if someone else has a spreadsheet that shows that their marketing angle sells shirts, spreadsheet girl wins over conscience guy because it fits the goal of the company (and expectation of the shareholders). When conscience guy can show that being understated and tasteful will sell as well or better, he’ll win.

        Seems to me the goal of criticism is to contribute to an environment that stacks the deck in favor of the more tasteful option.

        My consumer goal, when I can follow it, is to reward the better product and more tasteful advertising efforts.

        • Paul Lukas | November 13, 2010 at 3:45 pm |

          >>Seems to me the goal of criticism is to contribute to an environment that stacks the deck in favor of the more tasteful option.<< Beautifully put -- thank you! I'm probably gonna end up quoting that a lot (and will also try to live up to its precepts).

        • LI Phil | November 13, 2010 at 4:20 pm |

          “When conscience guy can show that being understated and tasteful will sell as well or better, he’ll win.”

          another gem — of course that will be a cold day in hell, but well put, sir

          and that really does speak pretty much to the entire heart of this argument

        • RS Rogers | November 13, 2010 at 6:20 pm |

          There’s something of an irony in today’s discussion: Standing up for standards of taste and conscience in the face of market pressures is, or anyway used to be, the fundamental basis of conservatism. By using the “warrior” iconography, Nike is cheapening the idea of actual military service, and by doing so denigrating that service. Which, fine, they have a right to do, and if they can make money doing it, they have that right too. But conservatism holds (or used to, anyway) that values and standards matter more than profit or expediency. It is a conservative insight (or was, anyway) that can and ought are two different things, and ought is the proper guide for human conduct, even and especially our conduct as economic actors.

          Which is to say, the critiques that Paul and Phil have offered of the Pro Combat campaign are fundamentally conservative critiques. And the pro-corporate, if-it-sells-it’s-OK or if-we-can-find-one-veteran-who-doesn’t-care-then-why-are-you-complaining defenses offered in response would have been regarded by any of the giants of the American conservative tradition as radically anarchic or even nihilistic thinking; either a suspension of all value judgment or an application of the fuzziest situational ethics.

        • Jim Vilk | November 13, 2010 at 8:02 pm |

          “When conscience guy can show that being understated and tasteful will sell as well or better, he’ll win.”
          another gem – of course that will be a cold day in hell, but well put, sir

          Doesn’t Nike try to do that with the SoD? Well, the top half of it, anyway…

  • Jim Vilk | November 13, 2010 at 3:21 pm |

    MISL season started last night, featuring the return of the Comets.
    The Missouri Comets came out with sponsor-less jerseys last night versus the Time Warner…I mean…Milwaukee Wave.
    The back of the jerseys reminded me of Chelsea or some other EPL team.

    Not as flashy as the old KC Comets,
    but I’ll take it.

  • Pat | November 13, 2010 at 3:23 pm |

    As far as it being a woefully incomplete way of assessing things I would disagree. The premise is that Nike is making these jerseys simply to make money, which in all actuality is what they are doing. The reality that they do that doesn’t exclude them from being socially conscious, but their motivation is to make money. Again I was assessing their “behavior” and not the merits of their reasoning. Their reasoning can be entirely wrong but they still behave the way they do as a corporation because ultimately their success is determined by their monetary value. Is that right, no! No one should be viewed as a success based upon their monetary value. Phil Knight has no more value as a person than the homeless person on the street. The profit margin is simply the way that most giant corporations assess the value of decisions that they make. It doesn’t make it right, it is just the reality of things.

  • JTH | November 13, 2010 at 4:03 pm |

    I enjoy traditional looking jerseys as much as the next guy but all the newer stuff is ok as long as you embrace it.

    “If it’s inevitable, just relax and enjoy it.”

    – Clayton Williams

  • jdreyfuss | November 13, 2010 at 5:16 pm |

    Auburn-Georgia looks pretty good. 5+1 good.

  • Glenn | November 13, 2010 at 5:18 pm |

    Miles Burress from San Diego State missing the logo/decal on the right side of his helmet against TCU here .

  • Shaun | November 13, 2010 at 7:03 pm |

    Am I the only one who thinks that Virginia Tech need to switch to the throwback helmet full time? It just doesn’t look right with that uni set, plus they have the old VT on their collars but the new one on the helmet. Just doesn’t make sense.

  • aflfan | November 13, 2010 at 7:21 pm |

    Jimmy Howard is official playing with his new mask tonight. He used it late in Thursday game when his old mask had a problem but this is his first full game with it.

  • K. McInnis | November 13, 2010 at 7:44 pm |

    Is it just my TV speakers, or are there 101000 robots in attendance at the ALA-MISS ST. game? The broadcast sounds awful when it gets loud. I didn’t know there was such a large Cylon contingency in Tuscaloosa?

  • aflfan | November 13, 2010 at 7:48 pm |

    I like Oregon’s uniforms tonight. Cal’s on the other hand, not so much.

    • LI Phil | November 13, 2010 at 8:09 pm |



      good thing i looked for this game, because i never even realized versus carried NCAA football

      cal unis? meh…i thought the ducks were playing the miners…er, mountaineers…at first glance

    • Brad | November 13, 2010 at 9:32 pm |

      Is this the 2nd time they’ve worn these unis? I thought Oregon never wore the same combo twice in a season?

      • LI Phil | November 13, 2010 at 9:41 pm |

        nope — take a look-see

        thus far they’ve worn:





        so tonight’s white-white-green has not been worn before

        • Jim Vilk | November 13, 2010 at 10:27 pm |

          With 2,456 possible combinations, it better not have been worn before…

    • Jim Vilk | November 13, 2010 at 10:55 pm |
  • LI Phil | November 13, 2010 at 7:52 pm |

    bama’s unis look pretty good (as i knew they would)

    unnecessary, of course…but as far as unis go…they look aight

    • aflfan | November 13, 2010 at 7:59 pm |

      At least from a distance you can’t really tell they are much different.

    • Gusto44 | November 13, 2010 at 8:06 pm |

      Bama does have those traditional uniforms, which have served the Tide well over the years. That said, a tasteful upgrade would be the addition of the Bama “A” on the sleeve portion of the home and road unis.

  • DanKing | November 13, 2010 at 8:01 pm |

    I’m watching Lakewood St Ed’s v Cleveland Glenville in the Ohio football playoffs and St Ed’s has multiple helmet stripe looks. Some are all green, some have a green-white-green stripe, and others have green-white-green with the white off center. Sorry, no pics.

    • jdreyfuss | November 13, 2010 at 10:21 pm |

      That’s surprising from a powerhouse school like St. Ed’s. That’s almost as bad as if their wrestling team were all wearing different singlets.

  • traxel | November 13, 2010 at 8:50 pm |

    Oh my, JTH. Did I see that score correctly?

  • hastingd | November 13, 2010 at 9:01 pm |

    I was watching the Michigan – Purdue game earlier today and noticed Mike Martin, D Lineman for Michigan wearing a Nike jacket. Must have been from a couple of years ago. Not sure why it is still floating around.

    That’s not from today’s game, but that was the jacket he was wearing.

  • hastingd | November 13, 2010 at 9:07 pm |

    While watching the Michigan – Purdue game this afternoon, I noticed that Mike Martin, DT for Michigan, was wearing a nike jacket on the sidelines. Not sure why it was floating around since they are now an Adidas school.

    There’s the jacket he was wearing so it looks like this is not the first time.

  • Ed from Dallas | November 13, 2010 at 9:17 pm |

    Is BFBS ok if both teams have the same color scheme? (Purple & Gold) That was the case for my school’s game today. (Prairie View vs Alcorn St)

    • Mike Engle | November 13, 2010 at 9:19 pm |

      JMHO, but no. Purple v white, or purple v gold–both viable alternatives.

  • solidzac | November 13, 2010 at 9:39 pm |

    Let me say at the outset that I largely agree with UniWatch’s general viewpoint on the subject of the Pro Combat series and similarly themed uniforms. I find them distasteful at best, offensive at worst and ugly at all times. I would just like to point out, however, that the presentation of these viewpoints, as well as the ensuing debate around them, is becoming increasingly shrill and combative. I expect largely anonymous internet commenters to behave that way, but it’s starting to become frustrating to see Paul Lukas, Phil, and the others who run the site stooping to the level of antagonistic trolls. Guys, we know your opinions on the subject. As I said, I agree with you. But the tone of this discussion, which, really, hardly matters for the most part is making the site difficult to enjoy.

  • BuckeyeChief | November 13, 2010 at 9:46 pm |

    14+ year Military vet…just my .02 cents, but I remember as kid during the Gulf War when all the NCAA teams put the American Flag patch on their jerseys as a show of support…same thing for a bunch of teams after September 11th. I always thought it was cool and respectful…I am customizing a running singlet with an American flag, Chief patch and command patch and I will post when completed.
    Also, as a Buckeye fan, I HATE their pro-combat uni’s, both this years and last years…at least this year’s is based on a prior uniform, but I will in no way buy a jersey. The gloves are cool though and I may buy a pair.

  • navyam | November 13, 2010 at 10:35 pm |

    has anyone seen long beach states basketball uniforms? this is the first time i have seen them… the uniform its self is nice. but my huge gripe is the text “the beach” is plastered on the front… does annoyign else find that annoying…

    • Jim Vilk | November 13, 2010 at 10:45 pm |

      I could live with that. Love the number font, too. The fact that they’re a System of Dress school bugs me more.

      Man, with all that white space, the swoosh logo really stands out. Aaaaah, NOW I see why they design those unis that way…

    • traxel | November 13, 2010 at 11:33 pm |

      Make perfect sense if their mascot is the Beach. The Long Beach State Beach. Otherwise, failure.

  • DP | November 13, 2010 at 11:20 pm |

    I don’t know why, but I have found myself watching the Sacramento/Omaha UFL game. I am quite distracted by the lack of Sacramento’s gold on helmets and jerseys not matching. They’re not even close.

  • Michael Koch | November 14, 2010 at 12:45 am |

    Anybody out there watching Fresno St/Nevada know what that little logo is on the sideline at the 50? Looks like it says 100 Years but it’s not too legible

  • Sang Digirolamo | November 14, 2010 at 1:40 am |

    Dude, that was a good post. Lovin your blog like crazy.”

  • kyle. | November 14, 2010 at 1:54 am |

    i was talking about oregon’s uniforms with a friend who used to play at usc and he said he was in favor of the million combinations because it meant the players got more jerseys to keep. he wished sc would have had more uniforms so he could have more souvenirs from his season as a backup kicker.

  • Jonathon Wildermuth | November 14, 2010 at 1:44 pm |

    Fantastic article! I definitely concur.

  • Carlton Bonnoitt | November 14, 2010 at 3:24 pm |

    Fantastic blog

  • Josh | November 14, 2010 at 3:33 pm |

    This is a great blog. Im glad I came across onto it. Have a good day mate!

  • Malcolm Wardian | November 14, 2010 at 7:23 pm |

    Wonderful posts & Good a site….