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

Summer Woolens: A Trove of Flannel Antiquities


The increasingly indispensable Mike Hersh recently turned me on to a site I hadn’t been aware of before, Antique Sports Collector. It’s filled with excellent photographs of some really nice baseball jerseys and related items. Let’s take a look:

• I’ve always been intrigued by jerseys with the old button-on sleeve style. Additional examples here and here.

• I love this style of ticking stripe. What a beauty!

• Check out the old-school sleeve cuffs on this jersey.

• So rare to see green on an early baseball jersey. It was an extremely uncommon uniform color back in the day.

• Oooh, check out the awesome navy/gold trim on this jersey. Click on the photos for larger versions.

• Man, what a clusterfuck of a logo. If you untangle it, I believe it’s YMCA!

• I really like the vest down in the lower-right corner of this photo. The big letters, the gold trim — spectacular.

• Look closely at this jersey — is that a tab collar? I have never seen that on a baseball uniform before.

• Totally digging this girls’ baseball uni.

• There isn’t much football material shown on the site, but check out the amazing gold uniform with red/blue trim shown in this photo.

• The site also includes a nice gallery of tags. Look at all those Spalding variations!

• Dear Nike, Reebok, and Adidas, could you please start using envelopes as cool as this one? Right, didn’t think so.

Great stuff, right? (Mike also told me about an antique football collectors’ site, although that one doesn’t have nearly as much material.)

Just as I was getting ready to publish this piece, reader Jason Hillyer sent me an article about the guy who runs the site where I found all these photos. Kismet!

+ + + + +

Mouth almighty: I’m quoted in two articles about college football that were published yesterday — one in the New York Times and one in the Washington Post. (The AP just published a similar piece but somehow neglected to call me, which is something of a relief, because boy am I sick of talking about Maryland.)

One final thought on all of this: It’s disappointing to see how many people have either voiced or accepted the notion that the Maryland uniforms were a “success” simply because they garnered a lot of attention, as if attention is self-justifying. When a two-year-old gets attention by yelling and screaming, we don’t call that a success; we call it a tantrum. When a creepy guy in the park gets attention by walking over and opening his trenchcoat, we don’t call that a success; we call it a misdemeanor. I’m not trying to equate the Maryland uniforms with screaming toddlers or flashers, but I am trying to suggest that we should all hope for a higher standard of discussion than simply “attention = good,” because life is more complicated than that.

+ + + + +

There’s a new post over at the Permanent Record blog.

+ + + + +

Uni Watch News Ticker: Another team wearing the kidney jerseys: South Carolina, 1927. “But their best look has to be the dart boards in 1929,” says Lance Hall. … New lacrosse gloves for Notre Dame (from Jeff Brunelle). … Here’s some video that provides our first look at the Preds’ new road unis in action. … Andy Chalifour has identified an interesting trend among rookie catchers: They’re wearing their catchers’ helmets with the brim facing front. Recent examples in include Ryan Lavarnway, Jose Lobaton, and Welington Castillo. … Auburn was apparently once considering a giant eagle mascot (from Jeremy Henderson). … Rangers outfielder Craig Gentry has been wearing toe socks (from Rachel Johnson). … Lots of great old photos from the Boston Public Library archives. “Might be the best news of the day,” says Ian Carr. … Finally, someone is creating a Negro Leagues database (thanks, Phil). … O.J. DeCastro spotted something odd during the New England player intros from Monday night’s Dolphins/Pats game: a coupla guys in Packers jerseys. What was that about? ”¦ Lots of pics of the Islanders’ ice being painted. “40th-anniversary logo looks sharp,” says Jason Hoffman. ”¦ Maryland will be wearing solid black this weekend. ”¦ College hoops has its first blue court, thanks to Cal State Bakersfield (from Lee Wilds). ”¦ The great Flip Flop Fly Ball site has taken an interesting look at score bugs (from Kurt Esposito).

142 comments to Summer Woolens: A Trove of Flannel Antiquities

  • Kek | September 15, 2011 at 7:45 am |

    I’m thinking those are local high school kids that may have been on the sidelines prior to the game. It’s just quite possible their school has a similar look to the Pack.

    • Kek | September 15, 2011 at 7:45 am |

      There’s a wordmark above the number that doesn’t look like anything Packer-related.

      • Pierre | September 15, 2011 at 7:56 am |

        Oh…I thought maybe it was another design Maryland/UA was testing before a national audience.

        • Pierre | September 15, 2011 at 7:59 am |

          CORRECTION: Of course, that should read UA/Maryland…sorry for the typo.

      • Graf Zeppelin | September 15, 2011 at 8:54 am |

        I noticed that too and was thinking the same thing; lots of high schools use NFL jersey templates.

    • jdreyfuss | September 15, 2011 at 8:30 am |

      Agreed. It looks like it says Lake [something].

    • Coleman | September 15, 2011 at 9:10 am |

      Man you guys got to that quickly. And here I thought I’d be revered this morning for my keen eye and huge brain…

      Maybe tomorrow!

    • Ronnie Poore | September 15, 2011 at 10:03 am |

      the Packer-esque unis are worn by the Miami-Jackson High School Generals:×250.jpg

      • Kek | September 15, 2011 at 10:14 am |

        Thanks Ronnie, nice work! Now I don’t have to go searching through the Miami Herald and FHSAA and other FLA HS related sites!

      • johnj | September 15, 2011 at 11:00 am |

        Woah, from that link, what’s with the horizontal pants stripes on that Hallandale team?? Looks like short shorts…. can anyone make out the maker’s mark?

  • Phil Hecken | September 15, 2011 at 8:02 am |

    “It’s disappointing to see how many people have either voiced or accepted the notion that the Maryland uniforms were a “success” simply because they garnered a lot of attention, as if attention is self-justifying. “


    we’re increasingly living in a world where “there is no such thing as bad publicity”

    if that is your entire mindset, then yes, the university of underarmour unis were a tremendous success

    i’d like to think some of us still measure success differently, but when the goal is “to get people talking about you (even if it’s *negatively*)”…in that regard, they succeeded

    • Paul Lukas | September 15, 2011 at 8:10 am |

      we’re increasingly living in a world where “there is no such thing as bad publicity”

      Well, that’s an old line, so it’s not like that’s a new phenomenon. What’s different, I think, is the increasing notion that mere shock value is now its own reward and is therefore something to strive for. It’s kinda like the good/stupid paradigm: Why bother even trying to be good if you can attract a lot of attention by being stupid?

      • Phil Hecken | September 15, 2011 at 8:15 am |

        trending on twitter!


      • Ry Co 40 | September 15, 2011 at 8:37 am |

        “Why bother even trying to be good if you can attract a lot of attention by being stupid?”

        giving the NBA slogan ideas, eh?

      • johnj | September 15, 2011 at 9:43 am |

        Well look at a school like Boise State and the Blue Turf… That was and is pretty stupid, and they weren’t initially very good. The perennial ‘good’ schools don’t need these gimmicks. (Alabama, Texas, PSU don’t worry about kids wanting to play with them and are the portrait of not attracting attention with unis or gimmicks)

        But if this attention is able to make Idaho seem interesting to a top recruit from Florida, California, Texas etc., isn’t it serving its purpose?

        Now, this argument is totally disregarding Nike and UA’s financial intentions, I know this… But this is a good example of why you would NEED to worry about getting attention rather than being good

        • The Jeff | September 15, 2011 at 10:24 am |

          Exactly. If you’re not *already* a “powerhouse” team, how do you become one? You gotta do something to attract attention and hopefully pull in better players so you actually can start winning.

        • Dante | September 15, 2011 at 11:54 am |

          Please don’t jump down my throat. Why is Penn State considered a perennial power? Penn State has 3 conference titles and one national championship in the last 25 years, with a BCS record of 1-1. Yet at the same time, a school like Boise State (10 conference titles and 2-0 BCS record in 15 years at the FBS level) is considered a gimmick, or not afforded the same respect. I’m not asking this to be an ass or anything just genuinely curious.

        • johnj | September 15, 2011 at 1:14 pm |

          Well for starters, one is regularly successful in the Big Ten and one is successful in the WAC/Mountain West.

          Secondly, however unfair, you’re comparing an all time great division 1 (FBS) program with one thats only been around since 96.

          Oh, and then there’s JoePa

        • The Jeff | September 15, 2011 at 1:27 pm |

          Which is of course the same type of reaction that people had to the AFL challenging the NFL, and we know how that turned out.

          Ultimately, the Big 10 is a “powerhouse” conference because it says it is. For all we know, Toledo might be good enough to beat 9 of the 12 teams in it this year, but it doesn’t matter, they’re still a “crappy MAC school” who’s lucky to get ranked at all, even in the best of circumstances. Conference A is established and officially tough while Conference B is new and doesn’t get respect. Actual skill level means jack, because NCAA football is all about tradition (and money).

        • johnj | September 15, 2011 at 1:37 pm |

          Agreed Jeff…

          And more to the UniWatch perspective… Boise State is considered a gimmick because, well, theyre gimmicky… Things like ProCombat, multicolored turf, new unis every year are all gimmicks that have become a part of that schools identity.

          So now when you think of PSU you think tradition, JoePa, NNOB, Linebacker U, and winning

          …and when you think of Boise State (and Oregon) you think of these gimmicks

      • Patrick | September 15, 2011 at 4:29 pm |

        Of course, I’m sure you read the article on Grantland that argues that Oregon owes its recent success to its uniforms.

        • johnj | September 15, 2011 at 5:21 pm |

          I thought it made some points.

          I mean, look at it this way, how else can you explain it?

          Take, for example, my alma mater-Rutgers. We had a great season in 2006. Our win over #3 Louisville was huge at the time. We were sure we were on the fast track to great recruits, Top 25s, BCS bowls, etc. 5 years later and we really aren’t pulling in great kids at the frequency that schools like Oregon and Boise State are.

          Think about that… One of the closest things to a NYC area school and its being out-recruited by the Northwest. And really, what was the difference between them and us a decade ago? Heck, Boise wasn’t even Div. I until 96.

          So as a school, why wouldn’t you look into these alternative methods? You can make a Sportscenter Top 10 by playing well OR you can be the lead on the evening/morning Sportscenter, front page of the NYT, Yahoo news, Good Morning Morning America, and so on by dressing funny for a single game. (And in Oregon’s case, lose!)

          Now this point disregards the all to happy companies like Nike and UA to cash in on this… but in the end, if you can’t sell the players on the field (because of eligibility or lack of talent) then you have to sell the school somehow (literally and figuratively). Its unfortunate from a UniWatch perspective, but what other options are there?

      • Matt13 | September 16, 2011 at 1:47 am |

        Success is determined by intent. Both the examples (the two-year-old and the flasher) indeed did have success with their chosen actions; the intent was to gain attention, and the result was the gaining of intention.

        Thus, if the intent of the Maryland uniforms was attention, then they were successful. I think that we are pretty much in agreement that was the intended first-order effect. However, in and of itself, attention is nothing; it is an enabler of another goal. No one (especially entities with a large public image) seeks attention just to have it; there is a second-order effect that attention causes. This intended second-order (and any sequential effect) are the true measure of success. In this case, I think there are plenty of hypotheses, whether it’s to sell jerseys, increase attendance, improve recruiting, etc. that have been bandied about here ad nauseam.

        The reason they are being shopped as a success is because the first-order effect has been achieved. There is no way, given the relatively short timeframe, to evaluate if any of the hypothesized second-order effects have been achieved. Therefore, at the only stage measurable, the uniforms are a success.

    • jdreyfuss | September 15, 2011 at 8:36 am |

      What those marketers forget is that the adage doesn’t apply to highly visual publicity. If they had a minor recruiting flap, people would only remember Maryland being in the news. With these uniforms, people are going to remember the ridicule, because it is both a highly visual and a highly visible knock against the school’s image. Ultimately, that is bad publicity.

  • Stephan | September 15, 2011 at 8:08 am |

    Also, you have the quote of the day on the NYT email headlines.

  • Bas | September 15, 2011 at 8:32 am |

    I’d say Under Armor did get the publicity it wanted good/bad/ whatever. It made Maryland look like an asses. Some schools/ teams feel they have to get noticed by doing shit like this, some schools/ teams however just do it the old fashion way…win games. Side note, at least you were quoted for something good, not giving quotes about being arrested for allegedly beating your wife *cough Manny-pajama pant curse Cough , cough*

  • Ry Co 40 | September 15, 2011 at 8:39 am |

    Dear Nike, Reebok, and Adidas, could you please start using brand identities as cool as this one? Right, didn’t think so.

    • Andy | September 15, 2011 at 9:18 am |

      I mean, it looks great, if your one of us who are interested in and appreciate the way things were way back when. Unfortunately, the majority of people don’t, and using a brand identity like that for a sportswear company would be suicide in this era.

      • Ry Co 40 | September 15, 2011 at 10:43 am |

        shame, ain’t it? most of those old tags are beautiful! too bad corporations need a vauge symbol that’s symbolic of 10 things it doesn’t need to be symbolic of. LOL. instead of, you know, a beautifl hound on a diamond filled with simple, equally beautiful font letters

    • Dante | September 15, 2011 at 11:56 am |

      Is that considered logo creep?

  • Seth H | September 15, 2011 at 8:53 am |

    “40th-anniversary logo looks sharp”

    Is that the 40th anniversary of DiPietro’s first injury?

    (And are you posting Islanders material all the way from Missouri, or is this a different Jason Hoffman?)

    • John | September 15, 2011 at 9:08 am |

      No, we’re a bit away from the “OW, MY FUCKIN’ HIP!!” On National TV anniversary. This is to commemorate his stubbed toe on the catering table.

      In other observations….

      The clip of the Preds/Bolts from Traverse City shows the Home Team in white (deduced from the scoreboard cutaways after goals). Since there’s been no news about the NHL going back to white-at-home, I’ll just say they’re fools to not make the return switch.

    • Mike Engle | September 15, 2011 at 9:10 am |

      More like the first 40 years of DiPietro’s contract. Halfway there until he’s off the books!

      • Lloyd Davis | September 15, 2011 at 10:04 am |

        And Mike Milbury continues to draw a paycheque from Hockey Night in Canada and NBC.

        (Come to think of it, Doug MacLean and Gord Stellick are also ex-GMs with broadcasting gigs. I guess the hockey version of the old adage is, “Those who can manage, manage; those who can’t, broadcast.”)

  • JimWa | September 15, 2011 at 9:08 am |

    Out of the blue comment for the morning:

    How financially beneficial would it be to be the reigning #85 on a team that Chad (FKA) Johnson is signed by / traded to?

    • johnj | September 15, 2011 at 9:35 am |

      Well if its anything like this year, not very (given to him for free)

      Chad’s also already dabbled with the idea of going back to Johnson. If the price wasn’t right, maybe he’d just switch back… in summation, Child Please.

  • Matt ::Sec110 | September 15, 2011 at 9:09 am |

    Re: attention = success and the screaming baby comparison.

    I think the biggest difference is that the screaming baby isn’t selling anything. For better or worse, Under Armor is selling the brand every time a team takes the field wearing an UA uniform.

    The fact that it garnered so much attention I guarantee new eyes went to the UA website, and they perhaps bought some merch…and in the end, that’s the goal.

    That being said, I wasn’t a fan of the uniform; well, mostly the helmet.

  • iLO | September 15, 2011 at 9:29 am |


    Does anyone know the term used for team Official Style Guides? The sheet that show Pantone colors, home and away uniforms and wordmarks…etc. I’ve been trying to remember the term but can’t seem to remember what it is. Anyone?

    • jdreyfuss | September 15, 2011 at 10:07 am |

      It’s not style sheet or style guide?

      • iLO | September 15, 2011 at 10:57 am |

        I don’t think so. I mean, it’s the formal name but I saw the term many times on here. I’m still searching for old entries in order to find it. I think it was something like switch, swatch…I dunno.

        • The Jeff | September 15, 2011 at 1:12 pm |

          I think you’re getting terms mixed up a bit. A style guide is a style guide. The little boxes of color are often called swatches, but that’s the only thing that term relates to, not the whole guide.

    • Keith S | September 15, 2011 at 4:30 pm |


      The official term is style guide. I do a lot with the NCAA, and all (at least all the schools I’ve worked with) have their style guides online.

      Here’s a sample for Oklahoma State University:

      If you are looking for a specific team, try searching “Official RGB Colors for (enter team)”. Most NCAA teams will have a pdf file viewable from a weblink.

      Good Luck.

    • Rob H. | September 15, 2011 at 5:48 pm |
  • Ry Co 40 | September 15, 2011 at 9:30 am |

    well, the isle is off to a great start already. signing they’re franchise player to 6 years… and… painting… PAINTING… we talkin’ bout PAINTING their ice surface as the corn mother intended! not using some 5 minute jet ink plot and kick into place BS!

    • Ry Co 40 | September 15, 2011 at 9:31 am |

      “signing they’re franchise”


      • Kek | September 15, 2011 at 10:57 am |

        Guess you’re going to go down to the tattoo parlor and get that “Live Life to It’s Fullest” tattoo that player from Arizona State has!!!

        • Ry Co 40 | September 15, 2011 at 3:09 pm |

          i actually have that tattooed on another body part… the only problem is that most of the time, it just reads: “List”

        • Phil Hecken | September 15, 2011 at 7:17 pm |

          you have that tattooed on your brain?

  • teenchy | September 15, 2011 at 9:36 am |

    From the NYT article:

    Georgia is suddenly ablaze in candy-apple red.

    Almost makes me think they looked good. Guess I have too many memories of crisp North Georgia autumns and short road trips to apple orchards on away football Saturdays.

    Instead I sit here now with FauxCobat fake juice and an increasingly irrelevant football program too fresh in my head.

    • teenchy | September 15, 2011 at 9:36 am |


  • Chris Holder | September 15, 2011 at 9:45 am |

    North Georgia… beautiful place. (Chattanooga, TN here)

    • Chris Holder | September 15, 2011 at 9:46 am |

      D’oh. Obviously meant for teenchy’s post above.

      • teenchy | September 15, 2011 at 10:34 am |

        I have fond memories of Chattanooga. Engel Stadium has a lot to do with many of them. Lots of fond memories of many North Georgia towns – Cornelia, Ellijay, Toccoa, Cleveland, Clarkesville. Even tacky little faux Alpine village Helen has its charm (and beer gardens!).

        • Chris Holder | September 15, 2011 at 10:52 am |

          It’s sad that Engel has fallen into such disrepair lately. With its history, it needs to be preserved for future generations of baseball fans (like Rickwood Field in Birmingham). Here’s an article from Tuesday about the local university, UT-Chatt, taking over the property. It mentions there being plans for preservation, albeit potentially using the property for other sports.

    • JimWa | September 15, 2011 at 10:10 am |

      North Georgia IS beautiful, absolutely true … but Chattanooga is my FAVORITE city to drive through between St. Louis and Florida. It makes me sad when we drive through during the night.

      • Chris Holder | September 15, 2011 at 10:24 am |

        I’ve lived here three years and enjoyed it, definitely. A lot of good restaurants and nightlife for a city its size. Plus a lot of outdoor activities, of course.

      • Connie | September 15, 2011 at 10:28 am |

        I also like Chatanooga and northwest Georgia because they were the places where the Confederacy was all-but-destroyed in 1864.

        • teenchy | September 15, 2011 at 10:36 am |

          Sure, come into our tail-end-of-the-Appalachians reverie to remind us of the US’ scorched-earth policy against its own citizens.

        • Chris Holder | September 15, 2011 at 10:44 am |

          Well that’s just rude to say.

        • teenchy | September 15, 2011 at 3:04 pm |

          @Chris: Do you mean Connie’s comment or mine? If mine, how else would you describe Sherman’s March?

        • Chris Holder | September 15, 2011 at 3:15 pm |

          Oh, I meant Connie’s, but even then it was mostly tongue-in-cheek. My great x5 grandfather fought for Tennessee in Chattanooga, actually (and didn’t own any slaves). I’m a Southerner. But I’m a student of the war – there were atrocities and “wrongs” on both sides, and I think anybody that studies it enough will realize that.

        • teenchy | September 15, 2011 at 3:35 pm |

          Thanks. I can’t say for certain that none of my direct ancestors held slaves, though my great-great-grandfather owned a grist mill before and after the war. His father (my great-great-great-) died from injuries suffered in The Crater. Both fought for South Carolina. One branch of my SC ancestors came south from VA where some of them definitely were slaveholders. I can say with certainty that in 1861 all of my ancestors were either in the Confederacy or some part of the Austrian Empire.

          It is what it is – I’m neither proud nor ashamed of it.

  • Ronnie Poore | September 15, 2011 at 9:54 am |

    would love for South Carolina to have a throwback game wearing the Dartboard jerseys.

    • jdreyfuss | September 15, 2011 at 10:09 am |

      I immediately thought of a poker chip instead of a dartboard, but I definitely see both. Either way, that would look good and Michigan already showed that you can use a large chest logo instead of numbers without problems. Letter writing campaign to Spurrier?

    • Ben Fortney | September 15, 2011 at 11:27 am |

      Those are fascinating jerseys, anyone ever seen an example of a similar style? I’d love to know the story behind them, as well as what the actual colors were.

      • teenchy | September 15, 2011 at 4:11 pm |

        A similar style was featured on this site about two years ago, worn by another South Carolina university, Furman.

  • Kenny Jacobson | September 15, 2011 at 10:07 am |

    Re: young catchers wearing their helmets forward

    As an old catcher myself, I’m just happy to see so many young catchers wearing a helmet and mask AT ALL instead of the newer, hockey-style helmets. I’ve never liked those things.

    • JimWa | September 15, 2011 at 10:12 am |

      Kenny – Is that from an aesthetic or functional perspective?

      • Kenny Jacobson | September 15, 2011 at 10:17 am |

        Both. The hockey helmets look bulky. Everyone who wears ’em looks like Gazoo. Also, when you get clipped by a foul tip your ears ring for 3 innings.

        • Kenny Jacobson | September 15, 2011 at 10:19 am |

          And they’re hotter.

          Other than that they’re great! /sarcasm

        • Matt13 | September 16, 2011 at 2:31 am |

          Me being an umpire, I have to say this, just to address a pet peeve…

          It is impossible to be clipped by a foul tip. By definition, a foul tip is caught.

          On the helmet/mask discussion, though, I wore the hockey-style mask from 2002-2009. Vision is better, sound is worse, as has already been mentioned, but there is also better weight distribution. In my mind, it wasn’t even close–I have to have as good as vision as possible, and I get hit in the mask relatively rarely. There were only two reasons I switched to a traditional mask in 2010; the new mask designs have increased vision and decreased weight, and it’s easier to hold when you need to do something with both hands.

      • jdreyfuss | September 15, 2011 at 11:13 am |

        I only played in little league so I never had anything but a traditional mask, but it always looks like the hockey masks would restrict the catcher’s peripheral vision too.

        • Kenny Jacobson | September 15, 2011 at 11:58 am |

          The one thing they actually do well is improve vision. The structure of the mask allows the bars to be closer to the face thus allowing a better field of view. You started seeing guys leave their mask on for plays at the plate when the hockey masks came into the league because the vision was better.

        • Patrick | September 15, 2011 at 4:33 pm |

          I heard an interview on Fresh Air from NPR with a retired Astros catcher and I think in it he said the hockey style masks were an improvement because you didn’t have to take them off for fly balls because of the improved vision you were talking about.

    • Ryne | September 15, 2011 at 10:29 am |

      First off, I caught in college for four years and coming into college I was a hockey mask guy. Then, two years in I had an “ah-ha” moment when I tried the traditional style for the first time.

      Something seems incorrect about the first of the young catcher’s in question however. Ryan Lavarnway (Boston) seems to be only wearing a forward facing helmet because the game is over and he’s shaking the pitcher’s hand. Often times, catcher’s flip their helmet forward and then throw the mask over the front (now in the back of the helmet) so they can rest the mask on the brim of the helmet.

      The link above is a picture of him in August of 2010 in the Minors.

    • Keith S | September 15, 2011 at 4:26 pm |

      I have an 11 year old son that plays catcher, and he has always worn a hockey style mask. At the end of last season (a very long season), he asked if I could find him a shell and mask for next year. I was delighted by his question.

      We travel a lot of games, and play in places that are very warm in the summer (Kansas, Nebraska, Texas, Arizona, etc), so I think he finally realized that even though the hockey style mask “looks good”, it’s not as functional as the old school shell and mask.

      Starting to see more and more youth players switching back.

  • Pierre | September 15, 2011 at 10:08 am |

    I read in the newspaper this morning (yep…an actual newspaper) that Dez Bryant of the Cowboys could not practice yesterday because of a thigh bruise.

    If you were Jerry Jones wouldn’t you want to know why your highly-paid wide receiver is not wearing thigh pads?

    • Kyle Allebach | September 15, 2011 at 5:54 pm |

      According to many players, thigh pads = not looking as fast. It’s a mentality thing; if you dress fast, you’ll think you play fast.

  • Jet | September 15, 2011 at 10:18 am |

    From that Boston Public Library archive — what the heck is that sleeve patch on Ruth’s jersey?!


    • Connie | September 15, 2011 at 10:30 am |

      Logi of the NY World’s Fair, 1939. Trylon and Perisphere, though not easily discerned because of the wrinkles in the the Bambino’s sleeve.

      • Connie | September 15, 2011 at 10:32 am |

        I meant “logo” not “logi”, but maybe you Scrabble players can tell me what a logi is (or what logi are).

      • Jet | September 15, 2011 at 11:14 am |

        Oh shoot, you know I should have recognized that because I have seen that Worlds Fair logo before!


  • Connie | September 15, 2011 at 10:19 am |

    Today’s lede is an automatic entry into the UW HoF. Thanks, IIMH! Every item spotlighted struck me as spectacular, And that ocean green!

    Paul, you gotta interview the collector/curator, Tracy Martin. What a hero.

  • TOM | September 15, 2011 at 10:23 am |

    Wow, big find on that Auburn Eagle Mascot story. I never knew that. Very interesting.

    (Also I’m glad Spirit the eagle is doing good after flying into the press box.)

  • John | September 15, 2011 at 10:58 am |

    Finally, a useful Islanders post…

    The 40th anniversary patch is being worn during rookie games. Looks pretty decent, if not inoffensive.

  • Mike 2 | September 15, 2011 at 11:26 am |

    Interesting article on the interaction between big-time shoe and clothing companies and college sports in the newest The Atlantic. Interesting stuff on how Penn State sold out their iconic look to Nike.

    Quote of the day, from the president of Penn State to a “sneaker pimp”, which pretty much sums up what a lot of us are saying:

    “Why,” asked Bryce Jordan, the president emeritus of Penn State, “should a university be an advertising medium for your industry?”

  • Phil Hecken | September 15, 2011 at 11:36 am |

    paul wasn’t just quoted in the times…

    that article was on the front page


  • umplou | September 15, 2011 at 11:43 am |

    Damn you, Paul – every time you link to to Flip Flop Fly Ball, another hour of my life disappears!

    That’s in addition to originally linking me to Sporcle…

  • DJ | September 15, 2011 at 12:50 pm |

    Paul if you’re so tired of talking about the Maryland uniforms, then stop talking about it. A lot of people like them. And for those who don’t, they are still talking about them, which you have to give credit to UA/MD.

    • Phil Hecken | September 15, 2011 at 1:21 pm |

      that’s exactly the point

      there was once a time when if someone didn’t like something and talked about it, that was a bad thing

      now…just talking about it (good, bad or indifferent) is considered success

      UA’s goal apparently was simply to get everyone talking about them, and in that, the succeeded and succeeded mightily…apparently talking *negatively* about them is of no concern

      hence, the old axiom i used above, “there’s no such thing as bad publicity” is well at work…paul’s codacil, that “mere shock value is now its own reward and is therefore something to strive for” says it all

      • Phil Hecken | September 15, 2011 at 1:23 pm |

        i should add,

        that goes for players who wear “look at me” gloves and kicks that are nothing but garish…they really don’t care if they look like a clown, the goal was for you to NOTICE that they look like a clown

        that, in and of itself, it its own reward

  • Ken | September 15, 2011 at 12:55 pm |

    While on the way to work in dowtown DC…the “free” version of the washington post.. Had this wonderful cover.. When I read the article (page 13) they had thier fashion expert review some of the uniforms. And they announced that this sat they will be all black for the West Va game.

    • Ken | September 15, 2011 at 12:56 pm |

      let me try the link again:

  • Ken | September 15, 2011 at 12:58 pm |
  • Christopher F. | September 15, 2011 at 1:37 pm |


    Arguing semantics here, but Maryland/Under Armor’s stunt was a “success.” Their goal was to get people talking about Maryland’s football team, and boy did they. And most people in a favorable way.

    I agree with almost all your other notions on the matter, and I thought the whole stunt was stupid from beginning to end.

    However, “success” does not mean good.

    Any attention = good –> untrue
    Any attention = success –> often true

    Lee Harvey Oswald’s goal was to assasinate Kennedy. He succeeded. Therefore it was a success.

    How about this, I’d sum it up with the following phrase:

    “Sadly, it was a success.”

    • Ricko | September 15, 2011 at 2:41 pm |

      re: All pub is good pub.

      It’s a strange business, this pop culture marketing.

      Upon learning of the death of Elvis Presley, one legendary Hollywood PR type remarked, “Good career move.”

      As callous as that sounds, in terms of Elvis’ value as a marketing commodity at the time—and the direction his personal life and career appeared to be headed had he lived—the comment was spot-on.

  • Stephen Pindar | September 15, 2011 at 1:42 pm |

    The Maryland uniforms would be better if either flag element was on the helmet only and the other on the shoulders only. personally i think the helmet would be good in the black and gold and the red and white cross on the shoulders. the pants should have a black/white stripe.

  • Gary | September 15, 2011 at 2:50 pm |

    The uniforms are the new “foot-in-the-door;” it’s up to the team to win after that. Anyone remember how the A’s got laughed at for wearing white shoes and a multitude of garish green/yellow/white configurations? Then they reeled off 3 straight WS winners. I do think even casually trying to tie in hoopla over colorful non-traditional clothing with sexual deviations like flashing is a bit much. Unless, of course, the flasher’s wearing UA..

    • Ricko | September 15, 2011 at 3:01 pm |

      I still say that, at the very base level (and because they can justify it as marketing) this is Kevin Plank showing Phil Knight that, “Anything you and your company can do for your school I can do for mine.”

      Almost, “Oh, yeah, well…I’m as rich as you are.”

      • Ricko | September 15, 2011 at 3:03 pm |

        Maybe that should be “my success visibility is a big as yours.”

        Though let’s not confuse that with, “Mine’s bigger.”

        Although, come to think of it, there might be some of that involved, too.

  • Jim Vilk | September 15, 2011 at 3:23 pm |

    “Why bother even trying to be good if you can attract a lot of attention by being stupid?”

    Anyone who’s subjected to car dealer commercials knows this is not a new concept…

    • Kek | September 15, 2011 at 4:18 pm |

      At Eastern Motors (Motors), your job’s your credit (credit)

    • jdreyfuss | September 15, 2011 at 4:39 pm |

      I got enough cars to choke a camel! People ask me, “Hey Ern, where’d you get all them cars?” If no one comes down and buys a car in the next hour, I’m gonna club this baby seal. I’m clubbing a baby seal to make you a better deal.

      • Rob S | September 16, 2011 at 12:07 am |

        UHF quote for the win!

  • Fred | September 15, 2011 at 3:41 pm |

    Doing some research on bacteria, I somehow came across this website about how to butcher a deer (was looking up how cheese is made in a scientific way). Thought you’d like this.

  • walter | September 15, 2011 at 3:51 pm |

    The whole Maryland kerfluffle is one of those rare times uniform discussion has slipped from the realm of wonks and anal-retentives, and into the general discourse. I hope nobody feels like we’ve been usurped as the arbiters of Sports Branding. I just had my Poobah hat blocked:)

    • jdreyfuss | September 15, 2011 at 4:14 pm |

      We’re not arbiters of sports branding. The only arbiters are the sanctioning bodies. Unfortunately, for the most part they’re more interested in exploiting every possible revenue source than in maintaining the integrity of their own brands over the visibility of their contractors’.

    • jdreyfuss | September 15, 2011 at 4:15 pm |

      We’re the Fourth Estate — we comment and attempt to raise public awareness for the greater good, but ultimately have no real power.

  • Keith S | September 15, 2011 at 4:21 pm |

    Saw this quote in a recent SI article about college football uniform madness:

    When asked about the Oklahoma State Cowboys uniforms, and whether he liked them, Oklahoma coach Bob Stoops responded:

    “I think they’re awesome,” Oklahoma coach Bob Stoops said, “as long as they’re on someone else.”

    I love the Sooners unis and would hate to see anything changed (outside of a minor tweak here or there). Seems like Coach Bob is of the same school.

  • Keith S | September 15, 2011 at 4:44 pm |

    Since the “invention” of the crazy college football uniform (think Oregon initially), the prevailing thought has been “hey, if it attracts 17 year old recruits, then it’s working and has a place”.

    I had kinda just given in to that kind of reasoning, until I recently researched it. My oldest son is a junior in high school, and is good friends with a kid that is getting a lot of attention nationally for football.

    I saw this young man last night, and spent some time with him. The subject of uniforms came up, and I asked “how much do the uniforms influence you?”. His response was “huh?”. I explained that I thought recruits were interested in uniforms, and he said “There are some cool uniforms out there, but when I make a decision, it’s not going to be because of what the uniforms look like.”.

    So, last night I looked at a few of the recruiting services player databases, and here’s what I found:

    Florida State, Texas and Alabama were the predominant choices in the top 100 lists. Most of the others were Oklahoma, Penn State and Michigan types (big names with some tradition).

    In fact, on the list of top 100, the only school with a crazy uniform that is listed is Oregon (with the #99 player in the country). And they’re only listed once.

    Now, I saw that many kids hadn’t made a choice, and I’m sure there will be a few that select Arizona State, Oklahoma State, etc. But, from my very brief (and very amateur) investigation, I don’t see the uniforms having much, if any, affect on a 17 year old choice of school.

    The more I think about it, the more I think that the Nikes and Under Armours of the world planted the “17 year olds love them” seed, and we all just ran with it.

    • Paul Lukas | September 15, 2011 at 5:18 pm |

      I see it as more of a tiebreaker. No kid’s gonna base his decision solely on the uniform (I hope), but it could help tip the balance if he’s having a hard time deciding between two or more schools.

      Even if the uniform doesn’t have a direct effect (“I am choose this school specifically because of the uni”), it’s definitely gonna play into someone’s subconscious thinking. There’s no way to avoid it — when you envision yourself playing for a team, you’re gonna think of yourself wearing that uniform.

      • Kyle Allebach | September 15, 2011 at 5:58 pm |

        (“I am choose this school specifically because of the uni”)

        Heh. This made me chuckle.

        • Rob S | September 16, 2011 at 12:12 am |

          This just popped into my head because of that:

          That Under Armour is a pretty cool guy. Eh makes crazy uniforms and doesn’t afraid of any critiques.

      • Fred | September 15, 2011 at 6:56 pm |

        Well we’re all uniform critics here. Of COURSE if we were to pretend we were 17 years old, we would take the uniforms into account when choosing a college. That is exactly why we’re all here, we like talking about colors matching up and wearing gears in the proper way.

        I think the notion of the uniforms being a tiebreaker is absolutely ridiculous. You don’t know what goes on in a kid’s head. You don’t know the background they’re from, if they’re going to a particular school because it’s the best route to the pros or if it is because they want some quality classes along the way. It’s about the coach, fitting into the offense or defense, being in the national spotlight, etc. And then there’s the setting of the college to take into account. “Am I going to like playing in the middle of nowhere in Boise or Manhattan, Kansas? I’m pretty sure no decision has come down to simply the uniform. Kids who are good enough to play at the division 1 level are thinking about the pros and the big paycheck.

        I think we all know where 17 year old Paul Lukas would go if the decision came down to Kansas or Kansas State. YOU’RE different.

        • Phil Hecken | September 15, 2011 at 7:21 pm |

          “because they want some quality classes along the way”


          you owe me a new monitor

        • jdreyfuss | September 15, 2011 at 7:37 pm |

          Hey Phil, Stanford is a true academic school with a good football program. Georgia Tech graduates its players with real majors and is always competitive. Rice and Duke are 1A schools with football graduation rates in the 90s and higher academic standards for athletes than the Ivies. Even at Texas, a school with a poor academic record among its football players, Sam Acho graduated with a 3.8 in finance from one of the best business schools in the country. Not all big time programs or big time players ignore academics.

        • Fred | September 15, 2011 at 8:25 pm |

          Really Phil, ALL athletes want to major in sociology? Some of them actually care about their future after their pro career, give them a bit more credit, will you?

        • Phil Hecken | September 15, 2011 at 8:45 pm |

          i never said there weren’t some scholar-athletes or that none of them cared about a career that wasn’t in football after graduation…but i did find this quote:

          Kids who are good enough to play at the division 1 level are thinking about the pros and the big paycheck.

          to be speaking to those for whom an education probably wasn’t the reason they chose a school

          just found those two at pretty much odds with one another

          are there athletes who are also scholars? of course…never said there weren’t — are the majority of Div I, who are good enough to go pro, really that concerned with their class rank?

          and hey, there are examples of college dropouts (bill gates, for one) who’ve done quite well without completing their degree…i’d just wager the majority who drop out are earning far less than those, on average, than those who did go to school and complete their education

          don’t put words into my mouth, particularly those i didn’t say

        • Fred | September 15, 2011 at 8:54 pm |

          Then explain yourself better instead of coming up with a not-so-witty remark that leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

          I was talking about all the different types of athletes. Some go for the quality of school as a tiebreaker, some go for the system that fits their playing style, etc. Ultimately, most of them they want to get to the pro level but when it comes to deciding a school, I would think that the quality of education is a stronger factor than how well a uniform looks on them. I strongly disagree with the fact that you think 17 year olds don’t think about these things. They actually have family and friends to help them make the decision as well.

      • Keith S | September 15, 2011 at 10:21 pm |

        I can agree with that. My point was more focused on all the “they do it for recruiting” conversation I hear (not exclusively here mind you).

        I thought (and still agree with what you’re saying) that it’s an ancillary issue when it comes to a kid making a decision (maybe between two schools that are otherwise exactly the same in the recruits mind).

        What I know it boils down to is how the uniforms garner attention for consumer sales of related merchandise. I guess that’s what my biggest issue is.

        I know companies are in business to make money, and satisfy shareholders, but when schools start selling their traditions (and not just sports traditions), then it borders sad.

        It’s the USA, companies should make as much money as they can, but at what expense?

    • Rob H. | September 15, 2011 at 5:29 pm |

      Well, but I don’t think anyone is saying that “all 17 year old will be attracted to them” or that “many 17 year olds will be swayed a little”. They’re just saying it’s one little thing that might make a tiny difference to a particular recruit every now and then. Presumably, the majority of the nation’s 17 year olds that have schools drooling over the thought of them “coming to play for us” have the intelligence to consider other important factors than just “pretty uniforms.”

      But in the world of recruiting these schools are looking for every little edge they can where most variables about each school can’t be tweaked (climate/location, academics, the team’s past record, nightlife, how often they’ll get laid, etc.) as easily as uniforms can, and if they think going wild like Oregon and Maryland have done might make a difference in landing one kid they want that they wouldn’t have gotten otherwise, then it doesn’t hurt to try.

      Maybe if one highly touted recruit says something like: “Well, it came down to Oregon or Southern Cal, and, frankly, in the end I chose the Trojans because I just didn’t like the garish uniforms that Oregon wears” then schools might consider whether or not shiny objects can also repel 17-year olds, as well.

  • Phil Hecken | September 15, 2011 at 5:57 pm |

    “schools might consider whether or not shiny objects can also repel 17-year olds”


    it already has…scroll down to it’s gotta be the shoes section

  • Jim Vilk | September 15, 2011 at 6:04 pm |

    If I were 17 years old, I might be attracted to playing on that shiny new Cal State Bakersfield court:
    That’s awesome.

    • jdreyfuss | September 15, 2011 at 7:42 pm |

      I don’t like it, but I like courts that are primarily stained with painted centers and keys. That’s not objectively bad, just a ‘to each his own’ problem for me.

    • traxel | September 15, 2011 at 10:55 pm |

      Oh no jimvilker! That court would take some serious getting used to. I think there would be some initial depth perception issues at the beginning of a game for the opponent. But maybe it’s genius. The Bakersfields will already be used to it while the verses teams will have a headache for the first 5 minutes. I don’t like it. Don’t like it at all.

      • Phil Hecken | September 15, 2011 at 11:40 pm |

        “I don’t like it. Don’t like it at all.”


        it’s genius then

  • johnj | September 15, 2011 at 6:25 pm |

    I don’t really think a 17 year old is looking at the uni as a deciding factor, rather the attention the uni provides. You know win or lose, people are gonna talk about what unicombo Oregon wore that day. If its crazy enough you’ll get a mention on sportscenter. Similar to what Paul said, I think theyre picturing themselves in the prospective schools uniform but its a picture of them throwing up a diamond with some sort of picture printed on their palms in the opening of College Football tonight

    I don’t think its a new thing at all either. Think a decade or two or go when 17 year olds dreamt of wearing THE gold helmet. Theres a certain excitement to being a part of that, and there’s a certain excitement about what Oregon does.

  • boo | September 15, 2011 at 7:08 pm |

    nike thinking about taking over under armours stock shares?

    • jdreyfuss | September 15, 2011 at 7:44 pm |

      Would that be an antitrust problem? Maybe I should ask my professor tomorrow morning.

      • Kyle Allebach | September 15, 2011 at 8:31 pm |

        I dunno about that…Adidas does own Reebok, and they are two big companies. Maybe (if Nike plays it right), UA will do what UA does and Nike sticks to shoes.

        It depends if the US Government wants to take ’em to court.

        • Keith S | September 15, 2011 at 10:23 pm |

          BINGO…just as AT&T is dealing with congress, Nike would probably have to seek congressional approval to buy out/merge with UA.

  • Kek | September 15, 2011 at 8:26 pm |

    Glad to see some local D2 action on CBS Sports Network (Bloomsburg at IUP).

    However, just not a fan of this IUP wordmark they’re using. I don’t know if it came with the rebranding after they had to switch to the Crimson Hawks nickname or what.

    I much prefer this lid:

  • Oakville Endive | September 15, 2011 at 10:21 pm |

    Looking at that Nashville Predator video showing their new “away” jersey, I can’t help but think that “Chiefs” should be writted across, and Paul Newman should be on their team.

  • Rich in New Orleans | September 15, 2011 at 10:42 pm |

    Watching LSU/Mississippi State game- what’s up with the white line behind the SEC patch on the MSU uniform? Looks like its sewn on.

  • Joe D | September 15, 2011 at 11:42 pm |

    Although it’s a side shot without a good view of the crest, this is the first good picture I’ve seen of the Lightning’s new (practice) uniforms…

  • Simply Moono | September 15, 2011 at 11:47 pm |

    Looks like Miss. St. is still wearing the Nick Bell memorial patch