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

Raffle Me This


Reader Mike Raymer recently spotted this sign in upstate New York, and there’s so much to like about it. The understated flourish at the end of the end of the R, the diagonal lettering at lower left, the scare quotes on “Free.” Even the background color indicates a perfect medium-rare. Why don’t they put signs like this (or hold raffles like this) in my neighborhood?

New ESPN column today, the result of a lengthy investigation I embarked on after seeing this photo back in June. Whatever you’re expecting, forget it, because the story provided lots of surprises and went in some unexpected directions. One of the most interesting cases I’ve ever researched. Here you go.

+ + + + +

Horn-toot Dept.: I have a new post up over on the Permanent Record blog. And hell, I was feeling so inspired last night that I even dusted off that other blog of mine.

Uni Watch News Ticker: New super-stretchies for Kansas. “The Jayhawk on the front is larger, as is ‘KANSAS,'” notes Kyle Martin. “Overall, it looks like crap.” ”¦ Nick Orban has apprised me of something that was probably inevitable: A junior hockey goalie has an Angry Birds-themed mask. Note, incidentally, that the Angry Birds do not have gritted teeth (or any other kind of teeth), something that today’s logo designers could learn from. ”¦ Something else that was probably inevitable: uniform advertising — and QR codes! — in beach volleyball (from Greg Patton). ”¦ Multi-culti news from Clint Yarborough, who reports that Inter Milan changed their sponsor logo to be read in Chinese for a recent game in Beijing. ”¦ Reprinted from yesterday’s comments: The Dodgers wore Brooklyn headwear on Tuesday, in conjunction with a Duke Snider bobblehead giveaway. ”¦ Last three grafs of this story have more info on why Tyrod Taylor is wearing No. 2 (from Andrew Cosentino). ”¦ Yet another inevitability: a camouflage yarmulke (thanks, Kirsten). ”¦ You know how Seahawks fans like to wear “12th man” jerseys? Jim Hare was at a game last season and spotted a fan from north of the border with his own take on that phenomenon. ”¦ New women’s soccer uniforms for Arizona State. ”¦ The New Yorker’s weekly cartoon caption contest is baseball-oriented again this week. My suggested caption: “These bogus two-in-one faux stirrups toally suck.”. ”¦ In a related item, Caleb Yorks informs us that Rafael Furcal went high-cuffed last night, exposing some high-cut two-in-ones. ”¦ Lotsa rumors a-flyin’ about this helmet being added to the Cincy wardrobe, although I’m not sure how legit it is (from John Smith). ”¦ Reprinted from yesterday’s comments: New football uniforms for Louisiana-Lafayette. ”¦ Here’s something I’d (thankfully) forgotten about: Michigan’s two-toned pants (from Stephen King). ”¦ US Soccer went with old-school uni numbering and NNOB for last night’s match against Mexico. “I wonder how it will affect Nike’s replica sales if they stick with this for long,” says Austin Taylor. ”¦ New football uniforms in the pipeline for Fresno State (courtesy of Jake Moorhead). ”¦ New soccer kits for Racing Santander playing in La Liga (with thanks to Chris Timm). ”¦ Dodgers wore their er-satins yesterday, but the Phils just wore their regular road grays. ”¦ Here’s a weird one: Someone’s selling a Dick Butkus memorial patch. “I didn’t even know he was sick,” says Bill Schaefer. ”¦ Reprinted from last night’s comments: I’m not exactly complaining, but it’s a little weird that the new Ron Santo statue has bright blue stirrups. ”¦ Not uni-related, but here’s something I didn’t know until last night: No Padre has ever hit for the cycle. Surprising (at least to me). ”¦ Best story (really the only good story) to come out of the London riots: a spike in baseball bat sales. ”¦ Here’s a site devoted to chronicling defunct minor league franchises (Kirsten again). ”¦ Good rant about logo/design theft here (thanks, Phil). ”¦ USC in white pants?! According to this story, “USC also is expected to wear white pants with red stripes at practices during training camp. The pants were made by Nike as a possible alternate uniform for actual games” (good work by Kyle Mackie). ”¦ New logo set for Central Connecticut State. Detailed analysis here.

158 comments to Raffle Me This

  • odessasteps | August 11, 2011 at 7:12 am |

    One assumes that people will be lining up to get close enough to the beach volleyball players to scan the girls’ asses with their cellphones.

    Missed yesterday’s column. Anything about the US men’s soccer team going NNOB last night vs Mexico?

    • The Jeff | August 11, 2011 at 7:31 am |

      When are they going to figure out that people really don’t like being advertised at?

      So…yeah, nice job giving people a valid excuse to take pictures of female volleyball player ass, but no one cares where that stupid QR box leads. I mean, really… if it went to an online player bio page, I guess it’d be kinda cool. But for it to just go to some random company trying to sell something completely unrelated to volleyball? Yeah, whatever.

    • walter | August 11, 2011 at 8:39 am |

      Great. They’ve now found a way to screw up beach volleyball.

      • Jim Vilk | August 11, 2011 at 2:46 pm |

        Surprised the women go for this, especially since the men don’t have to put up with it.

        I don’t watch volleyball to be turned on, but even if I did, I find ads and QR codes to be a complete turnoff. Enough already. Sure hope this doesn’t filter down to the college game.

    • Shane | August 11, 2011 at 8:45 am |

      A lot of countries go NNOB for friendlies, but it was definitely weird seeing the US do it.

      Then again, there appeared to be a dirty hippie running around the field in the #3 shirt. What are you doing to us, Klinsmann?!

    • Kyle Allebach | August 11, 2011 at 9:00 am |

      There are levels of wrong with that advertisement campaign, and hopefully I don’t have to explain them here…

      • Phil Hecken | August 11, 2011 at 9:13 am |

        what advertisement campaign?

        • JTH | August 11, 2011 at 9:55 am |

          Isn’t that the sort of thing that can get someone banned here, Jonas Grumby?

          But I suppose you think you’re above the law.

        • MG12 | August 11, 2011 at 11:36 am |

          Did anyone else find it odd that Klinsmann’s shirt did not have the US Soccer crest? It was a solid navy blue shirt with a white nike logo and white piping on the shoulders.

  • JTH | August 11, 2011 at 7:29 am |

    The first things I noticed about that meat raffle sign were the arrow-shaped stakes holding it into the ground.

    And nobody answered my question yesterday about how the term “er-satin” came about. It’s a play on “ersatz,” right?

    • Paul Lukas | August 11, 2011 at 7:48 am |
      • JTH | August 11, 2011 at 8:23 am |

        Glossary? Forgive me. I’m new here.

        • Nick O | August 11, 2011 at 8:47 am |

          Plenty of exploring to be done, then!

        • JTH | August 11, 2011 at 9:53 am |

          Exploring? Who has time for that? Tell me what I want to know when I want to know it.

  • Tim Stoops | August 11, 2011 at 7:33 am |

    The Padres also do not have a no-hitter in their MLB history. Awful. I was at the game in 2006 where Chris Young was a pitch away, needing only to induce a double play. Instead Joe Randa hit a two-run home run.

    • Paul Lukas | August 11, 2011 at 7:44 am |

      Yeah, but everyone knows about the Padres (and Mets) never having had a no-no. The cycle thing — that struck me as more of a hidden gem of a factoid.

  • Fred | August 11, 2011 at 7:40 am |

    Paul, I couldn’t post this on your other blog since I don’t have any one of the accounts needed to comment. But if you have any deaf students at the trade school, let me know. The deaf world is very small and I can quickly find out where the children are if the students had any later in life. Keep it up.

  • DenverGregg | August 11, 2011 at 7:52 am |

    The defunct minor-league site is outstanding. Many thanks. I also like your variant spelling for the state that borders both Colorado and California.

    • scott | August 11, 2011 at 8:13 am |

      As a former fan of the Nashua Pride – less so of the Nashua Hawks and New Hampshire American Defenders – that entry was a terrific read. The Pride’s home uniforms were an excellent homage to the legendary Dodgers teams of the ’40s.

      • Chris from Carver | August 11, 2011 at 2:36 pm |

        After my brother graduated from college, he worked for the Pride. IIRC, he ordered their last set of Nashua Pride unis, and didn’t get them with piping because they couldn’t afford it.

  • RJ | August 11, 2011 at 8:21 am |

    as for the CCSU redesign per todays Hartford Courant there is some contest going on to name the Blue Devil…

  • Kyle Allebach | August 11, 2011 at 8:35 am |

    Your other blog is the first item on Google Search if you google Wayne Hagin.

    • Paul Lukas | August 11, 2011 at 8:43 am |

      Ah, the Rick Santorum effect — and I wasn’t even trying to achieve it.

    • Nick O | August 11, 2011 at 9:00 am |

      I never knew you had this, but that blog is hysterical.

      • Paul Lukas | August 11, 2011 at 9:19 am |

        Thanks. But the hilarity is all Wayne’s doing. I’m just the conduit.

    • Craig D | August 11, 2011 at 9:31 am |

      How much more respect would Wayne be able to get if he just acknowledged his mistakes? Would it be so awful if he had said “Well I feel like a buffoon. Of course Dan Uggla plays for Atlanta now. That was a total brain freeze on my part.”

      Bam. That’s all. It’s not embarrassing to be wrong. It’s embarrassing to try and cover it up on the fly.

      • Paul Lukas | August 11, 2011 at 9:40 am |

        So true. He could even turn it into a positive, laughing at himself. But that would require a sense of introspection and a sense of humor, two things Wayne is sadly lacking.

      • R.S. Rogers | August 11, 2011 at 10:04 am |

        Bingo. Bob Uecker. Back when MLB forced online listeners to hear only home broadcasts, I used to hear a lot of Uecker game calls from Milwaukee. Guy knows his baseball a bit better than Hagin, though he’s not exactly putting the Joe Morgans of the world to shame, and anything not related to baseball, his basic knowledge of the world seems to be the mental equivalent of Bizarro Superman. But he has a good sense of humor and a willingness to laugh at himself and admit an error. A ready laugh and a little humility make all the difference for a bullshit artist.

        • Christopher F. | August 11, 2011 at 12:45 pm |

          Joe Morgan has very little baseball knowledge. Joe Morgan has a ton of knowledge about Joe Morgan, and is happy to share his knowledge of Joe Morgan with you at any point in any game Joe Morgan is broadcasting. Joe Morgan.

          Joe Morgan.

        • pushbutton | August 11, 2011 at 4:19 pm |

          I hate the way Joe Morgan says “COMF-terbull” for comfortable.

        • Jonee | August 11, 2011 at 6:56 pm |

          You just made me realize I pronounce it comf-terbull.

  • Craig D | August 11, 2011 at 8:50 am |

    Furcal, and anyone going with the bogus two in ones, could do the world a huge favor and get a red sharpie and draw the rest of the stirrup in yourself. That look is so little league. It doesn’t even have to be perfect. But it would be less distracting than that mess.

  • JSS | August 11, 2011 at 9:35 am |

    Check out Pitt’s Brandon Lindsey here.

    It really appears that this is a strong resemblance to Pitt in 1976, than what their pants looked like last year. Anyone hear anything?

    • Scott Gleeson Blue | August 11, 2011 at 10:10 am |

      re: Pitt: yes, it’s definitely a Major’s-era trouser…Johnny always liked the thicker stripe and brought it to Tennessee’s helmet.

      BTW: Regarding Michigan’s two-tone pants…I seem to remember that most colleges adopted that look during the mid-80’s until they became full-on shiny. Note 1986 SI cover with an ND lineman’s two-tone in plain view:

      Has UniWatch ever documented the shift from drab to reflective? Would love to read that post…or understand the chronology.

      • Ricko | August 11, 2011 at 11:15 am |

        So, we think those pants were two-tone for aesthetic reasons?

        We think the shift from matte to shiny was a fashion move?

        Couldn’t have had anything to do with, oh, I dunno, stretchable fabric and non-stretchable fabric? Maybe that one could be manufactured with a shiny surface and other could not? That the change was about technology, not a change in thinking?

        I’m not worried. I’m sure someone born long after those pants were worn will tell us some stupid story about an equipment manager under Bo Schlembechler who thought two-tone pants would look really great, and how they were special ordered.

        Christ. It was because the fabric on the front of pants was entirely different from the back. This is difficult to determine or conceptualize? Satiny, non-stretch front with sewn in pockets for knee pads, thigh pads, etc. Matte, stretchy, one-piece back.

        Virtually all football pants were made that way pretty much from the 50s through the 80s, even into the early 90s, whether front was shiny or not. Non-stretch front, stretchy back. I remember Iowa in the early 60s. Front of pants was cheddar. Back was almost lemon yellow.

        This is some big uni mystery that is beyond understanding? Some baffling bit of lost technological knowledge?

        Calling Terry Proctor. For a more precise and particular explanation.

        • The Jeff | August 11, 2011 at 11:37 am |


          but it could still be interesting to pinpoint exactly when the two-tonedness became noticeable, and on which teams, and when it finally stopped. Sure it wasn’t intentional, but it’s still a team going from solid matte to a 2-tone to solid shiny.

        • Ricko | August 11, 2011 at 11:46 am |

          “when the two-tonedness became noticeable”

          With the improvement in color photography and reproduction. Cameras, lenses, film, film speed…etc., etc…

          And, eventually, of course, color television.

          Was right there in black and white all the the time. Pretty much had to go to a game live to see it. And, it depended on the color, too. Satiny gold just looked much different than matte gold, for obvious reasons. With white, was very little difference, really only the texture.

          As I suggested, is more a technical question, and right up Terry Proctor’s alley.

        • Scott Gleeson Blue | August 11, 2011 at 12:29 pm |

          Ricko: I don’t raise this on the overall continuum of pure football uniform history or their significance in the britches canon. I just remember them in that time and for those few years and then they disappeared into full silkiness. Plus, the NFL didn’t move through a similar transition as I remember. So I’m more interested in the way The Jeff is: where did they, in that iteration at that point in time w/in the NCAA, originate, who was the manufacturer and is there a matching, compelling back story to it all? And I don’t think Michigan had the corner — they were everywhere at that time. ND, Washington, Okie State all had this style of pant as I remember.

        • Scott Gleeson Blue | August 11, 2011 at 12:34 pm |

          Ricko, just posted prior to seeing your further clarification. I fundamentally believe these were designed to be party in the front and business in the back for whatever reason. I truly don’t believe it emerged due to better photography or video resolution – plus I went to games during the era leading up to and through the mid-80s. I think it was a particular quirk at a particular time. Really interested in what Dr. Procter might have to say. Thanks!

        • Ricko | August 11, 2011 at 1:38 pm |

          They were NOT designed to be different colors. Two-tone was a compromise, a “best we can do”, not a design style. One pair of pants often were made of several fabrics. The satin shiny (in the case of, say, Notre Dame) could be used only on the front because they couldn’t do shiny-stretchy at the time. Front of pants didn’t need to stretch all that much as long as the back could stretch plenty. And that’s what I said. Two different fabrics color-matched as well as technology allowed. Generally, there’d be panels of the stretchy fabric around the placat for the laces, and either side of the supporter area. (I still have couple pair of these style pants, btw, one of them old gold).

          Front-back fabric difference had been around a long, long time. When anyone began noticing also is about (in addition to better images for folks to stare at)…

          1) a progression of ever-newer fabrics through the years…lot of trial and error
          2) how different supplier’s pants and their choice of material fared under laundering and repeated exposure to sunlight. The back of some teams’ pants certainly appeared to hold their color better than others.

          I’ll be interested in Dr. Proctor, too, but I don’t expect to be surprised by much of what he says.

          The question is when did technology allow shiny all over? Not, “When did teams decide the wanted shiny all over?” They pretty much always did, or would have. Just couldn’t.

        • Scott Gleeson Blue | August 11, 2011 at 2:56 pm |

          I’m with you on the technology question. Of course, I’m now totally obsessed, and I get your point “over time,” like this look sported by the Niners in the early 70’s (you’ll have to scroll down):

          Still, I’d love to know the manufacturer who created said pants in question during what seems like a period marked by definitive, front-side glossiness and definitive, back-side matte-edness that popped up in mid-80s. Could it have been Champion? (e.g.:

        • Scott Gleeson Blue | August 11, 2011 at 2:58 pm |

          Sorry! Missing link:

      • LarryB | August 11, 2011 at 2:02 pm |

        Good idea. I know Ohio State wore shiny silver pants for a period too.

        If you look at football pants from the 1930’s many teams had 2 “stripes” going down from the butt. Now I wonder if that was a design or not.

        • Ricko | August 11, 2011 at 2:24 pm |

          Some look to have been stetchy “panels” because entire back of pant was not yet stretchy. Or they were solid panels sew onto stretchy. Maybe one of the other, depending on the maker.

          Got that b&w of Whizzer White at Colorado handy, LarryB? Or anyone? I remember thinking those pants were a puzzler, both of engineering and color. And they made me wonder if perhaps those back stripes on the Steelers/Pirates (whichever they were at the time) weren’t so much designed to be stripes as much as it was, “Well, as long as they’re a different fabric maybe they should be a different color, too.”

        • Ricko | August 11, 2011 at 6:23 pm |

          Found it (a smaller version of the one we had here, anyway)…

          Is that darker back leg panel stretchy?
          Is it, say, old gold in a silver pant?

          As I said, a puzzler on a couple levels.

        • LarryB | August 11, 2011 at 8:16 pm |
        • Scott Gleeson Blue | August 12, 2011 at 1:51 pm |

          Love the BW White pic and wow, would have loved to have seen that first hand. Puzzler indeed.

  • Nick O | August 11, 2011 at 9:40 am |

    The was some report that Klinsmann said after the US-Mexico game last night that his jersey guy couldn’t do the names in time. Mostly because he had numerous changes due to injury, and he announced his roster less than a week before the game.

    • Jim Vilk | August 11, 2011 at 2:47 pm |

      Keep the names off. They looked good without them.

      • Nick O | August 11, 2011 at 3:23 pm |


      • Mike | August 11, 2011 at 3:41 pm |

        I could not agree more. Loved seeing them without NOB. Classy look.

    • Paul Lee | August 11, 2011 at 8:09 pm |

      Agreed. NNOB looks better. Wonder when the NBA will go back to NNOB. Did any of the teams go NNOB for the throwback (hardwood classic) games? Boston?

      US Soccer went with old-school uni numbering and NNOB for last night’s match against Mexico. “I wonder how it will affect Nike’s replica sales if they stick with this for long,” says Austin Taylor.

      Well, if people who like baseball continue to purchase New York Yankees jerseys sans names, US Soccer fans will continue to purchase futbol jerseys with NNOB.

  • Mark M | August 11, 2011 at 10:02 am |

    Not only did the USA go NoNOB but the starters were numbered 1-11, an old-school move.

    Also, because of the lack of names the numbers were set very high on the players backs. Compare the US and Mexican numbers in
    this article.

  • Silver Creek Doug | August 11, 2011 at 10:26 am |

    Klinsmann was quoted as saying he informed the equipment guy that the team was to be numbered 1-18 (including subs) the morning of the match and that’s why they went NNOB.

    Also, he said he did this because he wants the players to not get complacent and fight for their place in the 18.

    Here’s the link-

    • Nick O | August 11, 2011 at 10:46 am |

      And now it all makes sense.

  • Jeremiah | August 11, 2011 at 10:31 am |

    I love your Wayne Hagin blog. How does a team that high-profile let that guy continue to pollute the air?

  • walter | August 11, 2011 at 10:44 am |

    Those super stretchy football uniforms annoy the snot out me. But I never supported any of these teams or bought their souvenirs. How do I get them to stop?

    • The Jeff | August 11, 2011 at 10:52 am |

      A massive letter writing/facebook/twitter campaign involving thousands of people, all telling them how stupid they look in their stretchy jerseys.

  • Matthew Robins | August 11, 2011 at 10:49 am |

    Just read your latest ESPN column. I think it’s the best thing you have written, regarding uniforms. Keep up the great work, Paul.

    • scott | August 11, 2011 at 11:15 am |

      It is interesting how perceptions of the Confederate Flag have changed in recent years. Growing up in the ’70s and ’80s, the only thing the flag meant to me was the Dukes of Hazzard. So I’d guess that the mindset of most Americans in the ’60s was that the flag was just a symbol of the south.

      • Ricko | August 11, 2011 at 11:26 am |

        History goes back farther than the Dukes of Hazzard?
        Who knew.

        And there was a CIVIL WAR one time?
        In America?
        No shit.

    • R.S. Rogers | August 11, 2011 at 11:36 am |

      I’m not sure I’d go quite so far as Paul’s best ever – how does one choose? – but that is some damn fine journalism there. Outside of the odd New Yorker piece, you just don’t see that depth of old-fashioned reporting in sports journalism anymore. There’s a poignancy throughout that’s powerful but completely organic, arising from the subjects themselves, not from narrative manipulation or cheap sentimentality by the author.

      As an aside, that article has me lusting after a Richmond Virginians jersey! (Alternately, the Confederate Yankees jersey is still on sale for $99, but you’ll have to supply your own rebel flag patch.)

      • Ricko | August 11, 2011 at 11:51 am |

        Hey, isn’t that an upside down reversed and modfied A’s hat “A”?
        Or something?

        I was getting a twisted neck trying to figure it out (without farting around flipping the image and all).

      • Paul Lukas | August 11, 2011 at 11:56 am |

        Many thanks for the kind words, Scott. One reason I decided to investigate this story in the first place was the powerful comment you posted back when the Loren Babe and Roy White photos first surfaced on the site about six weeks ago. You wrote that the flag “could only mean one thing,” or words to that effect. That confirmed what I was thinking. But as I discovered, the situation was more nuanced than that.

        • Ricko | August 11, 2011 at 12:02 pm |

          Two people can see something and have totally different reactions, two different interpretations?

          Nice job, Paul.

          Good stories don’t just inform, they also should stimulate a little thinking, a little looking at something from a different perspective.

        • interlockingtc | August 11, 2011 at 12:07 pm |

          What a great piece, Paul. Balanced, objective, illuminating and full of humanity.

        • mmwatkin | August 11, 2011 at 4:33 pm |

          Probably one of the best pieces I have read on ESPN. It is a shame that the dolts that read ESPN will probably just skip over it and look for fantasy football news.

        • Michael M | August 11, 2011 at 6:10 pm |

          You say in the article:

          “…Turns out he doesn’t fit the profile of a classic Southern stereotype any more than Dick Steele did…”

          That’s true. In fact, most of us don’t.

  • Paul Lukas | August 11, 2011 at 10:53 am |

    As you can see from Matthew’s comment above (thank you!), today’s ESPN column is up:

    • David T | August 11, 2011 at 11:40 am |

      Paul, great writing and research on the Confederate Yankees story. One of the best pieces (uni-related or otherwise) I’ve read in some time. Kudos.

  • =bg= | August 11, 2011 at 11:07 am |

    The Denver Post reports that Sports Authority could buy the remainder of the Invesco 20-year, $120 million lease, which runs through 2020.

    If it happens, the place would be changed from Invesco Field at Mile High to Sports Authority Field at Mile High.

    • jdreyfuss | August 12, 2011 at 12:36 am |

      Not quite as accidentally good a corporate name as Great American Ballpark, but Sports Authority Field still sounds better than most.

  • Jet | August 11, 2011 at 11:22 am |

    RE: No Padres having hit for the cycle.

    If it’s any consolation, Clarence (Cito) Gaston once hit for the cycle for me in a game of Strat-o-matic, using the 1970 season cards. Yes, I recall things like this. But I can’t recall where I put my keys…


  • Morgan | August 11, 2011 at 11:29 am |

    Thank you so much for the ESPN article, Paul. Very thought provoking. Also, it just was a kick for me that you interviewed Roy White. When I as a kid he was one of my favorite Yankees. I even went to a baseball clinic he ran when a was like 10. Very nice and classy guy.

    • MG12 | August 11, 2011 at 11:33 am |

      Great article Paul. I really enjoyed it. It must’ve been an interesting topic to research.

      • EddieAtari | August 11, 2011 at 11:57 am |

        Yes, a great article all around… Flag issues aside, I really dug the interlocking “CY” on those old Columbus Yankees uni’s. I wish Staten Island and Scranton/Wilkes-Barre had better interlocking insignias… I think I just found my next tweak project.

      • Paul Lukas | August 11, 2011 at 12:01 pm |

        It was completely fascinating. Among the high points:

        – Getting to talk to J.T. Johnson, a bona fide civil rights hero.

        – Talking about all this with Roy White — a very thoughtful man — and hearing the confusion and frustration in his voice as he tried to make sense of the photos.

        – Talking with Mike Hegan, who was extremely forthright and open with me.

        – A long series of talks I had with Ricky Steele (the team owner’s son). Really unusual cat. Talks in this slow, charismatic Southern drawl, sounds like a good ol’ boy, but claims to have been reading Dick Gregory and Eldridge Cleaver in high school. Told me some really powerful stories — some uplifting, some troubling — and appeared to be digging deep to be honest with himself, and with me, about all of this. I could do a whole separate article just on him.

        • Jim Vilk | August 11, 2011 at 2:30 pm |

          Mike Hegan is the one Tribe announcer I can listen to for extended periods of time. Seems like a really good guy.

          One would almost be led to believe the sleeve patch was added to the photos later, since no one remembered it. Of course, that was before the days of Photoshop and the interwebs.

        • Paul Lukas | August 11, 2011 at 2:33 pm |

          Hegan was really struggling to say the right thing, and to come to terms with the fact that he had worn something that he now finds wrong. The tension in his voice, the yearning, was palpable. But he never hesitated about discussing any of it. Called me back when he said he would, etc. Stand-up guy.

  • kyle | August 11, 2011 at 11:51 am |

    In the Michigan article about the pants, I noticed the stripes on the back of the helmet don’t go all the way to the bottom. Looks like some guys had the center stripe go all the way tho. Kinda odd, since we see it go all the way down today. Reminds me of what VaTech did last year, cutting their triple stripe down the middle short.

  • Mike 2 | August 11, 2011 at 12:09 pm |

    Great column today.

    The one line that stuck with me “I think it’s a sign of progress that we now have the luxury, if you want to call it that, of decrying the symbols of discrimination, instead of having to deal with the actual discrimination that White faced during his time in the minors.”

    • Geen | August 11, 2011 at 12:44 pm |

      Here’s the thing.

      The segregationists actually didn’t hide behind the Confederate flag as much as they did the U.S. flag.

      It was only in the 1980s that the Confederate battle flag became a “hated” symbol. Thing is, if it is so “hated,” why are there so many Civil War tourists where the flag is displayed?

      It’s the ATTITUDE and ACTIONS of people that count.

      Not the symbols.

  • Thomps | August 11, 2011 at 12:10 pm |

    In honor of John Fogerty, my suggestion for the New Yorker caption contest, “Put me in coach, I’m ready to flambe!”

    • Paul Lukas | August 11, 2011 at 12:37 pm |

      I hope you actually submitted that on the New Yorker site, not just here. It’s good!

      • Thomps | August 11, 2011 at 1:02 pm |

        Thanks! Finalists announced 8/29, fingers crossed.

    • Jim Vilk | August 11, 2011 at 4:03 pm |

      Manager: No, there’s no such thing as an “infield fry rule.”

  • Christopher F. | August 11, 2011 at 12:26 pm |

    Damn Paul… that may be the best piece you’ve written for ESPN. Good job!

    Will you just write a book already?!


    • Nick O | August 11, 2011 at 3:25 pm |

      I second this thought.

  • muddlehead | August 11, 2011 at 12:37 pm |

    ah jeez. i’ve been doing my rioting with a cricket bat…

  • JTH | August 11, 2011 at 12:43 pm |

    Honestly, the first thought that crossed my mind about that confederate flag sleeve patch was that it was placed there to offset the potentially repellent “Yankees” nickname.

    When did the flag really enter the national consciousness as a symbol of racism, anyway? As pointed out above, the fact that it adorned the General Lee was pretty much a nonissue. Were Bo and Luke Duke hatemongers? Maybe, but I don’t recall that being one of the show’s themes. Perhaps I was just naive.

    Hell, when I was a freshman in high school, I had a pair of custom Vans shoes that had confederate flags along the welts (that’s what that strip of rubber at the bottom is called, right?). I really never thought anything of it and nobody ever said anything to me about the shoes one way or the other. I certainly wasn’t trying to make some kind of political statement via my footwear.

    I’m sure that customization option is no longer avaiable, but if my kid came home with those on his shoes, you can bet your ass there’d be a serious discussion about them.

    • Paul Lukas | August 11, 2011 at 12:50 pm |

      Again, even if the civil rights pioneers had bigger fish to fry, the segregationists were claiming the flag as their symbol. Georgia added it to their state flag in 1956, after Brown v. Board of Ed spelled the end of “separate but equal.” The Klan routinely waved the Confederate flag at rallies.

      It’s easy to see why you might not be too worried about a flag if you’re busy being attacked with lead pipes (Birmingham), shocked with cattle prods (Parchman), or threatened by a bunch of guys wielding ax handles (Lester Maddox). But that doesn’t mean the flag wasn’t a symbol of racism — it just means we weren’t yet at the point where we could focus our attention on symbols.

      • Christopher F. | August 11, 2011 at 12:58 pm |


        Do understand that those who embrace the flag aren’t ALWAYS doing so with racist undertones.

        The only criticism (and I mean this in a friendly way, as I commented before that this is probably the best article I’ve read of yours) I have of the article is the undertone of the confederate flag being 100% racist. And every usage of the flag has racist undertones. That is just not true.

        • Paul Lukas | August 11, 2011 at 1:06 pm |

          First, let’s stop with “undertones” and “overtones” and so on. The question is simple: Is it a racist symbol?

          And the answer is yes. I can display a swastika and claim that it’s my personal symbol of Arbor Day — and I can be sincere in that claim — but it’s still a swastika. We can have a separate debate over whether that makes me a bigot, but the SYMBOL is what it is. It’s a swastika; it’s a symbol of hatred. (Yes, I know the swastika used to be a Native American symbol, a good luck symbol, blah-blah-blah, but those uses have all been superceded by the Nazi connection.)

          The Confederate flag was the symbol of slavery and then the symbol of segregation. It can be reappropriated and recontextualized, but that’s still what it is. Does its use necessarily indict the user, no matter what? Again, that’s a debate worth having. But the symbol itself is unambiguous.

    • Christopher F. | August 11, 2011 at 12:54 pm |

      I’m no expert, but I believe the issue of the confederate flag being “racist” and nothing but “racist” arose when people started targeting the Georga flag in the 1990’s and early 2000’s.

      It was a somewhat political attempt to find *anything* to peg the South as racist to the core.

      While a lot of the usage of that flag has racist undertones (if not explicitly racist)… that’s not the case most of the time.

      I live in the South now and know a lot of people who embrace the flag in the sense of “You yankees don’t understand the South and the pride we have in it”

      I don’t personally because I understand how it can be misunderstood. But I respect it when its honestly used in a non-racist fashion.

      • Paul Lukas | August 11, 2011 at 1:09 pm |

        I live in the South now and know a lot of people who embrace the flag in the sense of “You yankees don’t understand the South and the pride we have in it”

        Here’s a simple question: Are any of those people black?

        Another question: Do you ever see proud black Southerners — and there are plenty of them — flying the Confederate flag?

        I wonder why that is. Do you?

        • Geeman | August 11, 2011 at 1:23 pm |

          No, black Southerners do not fly the flag, and for good reason. It was co-opted a long time ago by those who resisted integration, often violently. It does not mean that everyone who flies that flag now is racist, just that they are oblivious or don’t care about what they are saying about themselves on that issue. So be it. If you want to read some good history on the culture that admires the flag for historical reasons other than race, read Jim Webb’s book “Born Fighting.”

          On another note, I always am amused that in North Carolina, especially Eastern North Carolina, which is more like the Deep South, there seem to be more damn Yankees fans, including older folks, than anywhere outside of the Bronx or North Jersey.

        • Paul Lukas | August 11, 2011 at 1:24 pm |

          Wanna see a stronghold of Yankees fans? Go to Florida.

        • Geeman | August 11, 2011 at 1:25 pm |

          Well, good point. But those folks are all retirees from New York and New Jersey.

        • Christopher F. | August 11, 2011 at 1:33 pm |

          I’ll reply to both of your comments here because for some reason there is no reply button on your first reply to me.

          First of all… “let’s stop with undertones and overtones and so on” leads us to a pure black-and-white argument (I mean that figuratively, not black and white as in race). That’s dangerous in my mind. Undertones and overtones about the usage of said flag ARE important.

          The Nazi thing is VERY different. It is used 100% of the time in a racist manner. (Your “arbor day” side point is not relevant, because NO ONE does that). The confederate flag is not. Yeah, most likely racist more than not, but not 100%. I know many people who sincerely fly the flag with zero racist undertones. It is also a symbol for people who believe the South is disrespected and stereotyped as “all racist, no questions”. Which bothers a lot of Southerners.

          Sorry- its just something that bothers me. I lived in the suburbs of Chicago and now the South. The former was the most racist place I’ve every lived/visited.

          Your second point- no blacks fly the flag. That’s because to blacks- probably 100% of them- its a symbol of racism. But that doesn’t mean its a symbol of racism to everyone.

          I take issue with the argument that if one group says something is racist, everyone has to believe its racist.

          In the end, I just happen to have a real issue with an argument that wants to eliminate “undertones”. It makes for a lazy argument.

        • Paul Lukas | August 11, 2011 at 2:34 pm |

          So you agree that blacks find it to be racist.

          So why would anyone go out of their way to display a symbol that they know is offensive and hurtful to a large contingent of their fellow citizens?

          End of discussion.

        • Chris | August 11, 2011 at 2:57 pm |

          I live in Southern California and have seen a black man wear a confederate flag shirt. It was at the Stagecoach Festival (an outdoor country music festival on the same grounds that host Coachella). I didn’t have the gumption to ask him about it but found it odd to say the least. I have also seen the flag as far away as Austria where I was told that they viewed it as being a representation of rockabilly culture and nothing more or less.

        • Mike | August 11, 2011 at 3:50 pm |


          Crazy thing is the new Georgia state flag is actually the 1st National Flag of the Confederacy. It’s not as famous as the Stars and Bars battle flag but it still flew over the CSA.

          Also, as a Floridian, the further south you go the more it feels like the North. Tampa could be another borough of NYC. :)

          Great article by the way.


        • Christopher F. | August 11, 2011 at 5:15 pm |


          I in no way meant to imply you haven’t visited the South. Apologies if it came off that way. I was addressing anyone who was disagreeing with me who may not have experience in the South.

          And I certainly didn’t mean to imply you’re in any way ignorant of Southern culture. Again, sorry if it came off that way. That would be pretty stupid of me, since its clear from your articles that you have visited the South, and you were kind enough to have a few beers with me in the South some years ago!

          Anyway, we disagree on some things- but I’m glad we can have such spirited discussion on Uniwatch. That’s missing from A LOT of forums on the Internet.

          Anyway, I think I’ve veered this waaaaaaay off track from uni-discussion.

      • Paul Lukas | August 11, 2011 at 1:18 pm |

        I’m no expert, but I believe the issue of the confederate flag being “racist” and nothing but “racist” arose when people started targeting the Georga flag in the 1990′s and early 2000′s.

        It was a somewhat political attempt to find *anything* to peg the South as racist to the core.

        This is silly. Question: When and why was the Confederate flag added to the Georgia flag in the first place?

        Answer: In 1956, as a response to Brown v. Board of Ed.

        So which move was “somewhat political”?

        • Christopher F. | August 11, 2011 at 1:35 pm |

          Which move was somewhat political? Both.

          Again, you’re arguing black-and-white. Both movements can be considered political and petty. And if “petty” is not strong enough substitute it with “dangerous”.

        • scott | August 11, 2011 at 1:36 pm |

          The state of Georgia has a good write-up on the creation of the new flag in 1956:

        • JTH | August 11, 2011 at 1:43 pm |

          Wave that flag, hoss.
          Wave it high.
          Do you know what it means?
          Do you know why?

        • Geeman | August 11, 2011 at 1:45 pm |

          Again, I suggest everyone read “Born Fighting” for historical context. You may also want to read the novel “Cold Mountain,” about a deserting Confederate soldier, and “Carry Me Home,” a Pulitzer Prize-winning historical account of 1960s Birmingham. Until you’ve read the history, you will not be able to understand it and you won’t bring much to the table of discussion on this issue.

          Enjoyed the column. But signing off for the day.

        • snowdan | August 11, 2011 at 2:12 pm |

          “Your second point- no blacks fly the flag. That’s because to blacks- probably 100% of them- its a symbol of racism. But that doesn’t mean its a symbol of racism to everyone.”

          …so it’s not a symbol of racism to white southerners? ok then it’s fine.

        • Paul Lukas | August 11, 2011 at 2:39 pm |

          Which move was somewhat political? Both.

          Again, you’re arguing black-and-white. Both movements can be considered political and petty. And if “petty” is not strong enough substitute it with “dangerous”.

          Chris — please. You’re being disingenuous and you know it.

          The Georgia flag was altered as a direct statement of defiance to integration. That was wrong. Decades later, a movement was started to right that wrong.

          To suggest moral and/or political balance between these two gestures is the very definition of a false equivalence.

        • Geen | August 11, 2011 at 3:02 pm |

          Paul, other states had the Confederate battle flag on their state flag. North Carolina and Mississippi come to mind. Mississippi still does!

        • Christopher F. | August 11, 2011 at 3:06 pm |

          This all goes back to the fact that people (journalists, Northerners are most at fault) ignore the fact that the confederate flag, in the south, DOES have more than one meaning. It just does. I live here, most of my travels take me through the deep south, and I have a penchant for talking to people about their deepest seeded feelings for things when I do travel.

          I you do first-hand research you’ll find that its really Northerners who decided the confederate flag ONLY stands for racism.

          Sorry if I’m going way off topic, but I’m very sensitive to the lazy stereotypes that have permeated culture and the media forever: that southerners are ignorant, racist, and stupid. And any symbols of the South automatically must be defending this ignorance, racism, and stupidity.

          I own a confederate flag. And I am one of the least racist people you will ever meet (race relations in America is a passion of mine, and I had a podcast that delt directly with that for 3 years or so).

          We’ll just have to agree to disagree. Your article was absolutely awesome, I just wish it didn’t start off with the undertone of “we all agree the confederate flag means only one thing, now here’s a facinating story of…”

        • Paul Lukas | August 11, 2011 at 3:12 pm |

          I you do first-hand research you’ll find that its really Northerners who decided the confederate flag ONLY stands for racism.

          Yeah, only Northerners. Oh, and all those black Southerners you yourself mentioned a few comments ago.

          See, this is what happens when someone tries to defend the indefensible. You end up tying yourself in knots and contradicting yourself.

          The flag can mean whatever you say it does — to YOU. It can symbolize pride and rainbows and unicorns — to YOU. If that’s what you honestly feel, then great. But in the larger context of the world, it’s a symbol of oppression.

        • Christopher F. | August 11, 2011 at 3:30 pm |

          I didn’t really contradict myself… I made the mistake of not including black southerners.

          And I wasn’t talking only about my feelings personally. I talked a little about that, but I’ve also referenced a large group of Southerners who use the flag as a symbol of something not racist.

          Maybe I should clarify what I’ve personally found that message to be. Its a way of saying “Fuck you, people who think the South is 100% ignorant, lazy, and racist.”

          It *is* a symbol of that. And its not a fringe usage (as the swastika for Arbor day would be). Its just not. All the arguments about the confederate flag ONLY symbolizing racism is ignoring a non-fringe and non-racist usage of the flag. And usually people who think this way just never researched how many people sincerely think different things about the flag… and rely on the LOUDEST usages of it- racism.

          Finally, somewhat of a side point. To me, personally, the flag of Naperville, Illinois represents racism a heck of a lot more than the confederate flag. Yes, this is an anecdote, I know. When I see any representations of Northern suburban culture it reminds me of the most racist place I’ve ever lived or visited.

        • Paul Lukas | August 11, 2011 at 3:46 pm |

          I didn’t really contradict myself… I made the mistake of not including black southerners.

          Kinda sums up the whole issue, no?

        • Christopher F. | August 11, 2011 at 4:17 pm |

          Oh, come on- there was a lot more substance to my argument(s) that one lazy wording mistake.

          My point was it’s people that don’t fly the flag that have decided that it means one thing and one thing only. And there is a non-fringe group of people who think it means something else.

          To everyone countering my argument: visit the deep south sometime. You’d be surprised at how its really no more racist than the rest of the country. I’d go as far as saying its less racist than many other parts, but I’ll just leave it at “no more racist” for the sake of argument.

        • Paul Lukas | August 11, 2011 at 4:25 pm |

          Chris, it might surprise you to learn that I’ve traveled quite extensively in the South. And I like it there. A lot.

          I agree not all (or even most) Southerners are racists. But you seem more interested in other people’s perceptions of the South than in the reality of history.

          You have acknowledged that a large contingent of your fellow Southerners — indeed, your fellow citizens, fellow Americans — find a certain symbol to be hurtful and offensive. I ask again: If that’s the case, why would you — why would anyone — insist on displaying such a symbol? Is there no other way to express Southern pride? Doesn’t the vaunted tradition of Southern manners and gentility call for a less objectionable approach, an approach that unites people (or at least tries to), instead of deliberately and knowingly antagonizing a certain group of people who were oppressed for generations in the name of that very same symbol?

          As for me, I don’t find the Confederate flag offensive simply because it’s a symbol of oppression. It’s also a symbol of war, of disunion, of treason. As an American, that offends me deeply.

          The South didn’t lose the Civil War; the Confederacy did. I love the South; the Confederacy was, and will always be, America’s enemy. The flag symbolizes that, too.

        • Jim Vilk | August 11, 2011 at 4:30 pm |

          Whether it’s worse in the north (I know a black man from Kentucky who said, in some ways, things are worse up here) or south, one thing is sure – it’s worse in Europe. Ask any black soccer player who’s played here and overseas. We may have a ways to go, but we’re still leading the way.

    • Roger | August 11, 2011 at 2:53 pm |

      I live in the deep south, and I understand the argument that the flag represents the preservation of southern culture or honors those who fought to defend it. However, it is also the flag of an enemy of the United States of America. Period. No different than a Nazi flag, Imperial battle flag of Japan or a North Vietnamese flag. Now the difference between those flags and the flags of other past enemies (England, Mexico, Spain) is that the sting of those conflicts are still fresh and the effects still felt. Same thing goes for the Confederate Flag. Alot of people who fly that flag will tell you that they are flying it to “preserve southern culture, honor those who died for it, and etc.,” but I have found that behind those reasons, the motivation is to antagonize. They want you to take umbridge with their form of expression. They want to be able to point out that “If you take offense to this, then it is you that are prejiduced. It is you that is ignorant.”

      They will cite the “fact” that it is a symbol of state’s rights, that the states seceded because the federal government interfered with a state’s right to govern as they see fit and that the Northern government was the aggressor (even though they fired the first shot.) However, what they refuse to acknowledge is that the core reason, the state right they wanted to preserve, was slavery. This is not a case of California fighting for the right to legalize marijuana or Nevada fighting to keep gambling legal. It’s the enslavement of another human being that they wanted to hold onto. That is what gave birth to that horrendous flag. 150 years later the sting is still felt.

      • Paul Lukas | August 11, 2011 at 3:08 pm |

        There was only one state’s right at issue: the right to treat a certain class of fellow Americans as property. It’s plainly stated as such in the articles of secession for most of the Southern states.

        Don’t take my word for it, or your great-uncle’s, or Wikipedia’s. Google “Mississippi secession statement” and actually READ it for yourself. Then do the same with the other Confederate states. It’s all spelled out, plain as day.

      • Ben Fortney | August 11, 2011 at 3:16 pm |

        I was in Richmond in June and biked through Hollywood Cemetery which is full of Confederate war dead, as well as the final resting place of JEB Stuart and Jefferson Davis (plus US Presidents Monroe and Tyler.)

        It was a week or two after Memorial Day, and what stuck out to me was that a lot of the Confederate tombstones were adorned with what I thought at the time was a Confederate flag as well as the Stars and Stripes.

        Turns out the dates on the “Confederate” flag are important to North Carolina; their Revolutionary declaration and their date of secession.

        Regardless, I thought it was very strange to have the Stars and Stripes planted on Confederate graves, when they died in opposition to what that flag stood for.

      • R.S. Rogers | August 11, 2011 at 4:18 pm |

        Preach it, brother Roger.

        The correct response to anyone who advances a “state’s rights” argument about Confederate secession is to ask, “A state’s right to do what?”

        In point of fact, antebellum Southerners generally opposed state’s rights. In the 1850s, it was antislavery and abolitionist forces in the North and West who stood on state’s rights principles to oppose the increasing federal enforcement of national proslavery laws, such as the much-hated Fugitive Slave Act. Dred Scott v. Sandford was, among other things, a radical repudiation of state’s rights to recognize the legal standing of free blacks and even to exclude slavery under state law. Southerners in that era even denied that the voters of the territories could ban slavery. The Southern agenda by 1860 was one of imposing proslavery measures on unwilling Northern and Western states and territories by force from Washington, which they could do thanks to the three-fifths clause. The election of a Northern candidate opposed to the further expansion of slavery into the territories demonstrated that the South’s ability to override state laws by federal fiat was broken, and that is why secession happened when it did.

        Bottom line is that not only is “state’s rights” not a true explanation of the origins of the Civil War, but in point of fact secessionists were generally opposed to state’s rights. The whole “state’s rights” thing as we know it today, and as it is cited by modern Confederate apologists, arose after the Civil War during white Southern opposition to Reconstruction.

        And after asking the “state’s rights” apologists what they think that means, it can be entertaining to also point out the many ways in which the antebellum South was run as a Mussolini-style totalitarian police state. State governments opened and censored private mail; the right to speak, to assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievance was tightly curtailed, even among white men; access to the ballot was denied on ideological grounds; property requirements and other laws kept many white men from voting; it was often a crime to teach children to read; some Christian denominations faced official discrimination; private contracts were subject to arbitrary change or annulment by the courts; partisan militias and posses enforced extralegal reigns of terror with state approval, up to and including the murder of political opponents; gun ownership was highly restricted, even among white men, and often on openly political grounds, such that to legally own a gun, one had to actively support the right political party; and so on. The antebellum South, like the Confederacy, was a one-party state that operated more like Mussolini’s Italy, or Castro’s Cuba, than anything we would recognize as a free society.

  • LarryB | August 11, 2011 at 2:05 pm |

    The USC white pants look is not a good look. Let is stay for practice pants.

    USC has what may be my 2nd favorite football uniform. The home ones.

  • BJ | August 11, 2011 at 2:16 pm |

    Paul, your article brought to mind a question I’ve wondered about for a long time: how do African-American athletes at Ole Miss feel about playing for the Rebels? Obviously it doesn’t keep them from signing a good number of black student athletes (or over-signing in the case of the football team), but maybe things have changed over the years. Thoughts?

    • Paul Lukas | August 11, 2011 at 2:36 pm |

      Good question.

  • Jim Vilk | August 11, 2011 at 2:17 pm |

    “He was called up to the Bronx that September, his first cup of coffee in the majors.”

    When a player has a brief span in the minors, do they call that a “cup of coffee” as well? Always wondered about that.

    A “cup of decaf,” perhaps?

    • Paul Lukas | August 11, 2011 at 2:36 pm |

      Maybe a cup of tea.

      • umplou | August 11, 2011 at 2:49 pm |

        Drink of water.

        • Nick O | August 11, 2011 at 3:28 pm |

          Sip of gatorade?

        • J-Dub | August 11, 2011 at 4:14 pm |

          Shot of bourbon?

        • R.S. Rogers | August 11, 2011 at 5:26 pm |

          Gotta go more medicinal. Cup of Castor oil? Pepto-Bismol? As in, “I’m going to the ballpark tomorrow night to see Stephen Strasburg get another cup of Pepto before returning to the big.”

          Or Dickensian: Cup of gruel.

        • Ricko | August 11, 2011 at 6:32 pm |

          In the South was “Hit of grits,” I think.

        • Jim Vilk | August 11, 2011 at 10:11 pm |

          A swig of YooHoo?

  • Chris | August 11, 2011 at 3:09 pm |

    Paul – Your article makes me think about my own high school football team and I wonder whether others outside the Southern states have had similar experiences.

    I went to South High in Torrance, CA (a suburb of Los Angeles) and graduated in 1994. The four public schools in Torrance are known as Torrance, South, West, and North. West High and North High were considered our primary rivals and we used the term “Civil War” to describe our rivalry with North High despite the fact that we were the South High Spartans and played the North High Saxons. When I played on the freshman team, our varsity team used confederate battle flags as merit stickers.

    To the best of my knowledge there is no real history of racism against blacks in Torrance, but Japanese internment during World War II is certainly part of Southern California history. South previously had black players (notably Johnnie Morton who played for USC and the Detroit Lions), but as far as I am aware it was never an issue until 1990 or 1991 when two black players objected to the use of the stickers. The coach changed the stickers to Spartan heads and I don’t recall any debate or discussion about the issue.

    Looking back on it today it is shocking to me that these stickers would have been used in a place entirely removed from the Deep South, and just as shocking that no one ever raised the issue of removing the stickers until the early ’90s.

  • Jim Vilk | August 11, 2011 at 4:11 pm |

    “New football uniforms for Louisiana-Lafayette.”

    Now this is a nice touch:
    Everything else about those unis…meh.

  • Michael Emody | August 11, 2011 at 4:43 pm |

    Does anyone know why the Phillies didn’t go with throwbacks yesterday in LA? And which ones were they planning to wear? They’re 8.5 games in first in the NL east, so a “bad attitude/losing streak/superstition/can’t be bothered” is probably not the reason.

    • Ricko | August 11, 2011 at 6:28 pm |

      For the record, might be time to remember the first-ever TBTC Game was a one-sided deal, throwback-wise…

    • Michael Emody | August 11, 2011 at 11:02 pm |

      I’ll bet they hadn’t yet ordered the Phillies road throwbacks when the Dodgers went belly-up financially, and determined it wasn’t important.

  • Attila Szendrodi | August 11, 2011 at 7:02 pm |

    I just noticed on the intro for Monday Night Countdown (on a Thursday of course) they were still using the old red Bills helmet.

  • moose | August 11, 2011 at 7:20 pm |

    just got home, and may i say one word about today’s effort? superb.

  • odessasteps | August 11, 2011 at 7:55 pm |

    When I lived in Virginia Beach, one year someone drove through one of the retail areas on MLK Day flying the Stars and Bars from the back of their jacked-up pick-up truck.

    This may be dismissed as “just wrestling,” but in the 1990s, there was a wrestling promotion in Tennessee where the #1 good guy was called “The Wild Eyed Southern Boy” and waved a Stars and Bars flag. He was feuding with a bad guy who, to get heat, proclaimed he was now from New York and starting wearing a Yankees hat. And the big angle in the feud was the bad guy burning the Confederate Flag and the good guy cutting an heartfelt promo about what the flag meant to him.

    Also, the Fabulous Freebirds, the first people in the modern era to use theme music in wrestling, used to have ornate stars and bars robes they wore when they worked in Texas.

  • inkracer | August 11, 2011 at 9:28 pm |

    I’m watching the Eagles v Ravens game, and they just had a graphic on screen about all the rules changes for this season. The one that caught my eye: NFL Fields must be a league approved shade of green.
    … really?

    • Paul Lukas | August 11, 2011 at 10:55 pm |

      There goes that Boise State plan to get around the new MWC rule by playing in the AFC West….

    • Kyle Allebach | August 11, 2011 at 10:55 pm |

      The Boise State rule–no colored turf.

  • Michael Kramer | August 11, 2011 at 9:52 pm |

    Someone very talented made a whole album of NHL soccer jersey concepts. The details are what really hook me. I like how the hem designs were incorporated for a lot of the teams, e.g. the Hawks, Canes, and Habs. He/she even made the Sabres jersey appropriately atrocious with apron strings and out-of-place squad numbers. A European soccer jersey doesn’t look right these days without a sponsor on the front, and I applaud the choice to use the corresponding stadium sponsors. Best of all, each of the Stanley Cup-winning teams has stars incorporated into the logo/crest, with a silver star for every Cup and a gold star for every 10 Cups.

    • Kyle Allebach | August 11, 2011 at 11:06 pm |

      This was posted in the ticker I think a week ago.

  • Kyle Allebach | August 11, 2011 at 11:03 pm |

    Juan Castillo had something weird going on with his glasses. He had some sort of chain or rope keeping them around his neck, but the lenses looked like they were separated–like a pair of glasses without a bridge to go over his nose. Sorry, but I can’t find a picture of it. Help anyone?

  • Johnny O | August 11, 2011 at 11:19 pm |

    Safety Darrell Stuckey had his name spelled wrong on his uniform tonight. (h/t Eric Stangel on twitter)

  • Kyle Allebach | August 11, 2011 at 11:22 pm |

    Also, I don’t know how uni related this is, but at a Neo-Nazi concert, people gave away free T-shirts that once you washed it, it showed the message “If your T-Shirt can do it, so can you. We’ll help free you from right-wing extremism.”

  • jdreyfuss | August 12, 2011 at 12:59 am |

    Given its use in so many states’ designs, does the Confederate national flag carry the same connotations as the Confederate battle flag? Also, there’s a cemetery here in Lexington that has a lot of CSA and CSN officers buried there, including Stonewall Jackson. The weird thing is that all of those graves, including Jackson’s tomb, usually have crossed American and Confederate national flags. Is it because almost all of them were officers in the US military before the war?