Fridays With Morris

Miami Marlins

[Editor’s Note: Morris Levin will be contributing an article each Friday while Paul takes his break. Enjoy! ”” Phil Hecken]

“No, I just meant Miami….. what did you just say?”
By Morris Levin

The Phillies host the San Diego Padres tonight at 7:05pm at Citizens Bank Park and will wear 1984 turn back the clock uniforms. I told Phil I would write an entry about the Phillies’ gradients of red and maroon to coincide with tonight’s game. Thinking about 1984 however led me to think about the 1980s and one idea led to another and there I was in Miami and it was 1989. It was either the Marlins or Orwell.

(If you just want to read about the Phillies, skip down to the Phillies logo).

The Florida Marlins plan to move into a new ballpark next season. The ballpark is being constructed on the site of the Orange Bowl which, while known as a football venue, was home to the AAA International League’s Miami Marlins in the 1950s. With their move from [I’m just calling it] Dolphins Stadium to the new ballpark in 2012, the Marlins will rename themselves the Miami Marlins.

The Marlins are leaving a stadium that we consider ill-suited for baseball today but which Miami Dolphins owner Joe Robbie’s construction with baseball specifically in-mind enabled the Marlins existence as a Major League franchise. The Dolphins had played at the Orange Bowl since their 1966 inception. They left for Robbie’s new football stadium, which he built for the Dolphins, but in such a way as to be adaptable for a Major League Baseball team. This was in 1985. Robbie succeeded and Miami, along with Denver, were awarded National League franchises to begin play in 1993.

Thinking about the Marlins led me to thinking what someone would have made of these contemporary changes back when the stadium was built in the 80s. This led me to think about Back to the Future Part II because it came out in 1989, looked to 2015, and brought to the wider public the possibility of Miami Major League baseball. Now here we are in 2011, looking towards 2012, which means that 2015, if all goes according to plan, will be here in three plus years.

The film is not generally considered a sports film although Gray’s Sports Almanac, and the correction of the dystopian 1985 created by Biff’s sports-gambling profits, drives the plot and has plenty for the Uni Watcher to deconstruct.

Let us review: The film was the second installment of a planned three-part Back to the Future trilogy. The original film was released in July 1985 and took Marty McFly from 1985 Southern California back to 1955 in a flux capacitor-modified DeLorean DMC-12. The second film was released for Thanksgiving 1989 and commences in October 1985, where the first film ended.

In Part II, Doc Brown brings Marty and Jennifer thirty-years into the future to 2015 to rectify a future family problem. But in 2015, Biff discovers the Delorean, steals it to travel back to 1955 to give his teenage self a 1950 to 2000 sports almanac thereby creating an alternative 1985. Therefore, Marty and Doc have to travel back to November 12, 1955 to correct the disruption in the time-continuum from which Doc is transported to 1885. Exeunt.

As Marty is walking through 2015 Hill Valley, (around 21:00 in the film for those keeping score at home), a hologram video reports that the Chicago Cubs have swept Miami in five games to win the 2015 World Series. It is October 21 after all in the film, World Series time.

From a baseball fan’s point of view in 1989, this was serious sports predictions: Cubs winning the World Series, placement of team in Miami, and even a new Miami team logo!

The film’s production and release coincided with significant progression in the placement of a Major League expansion team in Miami. Many expected a team by the 1990s, giving ample credence to the idea of future Miami Major League team.

In July 1985, Miami Dolphins owner Joe Robbie had announced that he would pursue a Major League Baseball expansion team to share the new stadium planned for the Miami Dolphins in Dade County. By November 1985, Robbie had appeared before commissioner Peter Ueberroth and baseball’s Long Range Planning Committee on behalf of bringing an expansion franchise to Miami. Through the late 1980s, talk of baseball expansion was of Denver, St. Petersburg, Buffalo, Washington, DC, and Miami. In 1990, Wayne Huizenga purchased fifteen percent of the Dolphins and set himself to bring an MLB team to Dolphins Stadium. In June 1991, Huizenga won approval for his group to place a team in Miami to begin play in 1993.

On the 2015 hologram news, the Miami team is represented by an alligator. This is difficult to imagine given the University of Florida’s identification with the mascot since at least 1920, if not earlier. In July 1991, a month after being awarded the franchise, Huizenga announced the team would be called the “Florida Marlins” combining the state’s identity with the historic name of Miami’s top professional baseball clubs. When the Marlins move to their new ballpark next season in 2012, the team plans to change its name back to the Miami Marlins. (Dear Baseball-Gods, Please bless and direct Mr. Loria to change the team’s uniforms to this and this for the 2012 season. Guide Mr. Loria by your stadium lights that he miss not this historic opportunity to embrace Miami’s baseball past and instantly have a classic uniform. Thank you and baseball gods bless, Morris)

On the occasion last October of the Universal Studios release of a new remastered Back to the Future trilogy set, Gawker.TV reviewed Part II’s predictions about 2015, “14 Things from Back to the Future II That Actually Came True, and 5 That Haven’t — Yet”

That the Cubs could win the Series in 2015 perhaps seemed just as likely in 1989 as the Red Sox, Cleveland, or White Sox winning. It would have been hard for many baseball fans to believe that by 2011, the Red Sox would have won two World Series or the White Sox their first since 1917. Despite the continued proliferation of folk legends in 2011, the Cubs have not yet not-won the 2015 World Series and stranger things have happened in the post-season than the Chicago Cubs putting together a winning club in four and a half seasons. I am not ready to write off the Cubs’ 2015 season just yet. Cust kayin’.

Under the current Major League Baseball structure, the Cubs would not face Miami in the World Series as referenced in the film. But talk is aflutter about realignments in which we could see such a Series. In the film’s 2015, the Cubs sweep Miami in five which infers a best of nine game series. Major League Baseball played best of nine as recently as 1921.

Of comfort, the 2015 Cubs logo is our contemporary Cubs logo. The team has used this since 1979 in its current weight, and one could argue that it is an evolution of the logo seen on the 1937 home uniform. What the film writers could not have known was that by the film’s release in November 1989, the Cubs would be fresh off a 93-win season, the National League East Division win, and loss in the NLCS, lending greater resonance to the Cubs-finally-win in 2015 gag.

Other sports elements in the film have been previously covered. The self-lacing Nike Air Mag worn by Marty in 2015 had been reviewed in 2008 when Nike released a limited edition style inspired by the film sneaker. In August 2010, Dime reported on Nike efforts to produce the sneaker with an actual self-lacing system. Futurepedia details the Kirk Gibson Jr. Slugger 2000 adjustable bat wielded by Griff in 2015. (A replica is being produced and offered for sale.)

Snopes, in the business of confirming the veracity of internet rumors, easily addressed a false claim that the film had predicted the Florida Marlins’ 1997 World Series victory. Similar rumors arose regarding the Cubs in October 2003 when the Cubs did face Miami’s team in the 2003 National League Championship Series.


phillies logo Back to the Phillies tonight. The team will call themselves the 1984 team and wear uniforms that look more like their 1987 unis. The Padres will wear their 1984 road unis. From 1975 to 1986, the Phillies wore a zipper-front; Majestic’s reproduction substitutes buttons for the zipper. The Phils switched to buttons in 1987, which they have used since. The back of Majestic’s reproduction will have the players’ names in standard arch whereas the team wore vertical arch name until 1986 as well. Paul highlighted the same oversight when the team wore variants on the 1974 uniforms in May in Atlanta.

This is the first time the Phillies will wear retro uniforms at Citizens Bank Park. The Phils wore approximations of their 1971 uniforms for the last home opener at Vet Stadium in April 2003, the last time the team wore throwbacks at home. The Phillies also wore the 1970s-1980s pinstripes during a July 2002 series against the Braves who wore their 1974 unis.

By my count, the Phillies have played seventeen games wearing turn back the clock uniforms since their first in June 1991. The Phils are 1 and 6 at home, and 6 and 4 on the road in retro. The Phillies are 4 and 6 wearing permutations of the 1971 to 1991 uniform; 3 and 2 dressed as pre-1970 Phillies, and 0 and 2 dressed as the Philadelphia Stars.


Morris Levin is an alumnus of Mitchell & Ness Nostalgia Co. between 1993 and 2006 and edited MLB Game Worn Jerseys of the Double Knit Era. He is a proud booster of the Athletic Base Ball Club of Philadelphia and supportive of efforts in West Philadelphia to honor the legacy of the Philadelphia Stars.


Thanks for that wonderful article, Morris. On Fridays during Paul’s sabbatical, Morris will be treating us to an interesting look at a variety of subjects.


Benchies Beginning logoBenchies from the Beginning
By Rick Pearson

For nearly three years, “Benchies” has been appearing most weekends at Uni Watch. While Bench Coach Phil fills in for Paul Monday through Friday during August, we present a retrospective. New strips will continue to appear on weekends. For further background, here’s the “Benchies” backstory and bios on the regular Boys of “Benchies.” Enjoy.

7-22-11 d-pitcher 2

And here is the full-size version.



Friendly reminder: Paul is on his summer break from the site from now until Aug. 8 (although he’ll still be doing ESPN work, which we’ll link to as it comes up). That means there are a few changes regarding where you should be sending e-mails:

• Phil is writing the lead entries while Paul’s away. You can contact him at his usual address.

• The Ticker is now being compiled by webmaster John Ekdahl. You can still send submissions to the uniwatching at gmail address, but they will go to John, not to Paul.

• If you absolutely need to contact Paul during his summer break, the best way is to send a note to his plukas64 at gmail address. But he may take a little while to get back to you, especially during the period from July 16-21.

• Finally, if you hear about any new college football uniforms during Paul’s break, please send that info to this address. Thanks.


ticker 2Uni Watch News Ticker (mostly compiled by John Ekdahl): Baylor has unveiled their new 2011 football uniforms. “The Bears will have two jersey colors (green and white) to choose from, as well as three different colors of pants (green, white and gold) and two helmets (white and gold). All told, Baylor will have 12 different uniform combinations (jersey/pant/helmet) at its disposal this season.” (Tony Baldwin) … Here’s a photo gallery of a vintage baseball game played by 1861 rules in Waltham, MA (Andrew Merritt). … The AHL Grand Rapids Griffins hockey club is holding a design competition for their alternate jersey to be worn during the New Year’s Eve game (Jason Chaimovitch). … Georgia will be wearing new uniforms for their opener against Boise State this year, and they’re staying pretty tight-lipped about the design. Georgia coach Mark Richt: “We’re trying to honor (Nike) by not describing what it looks like, they want to present that. We’re like death threating on the cell phones. ”˜I better not see anything that resembles you saying what it looks like or somehow having an image of it.” (Jameson Adams) … From Dan Graham: “Just wanted to let you know that BYU has redone their floor design in the Marriott Center for basketball. Added was the stretch Y logo at mid-court as well the new West Coast Conference logos.” … Is this the largest last name lettering in baseball history? (Gary Streeting) … Forget the subtly of painting a room pink, Nick Saban is going to come right out and tell you how he feels. Here’s the door to Alabama’s visiting locker room (Ben Traxel). … Kansas State is looking to officially rebrand themselves as “K-State” (Ben Traxel, again). … From Michigan Live: “Michigan State plans to don its ‘fully integrated uniform system’ by Nike against Michigan when the Wolverines visit Spartan Stadium on Oct. 15.” (Cassian Wykes) … The Cleveland Browns will be wearing white uniforms for all their home games this season (Joseph Gerard). … This is not Bert Blyleven looking his best (Jimmy Lonetti). … James Huening wasn’t sure whether anyone was aware of Marlon Byrd’s facemask contraption. As a bonus, here’s a good shot that also features a gazoo. … Dan Cichalski spotted this banner at Shea this past Saturday. The caption? “Stay Classy, New York.” … Shaun Tunick asks, “Any idea what the writing on O-Dog’s wrist wrap is for?” … Late breaking news? Saw this posted on Twitter late last night: “Winnipeg Jets new color scheme: White, black and steel blue. Source is one of the guys repainting MTS Centre.” White, black & steel blue? Say it ain’t so.


And that’s all for this week folks. Thanks to Johnny Ek for the ticker, Morris Levin for today’s main article, and all the great guests who helped me this week. If you have an idea for a UW article, give me a shout. John will take you through the weekend, and I’ll see you guys and gals on Monday. Have a great weekend!


“I’m no Luddite (well, not a total one anyway), but I just don’t see technology solving the problem.” — Jim Vilk

190 comments to Fridays With Morris

  • Steve | July 22, 2011 at 7:37 am |

    I’m kind of impressed by the use of the Philadelphia Union logo in the Mets banner photo. Surprised to see an MLS logo used by MLB fans!

    • Mike | July 22, 2011 at 9:07 am |

      That was the first thought that crossed my mind. Weird.

    • JimWa | July 22, 2011 at 12:59 pm |

      If I took the time to make that, I’d bring it to every flippin’ NY/Philly sporting event I ever caught wind of (and I’m guessing that’d be an easy wind to find).

    • LI Matt | July 23, 2011 at 7:44 am |

      That’s the Viking Army, one of the Red Bulls’ supporter groups. The Red Bulls were away that weekend, so they decided to have an outing at She…err, Citi.

      Dunno how they got the banner through the gate.

  • scott | July 22, 2011 at 8:11 am |

    So the Padres are breaking out their 1983/84 uniforms again tonight? How many times have they worn those this season. It seems the organization likes those turn-back-the-clock uniforms so much that they might as well go back to the taco look on a permanent basis.

    • Morris Levin | July 22, 2011 at 11:05 am |

      The Phillies selected the year; not the Padres. However, the ’84 Padres uniforms do make for an attractive TBTC game.

      • pushbutton | July 22, 2011 at 11:27 am |

        Let’s just remember the ’84 Pads wore button-front shirts.
        …and watch ’em wear pullovers.

        In the future we’ll say, “Hey, the Phillies are wearing their 2011 throwback-to-’84 unis tonight”.

        “That’s cool, but I prefer their 2002 throwback-to-1971 unis!”

        Let’s leave history alone, end the throwback madness and try to make THIS time memorable instead. In other words, PICK A LOOK and stick with it for 162 games.

        • Morris Levin | July 22, 2011 at 12:26 pm |

          Say what you will about the Yankees, and I respect them for wearing the same uni home and road 162-games.

      • pixie horncoffee | July 22, 2011 at 4:07 pm |

        Why would the Phillies throw back to 1984? The Cubs won the eastern division that year. The Phillies won the pennant in ’83, which is also the last year of the Padres’ ubiquitous pullover jerseys I expect them to wear tonight. What’s special about ’84 to the Phillies?

    • Rob H. | July 22, 2011 at 9:20 pm |

      Well, this time the Padres did wear the button-up ’84s (although the ‘RAK’ looks too big.) For the Phils, Madson had some awesome stirrups going in the bullpens.

  • Dumb Guy | July 22, 2011 at 8:19 am |

    “Cubs sweep in five games.” I guess in 2015 there will be a best of 9 series?

    • Rob H. | July 22, 2011 at 9:42 am |

      I’m just glad the World Series ends October 21 in 2015. Especially if it’s a best of nine, you’d figure it’d go into November. Maybe they went back to 154 game schedule?

    • Rob H. | July 22, 2011 at 10:08 am |

      ..and that’s why Bartman went for that foul ball – he knew if the Cubs won the World Series in 2003 it would mess with the space-time continuum, since they hadn’t won it yet since 2015 in the movie. He was a Back To The Future fan.

      • apk3000 | July 22, 2011 at 10:26 am |

        Didn’t they mention it was the 2nd consecutive WS win or something for the Cubs in the movie?

        • Mark in Shiga | July 22, 2011 at 12:14 pm |

          I think they mentioned that the Cubs won despite 100-to-1 odds, so they probably weren’t coming off a 2014 World Championship.

        • Dave Mac | July 22, 2011 at 4:10 pm |

          I love this post. Back to the Future is my favorite movie franchise. I’m kind of hoping the Marlins switch to the AL in realignment to make this World Series a possibility. I’ve been thinking about it for years. And when I found out a few years ago the Marlins would become the “Miami Marlins” I’ve really kept tabs on it.

        • Rob H. | July 22, 2011 at 4:17 pm |

          yeah, now if we can just get to work on the flying cars thing

  • Ricko | July 22, 2011 at 8:34 am |

    For those who liked the Goldsboro Goldbugs jersey, the hat’s now available from Ebbets, too (among a number of new offereings)…

  • Mike Edgerly | July 22, 2011 at 8:36 am |

    No, don’t call it Dolphins Stadium, still call it “Joe Robbie”!!

    • Dumb Guy | July 22, 2011 at 1:16 pm |

      I still call it LardShark.

      • walter | July 22, 2011 at 5:03 pm |

        Don’t you mean Lard Shank?

  • Tony C. | July 22, 2011 at 8:43 am |

    dear Mike Eggers,

    The Browns don’t need a logo on their helmets or a new uniform set. oh and when you get a chance, please look up the word “tradition”.

    • The Jeff | July 22, 2011 at 9:15 am |

      Right, because Cleveland has such a proud tradition of winning over the past 40 years. Er…wait…

      Even if you count all of their pre-superbowl championships, they’ve only won 1 of them in their current brown-white-brown striped helmet. Hell, it’s not like they’ve even had an unchanged uniform the whole time. The facemask has went from gray to white and back… they’ve worn orange pants, brown pants, experimented with different striping, orange alt jerseys… and they (officially) blinked out of existence for 3 seasons. What the heck makes no helmet logo such a “proud” tradition?

      • LI Phil | July 22, 2011 at 9:22 am |

        i applaud the browns tradition simply because it bugs THE so much

        well done, clevo

        • The Jeff | July 22, 2011 at 9:33 am |

          The Mets black jerseys sure are awesome looking.


        • StLMarty | July 22, 2011 at 10:27 am |

          I love devo.

        • LI Phil | July 22, 2011 at 12:15 pm |

          are we not men?

      • Andy | July 22, 2011 at 9:33 am |

        Because they have never, and will never have one, and they’re the only team that can say that. 4 AAFC and 4 NFL championships with a logoless helmet is something to be proud of in my eyes, The.

        • The Jeff | July 22, 2011 at 9:47 am |

          Like I said, *1* of those was in their current helmet design. Five of them were in white helmets, and being logoless wasn’t exactly distinctive in that era. In the modern era of everyone else having logos, they haven’t really had a lot of success.

        • Ricko | July 22, 2011 at 9:55 am |

          So, like Penn State, the Browns are TOO unique?

          Yah, they should fix that.

          Especially because, y’know, traditon is based on winning.

        • The Jeff | July 22, 2011 at 10:09 am |

          Ricko, any tradition worth holding on to should have a reason behind it. With sports, that should mean actually accomplishing something in that uniform. Hell, I think any team who can’t win a championship in say, 30, 35, 40 (pick a number) years should have to change their uniform.

          And I feel that if helmets are to be used to identify teams, then yes, they should all have logos on them. No one above low budget high school level should be blank. No one. A blank helmet is just clip art. A blank helmet is used on unlicensed items. HDTV box art… 70’s football cards… generic “football” kids stuff. It ain’t an identity.

        • StLMarty | July 22, 2011 at 10:35 am |

          “And I feel that if helmets are to be used to identify teams, then yes, they should all have logos on them.”

          Why can’t the helmet itself be used to identify their team?
          The Rams, Eagles, and Bengals don’t exactly have helmet logos that can stand on their own. Shoot, I don’t think the Chargers or Vikings have have them either. Therefore, those are the teams that have alternate logos for broadcasts, print, merchandise, etc.
          One team with no logo on the helmet is a very good thing.

        • The Jeff | July 22, 2011 at 10:53 am |

          How are ram horns, wings and tiger stripes not team identifying logos? I’m not saying that you need to have your name printed on your helmet, but you should have something. A blank orange helmet is just a blank orange helmet.

          Even then… if blank is somehow still an identity…shouldn’t the BROWNS have a BROWN helmet? With all the white at home, they wear more white & orange than they do brown. I mean, if we’re going to bitch about the Blue Devils wearing black…

        • Craig D | July 22, 2011 at 11:00 am |

          This team was not named for the color brown. So the argument that they should be more brown than anything else is moot. Stanford’s nickname isn’t for a bird, so a tree as a mascot is no big deal.

          If Duke’s nickname came from a fellow named Robert Bluedevil then they could use whatever color they damn well please. But they weren’t. They chose to be Blue Devils. As in the color blue.

        • The Jeff | July 22, 2011 at 11:16 am |

          …and I’m sure Browns fans love being reminded that their namesake went on to cut all ties with the team and founded the Bengals.

          …or they can retroactively claim Jim Brown…who just happened to openly support the Ravens when they went to the Super Bowl.

          I dunno… If I’m Cleveland I think maybe embracing the color might not be such a bad idea.

        • Craig D | July 22, 2011 at 11:33 am |

          Their namesake was unceremoniously fired and did not choose to leave. He was and will always be considered a Brown.

          Name one former all time great that DIDN’T do something to potentially piss off their old team’s fan base. They are almost always still revered and accepted by that fan base.

          Sometimes tradition is for tradition’s sake. Nothing more. That is 99% of any college’s traditions. Sometimes something becomes tradition because the fans universally embrace it. Because it feels good. It doesn’t have to tie to anything.

          Also, how many NFL teams that redesigned their unis actually UPgraded as opposed to DOWNgraded over the last 20 years. Think about it. Of all the uniform changes teams have made, overwhelming support is for those that bring back an old look. The new designs that dont recall past designs generally get bad reviews (see Jacksonville, Cincinnati, Philadelphia, et al).

          The Browns have a good uniform. It works for them and the fans. It is unique in it’s color scheme and the lack of logo on the helmet.

        • StLMarty | July 22, 2011 at 12:36 pm |

          “A blank orange helmet is just a blank orange helmet.”
          Why can’t “blank” be something?
          You are choosing every team having a logo against one team not having one.
          And I have to be honest… I have never worn Zubaz.

      • Tony C. | July 22, 2011 at 9:50 am |

        Tradition doesnt have to be solely based on wins or losses. Tradition gives you a sense of identity. Then again we live in a sports culture in which teams change their uni sets more often then their fans change their underwear. like you mentioned that the team was blinked out of existence for 3 seasons, yet the fans and the city fought and won the rights to keep the identity. so why would the team just throw all that away just conform to the rest of the league. what greater good will come the team putting a logo on the side of their helmet? “what the heck makes no helmet logo such a “proud”(like the addition of that since i never used that word)?”

        while we are at it, why don’t we slap logos the helmets for OSU, PSU, and ND while we are at it.. and we can’t forget to slap another logo on the right side of the steeler helmet.

        • Ry Co 40 | July 22, 2011 at 10:00 am |

          “like you mentioned that the team was blinked out of existence for 3 seasons, yet the fans and the city fought and won the rights to keep the identity. so why would the team just throw all that away just conform to the rest of the league”

          white… black… and steel blue… *sigh*

      • Tony C. | July 22, 2011 at 10:00 am |

        since when did changing the color of a facemask become a huge helmet redesign??

      • Tony C. | July 22, 2011 at 10:16 am |

        i am astounded by your reasoning.

        • Bernard | July 22, 2011 at 10:38 am |

          “The Jeff: Throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks and/or riles the crowd since 2008.”

          Next, Ricko will somehow tie all of this to video games.

        • Ricko | July 22, 2011 at 10:45 am |

          Only if he’d said something like,
          “If we count a team’s pre-video game Super Bowl championships.”

      • Craig D | July 22, 2011 at 10:20 am |

        The fans love this look. That is no secret. When they were awarded an expansion/replacement team, they looked into logos and all that. The vast majority wanted the team to look just like they did before. We love the look. It is generally voted as one of the best unis in the NFL (although it occasionally gets voted among the worst). The pumpkin on the head IS the identity. Most of the older fans (50-70) grew up with white jerseys at home and orange helmets. Jim Brown’s Browns. THAT is the look we love and want to stick with. It’s comfort food. Meatloaf and mashed potatoes may not have a lot of flair or be all that good for you, but DAMMIT it tastes good! That’s what the Browns are, meatloaf and mashed potatoes.

        Now I want meatloaf and mashed potatoes.

        (disclaimer: I’m 40 and grew up straddling Sipe’s orange pants and Kosar’s all white look…I like em both)

        • chuck | July 22, 2011 at 7:08 pm |

          great post Craig D.! Wish we could get one of those thumbs up or down figures and place it to the right of all posts!

      • Craig D | July 22, 2011 at 10:36 am |

        “Even if you count all of their pre-superbowl championships”

        Why the hell WOULDN’T you count their pre-Super Bowl chamionships? The term Super Bowl is just a name for the NFL Championship Game, of which the Browns have won four.

        Not that this in any way affects your logo stance, but I get tired of people acting like the NFL didn’t exist before the Super Bowl.

        • Tony C. | July 22, 2011 at 10:53 am |

          well judging by his comments alone.. he has a total disregard for history and is an “what have you done for me lately” type person

      • walter | July 22, 2011 at 4:00 pm |

        If the fans hate your uniform – KEEP IT. If the fans love your uniform – KEEP IT. If the team loses – KEEP IT. If the team wins – KEEP IT. Detect a trend? The uniform is your flag, and hopefully enough thought was put into it so it means something.

        • pushbutton | July 22, 2011 at 4:21 pm |

          Post of the year nomination.

    • Joseph Gerard | July 22, 2011 at 10:02 pm |

      True that. I was the one that emailed Phil about this story that had somehow flown under-the-radar. (I myself picked it off of Wikipedia.) As a Steelers fan, I do have to admit that the Browns wearing white at home looks better. And I’m sure to Clevelanders, the best Browns-Steelers moment with the Browns wearing white at home was when Joe “Turkey” Jones suplexed Terry Bradshaw and broke his neck.

  • traxel | July 22, 2011 at 8:47 am |

    Mark Richt: “We’re trying to honor (Nike) by not describing what it looks like, they want to present that.”


    • Rob H. | July 22, 2011 at 9:45 am |

      it must really suck

    • DZ | July 22, 2011 at 10:45 am |
      • Tony C. | July 22, 2011 at 10:47 am |

        i really hope OSU keeps with their retro theme for their Pro Combat Unis

      • coogrfan | July 22, 2011 at 12:01 pm |

        That cannot be real…can it?

      • Kerry P | July 22, 2011 at 12:20 pm |

        I too have seen that image out there…for the sake of the Georgia fans, I really hope that’s not legit.

      • Silver Creek Doug | July 22, 2011 at 5:28 pm |

        Uh… NO.

        Down here in Dawg country, we think it will be either this one…

        or this one…

        I’m personally hoping for the first one, as it’s the 1942 NC uniform.

  • StLMarty | July 22, 2011 at 9:08 am |

    That DeLorean has a part in that 29 min. Beasties’ movie.

  • Luther Mahoney | July 22, 2011 at 9:15 am |

    Love the Browns’ decision to wear white at home this season.

    • scott | July 22, 2011 at 9:25 am |

      Maybe it’s because of the era I grew up in, but the Browns in white at home definitely feels right.

    • LarryB | July 22, 2011 at 9:13 pm |

      Kind of cool idea. They do look good in the whites. But I think I prefer the brown.

      Now the brown jerseys will be a rarity?

  • Luther Mahoney | July 22, 2011 at 9:19 am |

    Love the Browns’decision to wear white this season but,let’s
    hope the brown pants are permanently gone.

    • Tony C. | July 22, 2011 at 9:52 am |

      i love the all white look for the Browns.. it’s one of the better sets in all of the NFL imo(then again being a Browns fan that’s a bit biased of an opinion)

      • Ry Co 40 | July 22, 2011 at 9:57 am |

        nah, i’m a steelers fan and i have to agree. the browns look great in white

        • Tony C. | July 22, 2011 at 9:59 am |

          as long as they stay away from an all brown look i am happy

    • Craig D | July 22, 2011 at 10:24 am |

      The brown pants seemed to be a Mangini thing. Shurmur seems more cut from the Schottenheimer cloth. If the Browns ever do any alternate looks it should be either the Kardiac Kids brown over orange or the Otto Graham snowmen look.

  • JohnnyB | July 22, 2011 at 9:48 am |

    I wish the Phillies would just admit that these are not throwbakcs at all. Call them an homage to the 80’s or something, but throwbacks to a particular year? Give me a break. No zippers, no vertical arch, wrong font, etc., etc. All done in the pajama style. Enough already. They just look stupid.

    • Mark in Shiga | July 22, 2011 at 10:51 am |

      Agreed, and while the ’80s home uniforms are great, the powder blue ’80s road uniforms are even more iconic. They should be doing this on the road more often!

      • scott | July 22, 2011 at 11:16 am |

        To me, the image of Tug McGraw leaping for joy, wearing a Phillies home white, pinstriped jersey, at the end of Game 6 of the 1980 World Series is far more iconic than anything that ever happened in a Phillies powder blue uniform. The only potentially comparable iconic image in which a player was wearing the powder blues was Schmidt hitting is 500th homer at Three Rivers.

        • Mark in Shiga | July 22, 2011 at 12:24 pm |

          See, I remember Schmidt hitting his 500th homer but am not quite old enough to remember Tug McGraw. Maybe I’d feel differently if I’d seen the Phillies win the 1980 Series live.

          Also I don’t like how they put that white space around the NOB in the nameplate at home. The blue roadies look much cleaner that way. Especially at the very end of the burgundy era when there was a thin white layer around the burgundy letters and numbers in the main part of the uniform, they could have gone with that rather than the big clunky nameplate. They do this now with NOBs that aren’t as big, and it looks fine.

          Of course, they never should have added names to being with! I loved those massive numbers the Phillies used to use.

    • Simply Moono | July 22, 2011 at 6:46 pm |

      Not surprising. As long as Bud Selig and Majestic are in charge, we may never see a properly done non-Negro League throwback uniform in MLB again.

  • Aaron | July 22, 2011 at 9:50 am |

    Just to complete the Alabama story, the new locker room is actually named after a donor who just happened to have the perfect last name.

    • Tony C. | July 22, 2011 at 10:30 am |

      thats pretty funny..

  • Bernard | July 22, 2011 at 10:20 am |

    I caught an episode of NY Ink last night that featured Steelers linebacker LaMarr Woodley. They repeatedly referred to him as a Steeler, but all of the football action photos they used to provide context were of him playing for Michigan. I guess TLC couldn’t (or didn’t want to) get the rights to use Steeler logos and such, eh?

    • Andy | July 22, 2011 at 3:12 pm |

      Not positive, but they might not be able to use player images or footage (professional images or footage, of course) during the lockout.

  • Fred | July 22, 2011 at 10:37 am |

    Anyone know when the Revolution started wearing their sponsors on their jersey? Wasn’t on there when I watched their game earlier this year, maybe April?

    • Mark in Shiga | July 22, 2011 at 11:04 am |

      It has to be in the last few months — and because of it, I’m no longer a Revolution fan. Farewell, team of Alexi Lalas and founding MLS member…

      • Fred | July 22, 2011 at 11:12 am |

        Ah you can’t do that. MLS was trending towards gaining advertisements anyway. I was hoping for a cool one like the Volkswagen logo. But the United Bank wordmark is quite lame.

        I’m wondering if they broke out this uniform for the ManU game? Because I don’t see any photos of them wearing this until 2 days ago. I went back further and saw them wearing the normal Revolution jersey.

      • Rob H. | July 22, 2011 at 1:59 pm |

        but isn’t that making the MLS more like “real soccer” teams? Now if the NFL or MLB start putting ads on the front of the jersey, then that’s another story.

    • Silver Creek Doug | July 22, 2011 at 5:34 pm |

      If it’s still United Healthcare, it’s been at least two years, I think.

      • DJ | July 22, 2011 at 6:49 pm |

        United Healthcare became the Rev’s jersey sponsor during this season.

        • inkracer | July 22, 2011 at 7:38 pm |

          United Healthcare became the jersey shortly after Benny Feilhaber was picked up by the Revs. So, it’s been there since late April.

  • scott | July 22, 2011 at 11:13 am |

    Both the home and road teams were wearing Tuscon Toros gear the other night:

    That independent league sure is creating some interesting storylines this season…

  • LI Phil | July 22, 2011 at 11:28 am |

    THE Jeff said:

    “I think any team who can’t win a championship in say, 30, 35, 40 (pick a number) years should have to change their uniform.”


    doesn’t this line of thought tie into a LOT of our collective psyche? i mean, if a team decides to “throwback,” the fans want them to throwback to a uniform in which a team WON something, no matter how shitty that uniform may look…

    i use my favorite example of a SHITTY uni the fans LOVE: the 1986 mets

    that uni is ALL KINDS OF WRONG (about the only thing that’s not wrong is BFBS…that wouldn’t be trendy for another decade or so)…

    racing stripes on a pinstriped uni? really? what, the pins weren’t enough? and those racing stripes never seemed to align properly….

    pullovers with BELTS? they may as well have gone with a sansabelt, because it wasn’t quite garish enough

    other than the ridiculous BFBS tops the fans love, that was by far and away the worst uni the mets ever wore…but…

    because they won the world series in it…it’s beloved

    so…now we have THE dissing a fantastic (easily top 6 of all NFL unis) simply because success hasn’t followed

    i can understand this mindset — fans will *hate* a fantastic uniform if the teams don’t win in it, while fans will also LOVE a shitty uni, so long as success follows (i’m looking at you new england)…

    because, it’s OBVIOUSLY the uniforms that make the team, not the individuals who comprise it

    so…THE…would you STILL hate the browns unis if they had won a super bowl wearing them? or would you hate the unis just because you ya know, find them boring as hell?

    you’re not wrong either way…but i just fail to see why a team should ditch a great looking uni just because the team has had no success in it…and conversely, why a team should KEEP a shitty uni, just because they won a few big games

    unis should stand on their own…sure, you will logically associate winning or losing with a certain look, but that shouldn’t cloud your judgment on whether the uni ITSELF is good or bad

    • Ry Co 40 | July 22, 2011 at 11:39 am |

      we should do a poll across MLB, NHL, NFL & NBA:

      worst jersey/uniform to win a championship

      right off the top of my head, my vote:

      Anaheim Ducks 06-07

      BEAT THAT!

    • The Jeff | July 22, 2011 at 11:54 am |

      I would still dislike the blank helmet for the reason stated above. I also don’t think it’s a top-whatever uniform because I see the striping as mismatched and inconsistent. (brown on the outside in one spot, on the inside in others…and I know some people see it differently)

      But, if they hadn’t gotten owned by Elway in the 80’s…I’d understand the desire to keep looking that way.

      Would the Yankees still be such a “classic” if they hadn’t actually won anything since Babe Ruth’s era? Or would it be seen as old, tired and dated?

      And I’m not saying that 40 years and no success means you should have to do something as drastic as the Bucs orange to pewter… it’s quite possible to change a uniform and still hold onto a bit of the past or maintain a “look”… I think the Chargers, Eagles and Seahawks are all examples of that.

      Basically if the damn Browns had kept the 1965 CB logo… we probably wouldn’t be having this conversation…at least nowhere near this heated. Since their rebirth they’ve had a bunch of variations… if anything I’d just be annoyed at them following the retro/graymask trend.

      • Tony C. | July 22, 2011 at 12:51 pm |

        i guess you can call changing the color of the facemask a “variation” but with the except of the 4 year period(’57-’61) where they had numbers on the side of their helmets, the one constant has and hopefully will always be that there isn’t a “logo” on the side of the helmet.

      • RS | July 22, 2011 at 2:01 pm |

        Please tell me I’ve misunderstood you and you’re not actually supporting this monstrosity as a helmet logo for the Browns.

      • Andy | July 22, 2011 at 3:22 pm |

        A bunch of variations they’ve had, yes, but never, ever in their history have they had a total overhaul or departure from the five stripe sleeves and orange helmet look, except the lone 1984 experiment, the original switch from white to orange helmets and the elimination of the drop shadowed numbers they wore their first season, and I guess the Orange alternate, even though it was the same basic look. The DNA of the Browns’ look has remained the same since their championship era.

    • walter | July 22, 2011 at 4:40 pm |

      My favorite uniform *ever* is the Vancouver Canucks flying-V jersey, so I have *no*right* to criticize anybody!

  • The Jeff | July 22, 2011 at 12:24 pm |

    Also, how many NFL teams that redesigned their unis actually UPgraded as opposed to DOWNgraded over the last 20 years. Think about it. Of all the uniform changes teams have made, overwhelming support is for those that bring back an old look. The new designs that dont recall past designs generally get bad reviews (see Jacksonville, Cincinnati, Philadelphia, et al).


    So…you don’t like the “modern” designs. What about changes from further back? The Oilers switching from silver to blue…or blue to white? The Eagles from white helmets to green ones? The Rams from blue & white to blue & yellow? Sports history is filled with uniform changes. Seriously. Filled. Fans almost always dislike new designs at first…that doesn’t mean they’re always bad.

    I’m sure there’s plenty of people who initially disliked the Patriots or Broncos new uniforms that now have no problem with them.

    • LI Phil | July 22, 2011 at 12:30 pm |

      “I’m sure there’s plenty of people who initially disliked the Patriots or Broncos new uniforms that now have no problem with them.”


      no shit, sherlock…but if the broncos hadn’t won 2 straight SBs and the pats 3 in 4 years, you still think they’d be held in such “high” regard?

      of course not — winning covers up a lot of bad uni design

      • The Jeff | July 22, 2011 at 12:36 pm |

        Bah, there’s nothing wrong with the Patriots uniforms, and I’m saying that as someone who’s still pissed over the Tuck Rule game.

        Ok, how about the Seahawks fans embracing the neon? Does that example work? Hell, what about your Mets in black? You hate it, but obviously quite a few of your fellow fans don’t.

        • StLMarty | July 22, 2011 at 12:39 pm |

          There’s plenty wrong with the Patriots uniform.

      • Fred | July 22, 2011 at 12:38 pm |

        Honestly, I don’t see the problem with either uniform and winning doesn’t do that to me. I liked the Broncos new uniform when it came out until recently when I read all these dissenters who claimed that Denver sold its soul to Nike. Now I’m somewhat disappointed in the swoosh in the pants but other than that though, the navy blue/orange design works well. I like their set. I like the Pats as well.

        I really don’t know where this extreme dislike is coming from.

        • StLMarty | July 22, 2011 at 12:40 pm |

          The depths of souls.

        • The Jeff | July 22, 2011 at 12:50 pm |

          Probably because they conflict with childhood memories of what those teams “should” look like. The Broncos are orange with blue helmets, the Patriots are red with white. Anything else is wrong.

          I’ll admit I found Denver a bit jarring at first, though I always thought the Patriots in red was kinda stupid so I was fine with Elvis from the start.

        • LI Phil | July 22, 2011 at 1:05 pm |

          you assume i automatically LIKE the broncos pre-nikified design simply because i dislike the current one

          i NEVER said i liked it, and quite frankly, I’m not sure there is a single NFL combo i like when the helmet doesn’t match the pants or the jersey (or at the very least, the predominate color of one, and of course excepting the mandatory one team must wear white rule)…i never liked blue lids with the orange tops, but i did prefer it to their current uni…does that mean i like it? no

          I’m definitely NOT of the everything that is old must be good design school — but i haven’t seen much in the past 20 years to make me think that what’s been coming out is any better than some of the older ones i do view as classic

          i never liked the giants with so much red on their road unis with a blue lid, nor did i like the red tops; also never really warmed up to the gray pants…their best uni set was when they had more blue on the road uni and white pants (but still with the “ny” on the helmet, not the “GIANTS”)

          but what the broncos replaced was BETTER than their current uni, which has ALWAYS been awful (it’s better with the orange tops, but then the helmet conflicts with the top)

          the patriots, OTOH, actually have a better set now than the one they immediately replaced — with the awful fonts, the gradient jersey shading…and elvis

          now…was their original uniform great? no, not really, but it is still better than flying elvis mach I and II

        • StLMarty | July 22, 2011 at 1:06 pm |

          Elvis is the least of their worries.
          The road uniform is atrocious.
          Discombobulated is the only word that comes to mind.

        • Fred | July 22, 2011 at 1:27 pm |

          I don’t think we’ve got anywhere near to addressing exactly what is wrong with the Patriots uniform.

          StlMarty seems to be very good with coming up adjectives for the uniforms but is not coming up with anything concrete to say why the uniform is bad.

          I agree the Pats uniform in ’96 was awful but I did like the gradient color. I thought it was innovative and would’ve looked solid with other uniform elements. The new uniform is a great upgrade and I rather like the flying elvis logo. I may be in the minority here but I think Pat the Patriot is a little too cartoonish for my taste. I respect the old timers who like the older style though. But really, I see the Patriots today on the field with any other football team and I don’t see anything that makes me cringe. So to put it as the worst looking NFL uniform to win a championship is surprising.

        • LI Phil | July 22, 2011 at 1:41 pm |


          the pats have several features of their unis, the roads in particular, that are awful…

          i attempted to make a few tweaks which would improve them vastly — lets start with getting rid of the ridiculous side piping on the jerseys and put some normal stripes on the pants;

          also, the truncated “half loops” on the shoulders are awful, so give them full loops

          the red facemask sucks, but whatever

          you also need to eliminate the side piping on the blue jersey, and fix those wideass pants stripes with something a little more appealing…or hell, make them thinner

          that uni isn’t so bad a few tweaks can’t fix it…but

          the red piping

        • Bernard | July 22, 2011 at 1:41 pm |

          Flying Elvis is absolute garbage. His placement on the helmet AND the shoulder makes him double garbage. The silver stripes on the jersey clutter an already garbage shoulder. And you yourself know about the pants stripes.

          Other than that, yeah, I guess they’re pretty solid.

        • Fred | July 22, 2011 at 1:57 pm |

          Yeah I guess some adjustments should be made to the pants striping but actually, one of my favorite feature is the red mask. It makes it the Patriots for me. And the full loops actually make the overall uniform worse I think. The truncated stripes work for the Pats, but not for the Colts or other teams who used to have the full loops. But the red piping down the side should go though. Phil, I do like the blue stripes down the pants.

          Bernard, I get what you mean about the flying Elvis cluttering up the look. They definitely should do without the shoulder logo. But at least it’s smaller than the ’96 version.

          All in all, I don’t think they’re much of a dealbreaker.

        • StLMarty | July 22, 2011 at 2:40 pm |

          “StlMarty seems to be very good with coming up adjectives for the uniforms but is not coming up with anything concrete to say why the uniform is bad.”

          StLMarty has adjectives, and ideas. Since age 5.

          1) Wear the silver pants at all times.
          2) Remove the side panels on both jerseys.
          3) Remove the Adidas-looking stripes on the socks (they’re from out of nowhere). Go solid blue tops (Add striped socks to other teams to strike a balance).

          I could go deeper, but I would be satisfied if they did everything I just stated.

        • pflava | July 22, 2011 at 3:05 pm |

          The Pats uniform is a great example of too many things going on at once. It’s like they had several different ideas and couldn’t pick one, so they picked ALL of them. Too many bumper stickers.

          Phil’s (and Marty’s) ideas would fix most of those problems. I’d add that they (like most teams) would look better in a plain blue jersey without the attempt at striping. That, and for God’s sake, make the facemask blue or gray!

        • Pat | July 22, 2011 at 3:30 pm |

          I agree wholeheartedly with Phil. The Pats unis are a couple of minor tweaks away from being pretty solid.

    • Tony C. | July 22, 2011 at 12:57 pm |

      so the whole Sabres buffaslug design was an upgrade?

    • Craig D | July 22, 2011 at 1:33 pm |

      I mentioned the last 20 years specifically because that is the era of the bumper sticker. I realize that most teams have changed looks many times before settling on a good one. I do like some modern uniforms. Jacksonville had a great look that wasnt old looking. Tennessee has had some really good combos and they are far from traditional looking. I dont even mind the Ravens and they have purple, funky number font and black leggings. You can have a good looking modern uniform. But the truth is, many of the new designs suck because manufacturers have the ability to add shit to uniforms that they didnt have before. So they go overboard with it.

      This would scare the bejeezus out of me if the Browns were announcing a new look.

    • Skycat | July 22, 2011 at 7:26 pm |

      There’s something about the Patriots’ unis that just says “corporate” to me. Perhaps it’s just a bunch of guys getting together in a boardroom and putting a bunch of ideas together without really reaching a consensus.

  • Morris Levin | July 22, 2011 at 12:45 pm |

    Thank you to Phil for forwarding the following question from John Oncea regarding Florida:

    “The University of Florida (in Gainesville) is much closer to St. Petersburg than Florida State (in Tallahassee), so it can be safely assumed that the article is correctly referring to the University of Florida as the Gators, but why does it call the institution Florida State university? Florida State has been around since 1851, and the University of Florida since 1853 so it’s not like Florida State wasn’t around when the game was played in 1920 and the columnist writing the story was referring to the University of Florida in a different way.”

    The article is clearly referring to the University of Florida. The team’s 1920 schedule reflects this:

    I do not know the specific history of Florida college and university nomenclature. We do know that team names and nicknames were less formal a century ago. We see this in the way in which many pro teams were nicknamed by the press based on writer, manager/coach, team play, etc…

  • Just Jim | July 22, 2011 at 1:14 pm |

    OK, I’ll go for the cheap joke. At least, Winnipeg is going with steel blue for their look and not the “Blue Steel” look (

    • Teebz | July 22, 2011 at 1:29 pm |

      As I wrote on my blog last Friday…

      “According to reports, MTS Centre is being painted near the dressing room area, and the chosen colour is very dark blue that being used for the majority of the wall colour with white and an undesignated colour as accents. The “undesignated colour”, as I’m calling it, is taped off and looks ready to be painted, but has not received a coat of paint yet. From the description, it appears that the Jets will be going back to blue as their primary home colour. If the “undesignated colour” turns out to be red, it appears the only thing different for the Jets will be the logo.”

      If you’re going to recycle the name, why not just go all out and bring back the red-white-blue colour scheme as well? Why mess with what the fans really want?

      Oh right. There’s that merchandise/Reebok side.

    • R.S. Rogers | July 22, 2011 at 4:20 pm |

      I’m not so quick to write off “steel blue” and black for the Jets. Mainly, take a look at that Marlins program up there. That blue isn’t far from what could be called “steel blue,” and the other spot color is black, and it looks fantastic. Blue and black can work together. It’s easy to screw up and make your team look like a stupid fashion-chasing bruise (ahem, Mets), but if you get the proportions right, it can look fantastic (take a bow, St. Paul Saints).

  • The Jeff | July 22, 2011 at 1:43 pm |

    “A blank orange helmet is just a blank orange helmet.”
    Why can’t “blank” be something?
    You are choosing every team having a logo against one team not having one.

    Yes. That’s exactly what I’m choosing.

    Think about it this way – if you’re showing NFL helmets to someone who doesn’t know football… a little kid, a european, a vulcan… 31 of the teams helmets can be identified and explained easily.

    Not listing all 32, but you get the idea…

    Eagles, Bengals, Lions, Colts, etc – representation of the name or closely related to it

    Bears, Packers, 49ers etc – initial of city

    Cowboys, Titans, Bills, etc – local symbolism

    Then you get to the Browns, who wear an orange helmet. What? Why? Exactly. So, the Browns are unique in that they’re the one team whose chosen helmet doesn’t make any goddamn sense, blank or otherwise.

    • Ricko | July 22, 2011 at 1:55 pm |

      Just to be clear. The absence of a logo or other graphic can’t be a distinguishing characteristic?

      There must be something there to be a distinquishing characteristic?

      From a design standpoint, “the void defines the space” is no longer viable?

      Browns…plain orange with stripes
      TOSU…plain silver with stripes
      Penn State…plain white with stripe
      Notre Dame…plain metallic gold.

      Are those each not enough of a distinguishing characteristic—one that readily identifies the team of the wearer—to be a valid design choice?

      • Fred | July 22, 2011 at 2:03 pm |

        The absence of a logo can only be pulled off if the uniform is rich with history. Everybody grew up with the gold helmets of ND (made famous by Rudy for the younger generation). Browns have always had the orange helmets.

        If I’m the athletic director of New Mexico State and I decide on a new uniform look. I say, hey- I want us to go old school. Let’s have a plain white helmet with a grey facemask, maroon top with white numbers and NNOB and all silver pants.

        This uniform will be shat on by so many people here. So no, the absence of a logo is not a distinguishing feature. Absence of the logo with time makes the heart grow fonder.

        • Ricko | July 22, 2011 at 2:24 pm |

          “So no, the absence of a logo is not a distinguishing feature.”

          Of course it is; in this discussion, quite literally by definition. But I think we’re saying largely the same thing. Just have a semantics issue, and that might be my fault.

          If I appeared to imply those were the teams’ intentional design choices from the start, I apologize. But, as you say–as I was intending to contend—it can evolve to the point where it becomes one. It is entirely valid for a team to look around one day and realize, “Wow, our slowness to do what everyone else was doing turned out to be a kind of a trademark for us, a way we’re recognized. Now we might as well make a design decision to stick with it.”

          The Celtics black sneakers turned out to be something like that. Or Alabama’s helmet TV numbers. Or the less-than-a-handful of Big Four few pro teams that wear one-color-and-white.

      • The Jeff | July 22, 2011 at 2:22 pm |

        No Ricko… a helmet without a logo is just equipment.

        Maybe it’s unique, but it isn’t a design. It’s an empty canvas. Selling a white canvas as “Polar Bear in a Snowstorm” makes you a fraud, not an artist.

        …and Notre Dame is hardly unique when Navy also wears a blank gold helmet.

        • Ricko | July 22, 2011 at 2:32 pm |

          Yeah, know about Navy. Until a few years ago, UC Davis, too.
          Was referencing the teams that had been mentioned earlier.

          So the stripes on the Browns, Ohio State and Penn State helmets aren’t enough? That’s your contention? Those helmets are “just equipment”? There simply MUST some letter or animal or something?

          Being the only rancher in the valley who doesn’t brand his cattle isn’t essentially the same thing as branding them? For the folks who watch the cattle in the valley, that is? They can’t readily indentify who the sans-brand steers belong to?

        • Ricko | July 22, 2011 at 2:39 pm |

          Another way to look at it…

          Is the only car dealer is car dealer row who DOESN’T rent a giant inflatable animal this weekend the one who obviously has no marketing savvy whatsoever?

        • The Jeff | July 22, 2011 at 2:50 pm |

          Yes. I think there should be something.

          I know they’re never going to make the change now, because it’s been too long and it’s “tradition” now. Time has warped what started as laziness into some kind of supposedly commendable act.

          Last one in is a rotten egg, as the saying goes. They failed to make the change with everyone else…so now they never can because fans will riot.

        • Andy | July 22, 2011 at 3:27 pm |

          The brown and white stripe is the effing logo. Happy now?

        • Andy | July 22, 2011 at 3:28 pm |

          It’s one of those non-traditional full-helmet identifier logo doohickeys like the Rams and Eagles have.

        • Andy | July 22, 2011 at 3:29 pm |

          Better yet, the Browns’ logo is actually a solid orange square, and every player wears the solid orange block logo on both sides of their helmet for all games and practices.

        • Tom V. | July 22, 2011 at 4:29 pm |

          “…Being the only rancher in the valley who doesn’t brand his cattle isn’t essentially the same thing as branding them? For the folks who watch the cattle in the valley, that is? They can’t readily indentify who the sans-brand steers belong to?…”

          Take it a step further Ricko. Cows come in all cow colors. Helmets come in all different colors as well. You’re the rancher with all brown cows that aren’t branded, you don;t have any other colors, just brown ones. So when someone sees an unbranded brown cow, they know exactly whose it is.

          Secondly, if you saw a picture with all 32 helmets and had to identify each one, how many of us would not be able to identify the browns helmet? That in itself makes it even more identifiable with the team.

        • Ricko | July 22, 2011 at 8:39 pm |

          “They failed to make the change with everyone else…”

          Well, yeah, when you want to be an individual make sure you do it like everyone else. :)

      • Perry | July 22, 2011 at 3:52 pm |

        The silver helmets bug me as an OSU fan. I’m fine with no logo, I think it’s great (and they should scrap the buckeye leaf stickers, that idea is playes). But dammit, the school colors are scarlet and GRAY, not scarlet and silver. Take the damn sparkle off the helmets already!

    • Douglas | July 22, 2011 at 5:27 pm |

      The Browns are named after someone, their name wouldn’t make sense to a “a little kid, European, or Vulcan”, a logo would only allow them to attach to something that is meant to attach the team to the city, or the initials of the team’s name (as would be the case with the CB logo).

      It still wouldn’t make much sense to them, they would have to know that the C and the B stand for Cleveland and Browns. It would just be a logo to an outsider, just as the C on Chicago’s helmets would only tie the team to the city and not the bears.

      By your logic the Packers would also have a poorly chosen logo because the G is supposed to stand for Green Bay, and there’s no way to represent a Packer. So even though the Packers have a logo its not something that would immediately make them stand out, or at least no more so than the Cleveland Browns. The Bears would also have a bad one, as their logo only refers to the city in which they play, and that same logo has been used by multiple teams in multiple sports, and is still currently being used by the Reds and the Twins in some way.

      If something as commonly used as the wishbone C, or a single letter denoting a two name location are good enough to represent a team, then a plain Orange, Brown and white helmet should be enough of a marker. Sure you won’t have any idea as to what the team’s mascot is by looking at the helmet or the city from which they hail, but if you are familiar with the NFL you will be able to distinguish them as the Browns. And let’s be honest what person no matter what age or planet of origin would see CB and come to the conclusion of Cleveland Browns? (Browns already doesn’t sound like a team name, and even if there were a logo it’d still be on an orange shell).

      • LI Phil | July 22, 2011 at 6:07 pm |

        the “G” stands for greatness

    • R.S. Rogers | July 22, 2011 at 7:05 pm |

      The one thing – the only thing – I agree with The J here is the orange thing. If a team wants to make a plain, unadorned helmet its distinguishing uniform element slash logo, great. If that team wants to do so and is named the Browns, then it had darned well better make its plain, unadorned helmet brown. The Browns wearing an orange helmet is ree-dik-yoo-lus. Always has been, is now, always will be. Charming, but ridiculous. On the order of the Red Sox wearing navy socks. If a team is named after a color, then wear that color, you know?

      But aside from the historical quirk of wearing the wrong color, the basic deal of wearing no logo on the helmet is one of the best things in the NFL ever. The first, most important aspect of any team’s identity is distinctiveness, and on this front the Browns are easily top-five in the NFL, all time, and probably #1.

      • Ricko | July 22, 2011 at 9:11 pm |

        Fairly evident the orange helmets were added to put some color into the in-person experience of the fans…seeing those helmets were introduced into a black and white media world. I’d be willing to bet they just thought they’d be a more colorful show than brown.

        More than the plain white helmets that preceded them, that is.

  • Teebz | July 22, 2011 at 1:47 pm |

    Get your UFL gear now, kids. It appears the league may be done. The latest reports, because it will impact CFL teams, is that the UFL has no money, has sent its players home and told them they are free to sign with any team in any league they like.

    They already had pushed the season’s start back by a month as they had no TV deal and were hurting for cash, so it appears the end is near with the latest developments.

  • Mike N. | July 22, 2011 at 2:08 pm |

    Not sure if you’ve already covered this, but I just got this link from HotClicks on Apparently the Memphis Redbirds are having an Organ Donor Night on August 13 and are wearing these appropriate (…or unappropriate) uniforms:

  • Mike N. | July 22, 2011 at 2:10 pm |

    That shoud’ve said “inappropriate”… stupid fingers.

  • Rob H. | July 22, 2011 at 2:11 pm |

    rather wordy explanation from Wikipedia:

    The Florida State University traces its origins to a plan set by the 1823 Territorial Legislature of Florida to create a system of higher education, and in 1851 the Florida Legislature voted to establish two seminaries of higher education on opposite sides of the Suwannee River. Francis W. Eppes and other city leaders established an all-male academy called the Florida Institute in Tallahassee as a legislative inducement to locate the West Florida Seminary in Tallahassee. The East Florida Seminary opened in Ocala in 1853, closed in 1861, and reopened in Gainesville in 1866. The East Florida Seminary is the institution to which the modern University of Florida traces its foundation.

    In 1856, the land and buildings in an area formerly known as Gallows Hill — where the Florida Institute was built — was accepted as the site of the state seminary for male students. Two years later the institution absorbed the Tallahassee Female Academy founded in 1843 as the Misses Bates School and became coeducational. The West Florida Seminary stood near the front of the Westcott Building on the existing FSU campus, making this site the oldest continually used location of higher learning in Florida.

    In 1860-61 the legislature started formal military training at the school with a law amending the original 1851 statute. During the Civil War, the seminary became The Florida Military and Collegiate Institute. Enrollment at the school increased to around 250 students with the school establishing itself as perhaps the largest and most respected educational institution in the state. Cadets from the school defeated Union forces at the Battle of Natural Bridge in 1865, leaving Tallahassee as the only Confederate capital east of the Mississippi River not to fall to Union forces. The students were trained by Valentine Mason Johnson, a graduate of Virginia Military Institute, who was a professor of mathematics and the chief administrator of the college. After the fall of the Confederacy, campus buildings were occupied by Union military forces for approximately four months and the West Florida Seminary reverted to its former academic purpose.

    In February 1883 the West Florida Seminary became part of Florida University, the first state university in Florida. Under the new university charter, the seminary became the institution’s Literary College, and was to contain several “schools” or departments in different disciplines. However, in the new university association the seminary’s “separate Charter and special organization” were maintained. Florida University also incorporated the Tallahassee College of Medicine and Surgery, and recognized three more colleges to be established at a later date. The Florida Legislature recognized the university under the title “University of Florida” in Spring 1885, but committed no additional financing or support. Without legislative support, the university project struggled. The institution never assumed the “university” title, and the association dissolved when the medical college relocated to Jacksonville later that year. However, the act recognizing the Tallahassee institution as the “University of Florida” was not repealed until 1903, when the title was transferred to what had been the Florida Agricultural College.

    However, the West Florida Seminary, as it was still generally called, continued to expand and thrive. It shifted its focus towards modern-style post-secondary education, awarding “Licentiates of Instruction”, its first diplomas, in 1884, and awarding Bachelor of Arts degrees in 1891. It had become Florida’s first liberal arts college by 1897, and in 1901 it was reorganized into the Florida State College with four departments (the College, the College Academy, the School for Teachers and the School of Music). The 1905 Buckman Act, named after Henry Holland Buckman, reorganized the Florida college system into a school for white males (University of the State of Florida), a school for white females (Florida State College for Women), and a school for African Americans (Florida Agricultural and Mechanical College for Negroes). By 1933 the Florida State College for Women had grown to be the third largest women’s college in the United States and was the first state women’s college in the South to be awarded a chapter of Phi Beta Kappa, as well as the first university in Florida so honored. Florida State was the largest of the original two universities in Florida, even during the period as the college for women (1905 to 1947) until 1919.

    So in 1920 FSU what was called “West Florida Seminary” while what had been “Florida Agricultural College” was at the time called “University of the State of Florida” and later just shortened to “University of Florida”

  • Teddy Ruxpin | July 22, 2011 at 4:49 pm |

    I’m sure it has already been posted but BTTF predicted Slamball. Unfortunately they thought it would have more staying power.

  • snowdan | July 22, 2011 at 5:06 pm |

    Jet’s Logo’s released:|WPG|home

    Color scheme is red and blue, but a darker blue than they had.

    • odessasteps | July 22, 2011 at 5:15 pm |

      thumbs up to logo.

      Eagerly awaiting to see what the sweaters look like.

      • Lloyd Davis | July 22, 2011 at 5:49 pm |

        Wordmark looks (Canadian process) cheesy. They should’ve left the crossed hockey sticks off the secondary logo – a Canadian team shouldn’t need that element. The shading on the maple leaves seems off-kilter – might be just me.

        Jets are fast, but the main logo is static. And I’m not fond of the RCAF tie-in. There’s enough militarism around hockey as it is.

    • oilfan | July 22, 2011 at 5:35 pm |

      Nice use of the Royal Canadian Air Force insignia – given the military presence nearby as well as the connection to the 1948 Canadian Olympic – RCAF Flyers team which was made up of Air Force members

    • Douglas | July 22, 2011 at 5:37 pm |

      I almost forgot they were from Canada, glad they thought to put that maple leaf in.

      I hate to admit it but the logos look good

    • Beats | July 22, 2011 at 6:19 pm |

      With the triangle of white at the top of the circle and the point of the bottom of the maple leaf combined with the maple leaf and the jet, the primary logo takes a lot of stylistic cues from the bird in flight logo that was on the Thrashers original home jersey.

      • Lloyd Davis | July 23, 2011 at 9:21 am |

        I guess the point of the pointy stem of the maple leaf might be to suggest a contrail, but it looks like the fighter jet is excreting something.

    • R.S. Rogers | July 22, 2011 at 7:08 pm |

      Love it. Keep the sweaters simple, keep the focus on the roundel, and I might just have a new favorite Canadian NHL team. I’d love to see the color jerseys be that silver/gray with blue trim.

    • R.S. Rogers | July 22, 2011 at 7:09 pm |

      Also, the shading in the maple leaf reminds me of this. Which is a very, very good thing.

  • Bobby Fenton | July 22, 2011 at 5:42 pm |

    Just what pro sports needs, more teams wearing red and blue. Yawn.

    Jesus can’t anybody get a little original with their colors?

    • AnthonyTX | July 22, 2011 at 6:03 pm |

      Much like you, I’m sick of teams choosing red and blue. Unfortunately, they’re in the business of selling jerseys and other paraphernalia, not looking good. Red/blue and black/anything are the two color combos that sell the best, so many teams choose one of those.
      I was so happy when my hometown Houston Dynamo chose orange and white (with a touch of baby blue) for their colors. A bold, inspired choice that makes them unique in the MLS and actually gives the team more of an identity.

    • Douglas | July 22, 2011 at 6:04 pm |

      they did get original with their colors instead of adopting something identical to their prior incarnation they changed things up.

      This always makes me wonder what colors would the person who always complains about people not choosing ‘original’ colors would suggest.

      So what colors would you suggest they take?

      I personally will take a good look over something original for the sake of being original any day (let’s take the former jets for example: which looks best? the completely unique original color scheme or the much more generic current color scheme). Besides it appears that the red will be limited to the maple leaf like it is with the Blue Jays.

      • Bobby Fenton | July 22, 2011 at 7:12 pm |


        I’m not sure what you mean about their new vs. old colors. The shading is a little different but it’s still red and blue pretty much. We’ll see what the actual uni’s look like.

        I completely agree with you that a good overall look is important regardless of the colors, but color variety is important too (at least to me), and the two things aren’t mutually exclusive. You can have a solid overall look in almost any color scheme if you put your mind to it.

        Baseball is even worse than hockey. I thought the (Devil) Rays needed to touch up their uni’s a bit a few years ago, but I hated that they ditched green for navy blue, which a million other teams in MLB already have. I’m fearful of the same thing happening to the Marlins, who I hear may be “going generic” when they change this next year,when the teal and black, is like, totally their thing. I hope they keep it.

        Anyway, I always say a good uniform quality is when you look up at a tv in a sports bar from 20 feet away and you can still immediately tell what team it is. NHL and MLB need more color, not more of the same. The Jets logo is about as generic as it gets, but we’ll see what they do with the actual uniforms.

    • Nick B. | July 22, 2011 at 8:07 pm |

      Look at the logo again, especially the wordmark. The primary colors are blue and silver; red is just an accent. I have a feeling the jerseys will reflect that.

      • Bobby Fenton | July 22, 2011 at 11:41 pm |

        Okay blue and silver then. The primary color is still blue, just like pretty much half the league. Bland, boring, and par for the course these days.

        The logo alone is alright, but what’s with the maple leaf? Like they’re not one of 7 Canadian teams?

  • LI Phil | July 22, 2011 at 8:34 pm |

    phillies vs tacos on mlb network tonight

    interesting that the tacos are wearing actual button down jerseys (and not a rup in sight for either team), meaning they’re actually throwing back to 1984 — replete with a RAK on the left sleeve…so the phillies must have sprung for new unis for the pods

    the phillies are wearing their button-downs as well, which as morris pointed out are really circa 1987…

    so…how often is it that a team throws back, but gets the wrong year for themselves and provides the correct year for their opponent?

    • odessasteps | July 22, 2011 at 8:48 pm |

      so, are these the unis the friars wore the other day for Dick Williams or something else? Wasn’t there a discussion about what year the Padres unis were from that day?

      • LI Phil | July 22, 2011 at 8:51 pm |

        those were the *1983* unis, because they were pullovers and didn’t have the RAK on sleeve

        these are different — button downs and kroc inits

        so i’m guessing the phils bought them all new unis just for tonight…which is odd, since they have worn the *83* throwbacks twice already

        • James Cr aven | July 22, 2011 at 9:04 pm |

          The Fathers did change to butons and belts when Steve Garvey arrived.

          “With the Dodgers, I looked like the American flag. These make me look like a taco.”

        • Ricko | July 22, 2011 at 9:13 pm |

          Speaking of belts…besides the Yankees, Dodgers, Mets, Expos and Phillies, are there any other teams that never went sansabelt?

          Tigers didn’t a home, but their roads had the colored waistband for a time.

        • Ricko | July 22, 2011 at 9:21 pm |

          “With the Dodgers, I looked like the American flag. These make me look like a taco.”

          Or a hot dog.

        • R.S. Rogers | July 22, 2011 at 11:29 pm |

          I never got that. Maybe they make tacos differently in southern California, but I’ve never seen a taco that looked anything like that. Seriously, yellow on the inside, brown on the outside – who looks at that and says, “taco”? Certainly not anybody who’s ever seen a taco before.

          Which is to say nothing about how nonsensical it is to say that a Dodgers uniform makes a person look like the American flag. Sure, absolutely, provided that you have never actually seen the American flag. If you’re going to claim that the Dodgers uniform makes you look like any country’s flag, the bidding starts with Cuba, Russia, or the Netherlands. Out of all 200 or so national flags, USA is probably about 140th on the list of “most resembles the Dodgers uniform.”

  • LarryB | July 22, 2011 at 9:22 pm |

    Rumors on Ohio State boards is that 2 players have tweeted the Buckeyes unis will be all black.

    But there was a rumor that the unis would be based on early 60s with the wide red stripe.

    Also basketball manager tweeted all black.

    All black???? YUCK

  • Mike 2 | July 22, 2011 at 9:25 pm |

    1. As far as I’m concerned, the Jets nailed it. Great colours and logo. I was frightened it was going to be something cartoonish, an anthropomorphic airplane of some sort. Something stupid like the 1990s Rockets. This is classy.

    2. My guess is that the triangle at the top of the primary logo represents compass north. True North, airplane navigation, northern Canada, etc.

    3. The Jets are 2 for 3 – perfect choice of name, great set of logos. I hope they don’t screw it up by attaching it all to a Reebok template uniform with bibs and stupid striping, putting a logo AND a wordmark on the front, etc.

  • LI Phil | July 22, 2011 at 9:25 pm |

    madson, pitching the ninth, sporting some 7″ers…

    paul would be proud

  • tomasher | July 22, 2011 at 10:01 pm |

    We know the logo on the caps and helmets wasn’t right, but did anyone else think the color was off on the Phillies’ helmets? It didn’t look accurate to me for some reason.

  • Ricko | July 22, 2011 at 10:35 pm |

    Jim Thorpe is in a singing cowboy western that just begain on Turner Classic Movies.

    He’s playing an Indian chief.

    (In case, y’know, you were having trouble imagining what role the producers would have found for him)

  • mtjaws | July 22, 2011 at 10:51 pm |

    As a Florida Marlins fan, I am not looking forward to the change to the “Miami” Marlins. Sure it has a history, and will be where the new stadium is located, but “Florida Marlins” also has nearly 20 years of history attached to it too. But the stupid owner Loria wanted the city’s money, and gave up the name in the process. Too bad we can’t ditch him instead.

    In terms of uniforms, I absolutely love the current black/silver/dash-of-teal color scheme, and dread the rumored change to blue and orange (which already has a presence in the NL East). Hopefully the new stuff isn’t bad looking. But I’ll still call them Florida and wear my black hat.

    And finally, I will admit that “Miami Marlins” is better than “San Antonio” or “Portland” though. I’m thankful my favorite team won’t move away, but wish things didn’t have to change so much either.

    • Derek | July 23, 2011 at 4:45 pm |

      I agree 110%.

      God forbid the Marlins bring back the old Miami Marlins uniforms. For those that don’t know, the old Marlins colors were blue and orange. Those are Mets colors. That would be horrible(and for the record I own a sweet 1957 Satchel Paige Marlins jersey).

      That being said, blue and orange would be preferable to what Jeff Loria will likely come up with for the new look. If the new ballpark logo and hideous tile/seats in the new stadium is any indication, we’re likely to be in for some kind of horrible rainbow red/blue/green/yellow mash up that will surely be the joke of the Major Leagues. Teal/Black is a unique color set in baseball. Loria has already removed almost all of the teal from the team’s uniforms, and all their promotional stuff is orange and black. It’s a joke and a damn shame.

      And I also hate the name change to “Miami”. The Miami Marlins were a footnote in South Florida sports history. Merely the inspiration for the REAL baseball history we have now, 20 years of the FLORIDA Marlins, 2 World Series crowns, the team that I grew up with. Yeah, they stayed in South Florida. But to me it’s like they are moving away to someplace far away, only I have to see and hear about them every day. The 2012 Miami Marlins will not be my team. MY team dies on 11/11/11. RIP Florida Marlins. 1993-2011.

      I’m never setting foot in that new ballpark until Loria is gone, and someone comes in and restores the Marlins to respectability. Hopefully he sells the team as soon as possible, makes a hefty profit, and gets the hell away from my baseball team.

      Until then I’ll proudly wear my teal and black FLORIDA Marlins cap, representing the baseball team I root for.

  • Beats | July 22, 2011 at 11:27 pm |

    True North has done a great job so far appeasing fans while creating a new classic identity. I really hope they can keep it up without RBKs tampering because the jerseys will really make or break the overall look. It’s easy to take a decent to good logo (looking at you Nashville) and ruin it with unnecessary piping and bumper stickers.

    It looks like the merchandise so far is navy based but I would really like to see the team step outside the box and continue the RCAF look by using the silvery/blue color of the RCAF ensign flag on the jerseys and socks with navy pants and helmets.

  • JTH | July 23, 2011 at 12:19 am |

    Browns’ logo (or lack thereof): “I changed by not changing at all…”


    Cautiously optimistic about the Jets’ unis.

  • Dujek | July 23, 2011 at 5:27 am |

    Not sure if anyone’s brought these to Paul’s attention before, but I was looking for some new rugby socks and came across these. Needless to say I will be rocking some stripes at practice over the next 10 month s or so.—mens-rugby-socks-45-c.asp

  • bella | July 24, 2011 at 11:27 am |

    Gilberto and the analysis in the report released after Kuhn, NBA official responded the first time, claimed that the two experts is calculated incorrectly. Sunday night U.S. time in an official statement, NBA said, “We are using the traditional calculation of generally accepted accounting principles, the calculation must include the cost of depreciation and we have not summarized in the calculation of the team hands when the installment fees in our report, there is no loss associated with this. “Simply put, NBA teams, which means that losses and nothing changed hands, more because of the players due to the contract.
    In fact, NBA’s calculation and the calculation of these two experts whether right or wrong is not important, important is that both sides can put aside the technical differences and get down to sit down and talk. After all, the more headaches for reality is shut down, both sides will suffer greater economic losses.