But Was It Fitted or Snap-Back?

The most uni-notable moment of the past 24 hours didn’t take place on the diamond in St. Louis, or in any of last night’s NHL games, or anyplace in North America. It took place in Libya, where Mohammed al-Bibi — he’s the younger guy in the photo shown above — captured Moammar Gadhafi while wearing a Yankees cap.

It’s not often that a major international news event manages to encompass so many elements of the uni-verse: rampant merchandising, counterfeit knock-offs, and really bad design. And although it’s somewhat quease-inducing to imagine how this episode will go down in the annals of Yankees jingoism, you have to hand it to them: They really do have a global reach, and an unmistakable symbolism that no other team can match. Like, would anyone care if the guy who captured Gadhafi had been wearing, say, a Brewers cap? It’s a moot point, because there probably isn’t a single Brewers cap in Libya. That’s the power of the Yankees: Even in places where most people wouldn’t recognize a baseball game if you plopped one down in front of them, everyone knows about the Yankees.

Personally, I wish Gadhafi had been taken alive (I prefer to have my deposed dictators stand trial), but it is somewhat delicious to imagine that the last thing he saw before being dispatched from this world was a Yankees cap. The Lockerbie bomber taken out by the Bronx Bombers. Or, if you prefer, an evil-doer done in by the Evil Empire. Either way, I’m sure the Red Sox are planting an operative in North Korea to take out Kim Jong Il as we speak.

Meanwhile, it seems inevitable that the Yankees will honor Mohammed al-Bibi in some way. Will they let him throw out the first pitch at Opening Day? Give him his own Yankeeography segment? Hell, let’s have John Sterling give him his own personalized home run call: “Mohammed hits a mountain of a shot!”

Oh, and then there’s the cap. Why does something tell me that design is about to become a big seller?

+ + + + +

Uni Watch News Ticker: Hmmm, new Nike helmets for the NFL? That’s the first I’ve heard of that (thanks, Skeebs). … “Nike has placed a yellow canary on the inside of the Brazil soccer jerseys, just behind the crest,” says Jonathon Binet. “The Brazilian team is sometimes referred to as the Canaries because their primary kits are yellow.” … If you needed more proof that the Rangers can’t decide whether their primary team color is red or blue, just take a look at this photo (from Kenneth A. Hinrichsen). … NASCAR teams are adding a Dan Wheldon memorial decal. Further details here. … New mask for Peter Budaj (from Jeff Czuba). … If the NBA ever gets back on the beam, looks like the Thunder will have a new court design. Here’s the old one (from Matt Spencer). … “USA Rugby posted the new USA Rugby Sevens jersey for the Pan-Am Games,” says Eric Bangaman. “It’s a combo of the stars-and-stripes we saw in the Churchill Cup and the Canterbury bib template.” … Good video feature on the Iowa State football equipment staff (from Corey Munson). … Here’s something you don’t often see: a high school using an XFL helmet logo. That’s Heritage High School in Virginia, using a repurposed NY/NJ Hitmen logo (good find by James Noone). … Old-school bullpen buggy in the works for the Sugar Land Skeeters (from Jeremy Kendrick). … We had previously seen Florida’s road sweatbacks; here’s the home version (from Josh Coney). ”¦ The Iowa high school football teams are wearing a really big memorial decal in remembrance of a teen who was killed in a car accident (from Jesse Gavin). ”¦ No photo, but Chris Fraterrigo says Daymond Langkow of the Coyotes had the vector logo, instead of the Reebok wordmark, on his jersey last night. ”¦ New logo for the NC Dinos — that’s a new Korean baseball team. “They’ll begin play in the Futures League in 2012 (minor league) and officially begin play in the KBO in 2013,” says Dan Kurtz.

184 comments to But Was It Fitted or Snap-Back?

  • BurghFan | October 21, 2011 at 7:19 am |

    In 1994, the Rangers were a completely red team, but their BP jerseys were blue. This drove me nuts during the Monday practice session before the All-Star Game until I figured out that it had to be the Rangers. So even when they had a color, it wasn’t necessarily obvious.

    • The Jeff | October 21, 2011 at 7:30 am |

      I guess they really want to be a red and blue team. There’s a couple ways to do that… your traditional white & gray uniforms with equal amounts of red and blue trim… or what they’re doing – switching back & forth between different colored jerseys & hats seemingly at random.

      It works for me.

      Or I guess they could go blue at home, red on the road (or red home/blue road, whichever) but I don’t know if that’d be any better really. I’m sure it’d still piss off the traditionalists.

      • scott | October 21, 2011 at 7:52 am |

        I’m a traditionalist and I’d support their wearing colored tops if they had the guts to also wear colored pants. Which they don’t. So stick to white at home and gray on the road.

        • pushbutton | October 21, 2011 at 11:11 am |

          Wow. Kindred spirit:)

        • Jim Vilk | October 21, 2011 at 11:57 am |

          The traditionalists don’t have a problem with the Cards wearing navy hats on the road, so they shouldn’t have a problem with The’s final proposal.

          I say…red hats, blue jerseys, red pants and blue stirrups/shoes.
          No, not really……but I would like to see them continue to mix & match. The only thing I would fix is the trim and lettering. Pick one color for the trim and one for the lettering. They can be the same or they can be opposites, but as mentioned yesterday, when you jam the red and blue together that closely it looks purple-ish.

          Speaking of traditionalists, why does every team have to fit into the 40s/50s style? Don’t get me wrong, I like that look, and it would be weird for all of the teams from that era to ditch their uniforms for something modern, but the Rangers have only been around since 1972 (I know they were the second Senators first, but you know what I mean). Cut them some slack.

      • Pierre | October 21, 2011 at 8:15 am |

        I don’t know if Ole Miss still does this in football but, if memory serves me correctly, they wore blue jerseys at home and on the road they wore red jerseys (or white with red trim).

        I’m not a big fan of color jerseys in MLB but if a team like Texas wants to wear different colors they should probably establish some pattern to it like Ole Miss.

        • StLMarty | October 21, 2011 at 9:00 am |

          NY Giants

        • Pierre | October 21, 2011 at 9:03 am |

          True, Marty…I had forgotten about the Giants. Did they wear red just on the road when they couldn’t wear white?

        • JTH | October 21, 2011 at 11:05 am |

          In the days before white jerseys were mandated, they wore red on the road when they couldn’t wear blue.

        • JTH | October 21, 2011 at 11:12 am |

          But I think Marty’s point is that their modern unis are kind of schizophrenic.

        • Silver Creek Doug | October 21, 2011 at 12:22 pm |

          They actually wear all three jerseys.

          Blue or red at home and white/red trim on the road.

      • JEDI54 | October 21, 2011 at 3:25 pm |

        Red is for home only. There is a sign in the Rangers clubhouse that says “No Red on the road”

    • Rob H. | October 21, 2011 at 6:22 pm |

      In 1994, the Rangers were a completely red team, but their BP jerseys were blue. This drove me nuts during the Monday practice session before the All-Star Game until I figured out that it had to be the Rangers. So even when they had a color, it wasn’t necessarily obvious.

      Well, thank God they came out with the AL & NL batting practice jerseys only three years after that — solved that problem.

      • BurghFan | October 21, 2011 at 6:35 pm |

        Actually, the different jerseys made it easier to identify the players. (Obviously, I wasn’t close enough to read the uniforms.) Mike Piazza was easy to pick out as well, since the Dodgers were the only club without a BP jersey at the time.

      • Rob H. | October 21, 2011 at 7:35 pm |

        Yeah, I was sorta being sarcastic :) — I meant if you had a hard time distinguishing who the Rangers were when you didn’t know whether to look for them among the blue unis or the red unis of the different teams, they good luck when all the AL’ers are wearing the same jersey.

  • Don S | October 21, 2011 at 7:34 am |

    The red / blue thing doesn’t bother me nearly as much as the silly font they use for their NOB. The Detroit / St. Louis WS would have been uni heaven.

  • Jim | October 21, 2011 at 7:50 am |

    Apparently another guy in on the capture was sporting a Bruins t-shirt. (This isn’t from a Boston guy trying to get equal time, by the way. I’m a sad Cleveland fan.) http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2011/10/20/2011-10-20_mohammed_albibi_libya_rebel_who_found_moammar_khadafy_hiding_sports_yankees_cap.html

  • Phil Hecken | October 21, 2011 at 7:55 am |

    one of the idiots on the morning news was pontificating that the yankee cap was “given” to the fella in the picture…similar to the “Super Bowl XLII Champion Patriots” gear that always ends up in third world countries

    the air of authority with which this statement was made irked me as a uni watcher — now, if that cap had said NYY 2011 WS Champs or something, i might have bought into that line of thinking

    my guess is it’s totally a knockoff, made in some faraway land by child or slave labor, but no way was that just “given” away … whoever made it is well aware of the cachet (heh) of the interlocking NY

    • R.S. Rogers | October 21, 2011 at 9:19 am |

      In my experience overseas, Yankees caps usually reflect a deliberate fashion choice. It’s non-Yankees team branded apparel that raises flags about possible dumping of overstock merch on foreign markets.

  • LikeTheRiver | October 21, 2011 at 7:56 am |

    There was some Uni Banter on the Bob & Tom show this morning. They were talking about the Packers throwbacks(they liked them) & they said the Eagles throwbacks the blue and yellow ones were terrible. They also were talking about how dumb the “special” caps are, the black on black hats and the ones with the skyline on it.

  • CMax37 | October 21, 2011 at 8:01 am |

    The Hico (High School) Tigers in Hico, TX uses the Hitman logo as well. I haven’t seen a helmet, but all the school wear and other swag makes heavy usage of the H.

  • Joey Guns | October 21, 2011 at 8:15 am |

    Check out today’s NY Post ripping on A-Rod….


    • Pierre | October 21, 2011 at 8:31 am |

      Man, that’s cold. Does The Post usually do stuff that over the top?

      • walter | October 21, 2011 at 8:35 am |

        The New York Post is basically a bomb threat with auto ads.

        • Connie | October 21, 2011 at 9:29 am |


    • Jeremiah | October 21, 2011 at 8:36 am |

      That’s pretty bad, even by the wretched standards of the NY Post.

    • SoCalDrew | October 21, 2011 at 7:13 pm |

      That is HILARIOUS!

  • Pierre | October 21, 2011 at 8:19 am |

    Well…UCLA didn’t wear blue helmets last night.

    But when I pointed out their ugly, truncated shoulder stripes to my wife and explained to her that the original wraparound shoulder stripes are actually called “UCLA stripes” she replied, “Awww…that’s sad.”

    • KWest | October 22, 2011 at 12:42 am |

      Waaay too late for this comment, but, well done.

  • Kyle Allebach #school | October 21, 2011 at 8:21 am |

    That pic of the Rangers/Cards with the massive American flag looked really cool. It kinda (unintentionally) shown how much white is really on the American flag.

    I’m not really into rampant patriotism in sports, but if every team did something like this, I would support it.

  • Kyle Allebach #school | October 21, 2011 at 8:23 am |

    Also, I’ll bet one of my kidneys that the Yankee’s hat is fitted.

  • lemonverbena | October 21, 2011 at 8:28 am |

    Boom. Absolutely no chance that Nike won’t make a disaster of the Seahawks set now.

    • JimWa | October 21, 2011 at 9:43 am |

      You’re worried about Nike “make a disaster” of the Seahawks uniforms? Won’t it be more like a tornado ripping through a trailer park and doubling property values?

      • JimWa | October 21, 2011 at 9:49 am |

        Jim am learning good english.

        • lemonverbena | October 21, 2011 at 2:12 pm |

          Nike –> uniforms = disaster, is the point.

  • jdreyfuss | October 21, 2011 at 8:33 am |

    Does that mean Nike is going to start manufacturing helmets or that Nike is going to start redesigning pro helmets?

    • Jeremiah | October 21, 2011 at 8:37 am |

      That’s a good question. Does Nike actually manufacture helmets, or just design the look?

    • The Jeff | October 21, 2011 at 8:43 am |

      Pro Combat is a whole line of uniform accessories – pants, jerseys, pads, undershirts, etc. They’re adding helmets to the line, that’s all this means.

      Hell, they’re probably not even making the helmets, just buying from someone else and sticking swooshes on the bumpers.

    • Andy | October 21, 2011 at 8:52 am |

      Nike does not manufacture helmets. Sportswear companies in general actually manufacture very little of what they sell. It’s all outsourced to different factories and printed with different logos. Sometimes you’ll even have a product that’s virtually identical being sold by more than one sportswear company. The only difference is the logo, and sometimes, the price.

      I don’t know what this ad means. Maybe they will start selling a Nike-branded helmet, but that seems unlikely, given the NFL’s current contract with Riddell, which prohibits other companies’ logos being seen on the helmets.

      My guess is we’re going to see more matte finish helmets and more helmets with subtle patterns on them.

      • Andy | October 21, 2011 at 8:53 am |

        I should say, though, helmet companies generally do manufacture their goods themselves. Didn’t mean to lump them in with ‘sportswear companies’ when I said that.

      • Pierre | October 21, 2011 at 8:56 am |

        Andy, I believe Riddell’s contract with the NFL is also expiring (along with Reebok’s). I read somewhere (maybe here) that starting next year Riddell would not have the exclusive rights to show its wordmark on NFL helmets as is now the case. Can somebody help me with this…?

        • JTH | October 21, 2011 at 1:44 pm |

          Riddell will be around for at least the first three years of the Nike era.

    • R.S. Rogers | October 21, 2011 at 9:10 am |

      Judging by the linked photo, it looks like Nike is going the “Emperor’s New Clothes” route with the helmets. Aside from cutting down on production costs and increasing per-unit profit to 100%, the direction of the latest head-trauma research suggests that wearing make-believe helmets might actually reduce concussion.

      • Pierre | October 21, 2011 at 9:15 am |

        Imaginary helemets might go well with the imaginary tackling we presently see in the NFL. At least we’d get a glimpse at their facial expressions while they’re ducking.

        • Pierre | October 21, 2011 at 9:16 am |

          “helmets”…not helemelemelmets. Sorry… ;>)

    • Tim E. O'B | October 21, 2011 at 10:35 am |

      Actually, that is misleading of Paul, that’s from Hydro Graphics website, the people who did the ND lid, and they do much of the NPC helmet designs because of their unique painting system, so it’s not so much Nike Pro Combat helmets as, “Nike’s going to commission us for NFL helmets, too.”

      So I guess that image is a bit misleading, too.

  • coachc51 | October 21, 2011 at 8:37 am |

    So the Florida road uniform has almost no white on it, and the home one has basically no black?

  • Eric | October 21, 2011 at 8:45 am |

    You know that the opening paragraphs are good when I can get my non-uni-obsessed wife to chuckle over them. Brilliant stuff!

    • Connie | October 21, 2011 at 9:32 am |


      Great headline, just for starters.

      Paul, you were too modest, but somebody’s gotta mention that you are the best source out there on the strange phenomenon of the globalization of the the American baseball cap. Get on the Today show.

  • Mike | October 21, 2011 at 9:05 am |

    If Nike put a picture of a mime getting hit by a falling tree on the inside of a team’s soccer jersey would anybody know or care? The canary is even more idiotic than the mottos being sewn into the collars. Useless.

    • Pierre | October 21, 2011 at 9:12 am |

      I think Nike is secretly implanting subliminal messages in all of its Pro Combat gear urging fans to go buy jerseys.

    • DK1247 | October 21, 2011 at 9:26 am |

      It’s there to distinguish an officially authentic jersey from those that aren’t. Manufacturers have done it before, usually with a slogan or something on the inside of the back up near the collar

    • JimWa | October 21, 2011 at 9:48 am |

      If the canary wasn’t there, would those jerseys be talked about here today? Mission accomplished.

    • Pat | October 21, 2011 at 1:54 pm |

      The US national team has had the “Don’t Tread On Me” snake on the inside of their jersey behind the crest as well. Honestly it’s just a cool uni design element that isn’t meant to be seen. It’s like saying you’re keeping your team close to your heart. Would we rather them put all of these elements on the outside of the uni so that they look garish, I think not. They are there more as a “huh, that’s kinda cool” feature for the wearer, which as far as I’m concerned is kinda cool. So what if they’re pointless because they can’t be seen, the wearer knows they are there. If you’ve ever ate at In-n-Out in California it’s the same kind of feeling as ordering something “monster style” even though it’s not on the menu. If you’re in the know it makes you somehow feel special.

      • lemonverbena | October 21, 2011 at 7:35 pm |

        Animal style bro.

      • Shane | October 21, 2011 at 10:45 pm |

        This season’s Manchester United jerseys have “RELENTLESS” on the back of the club crest as well.

  • Ricko | October 21, 2011 at 9:32 am |

    A real question:

    The combination of colored tops over light pants has been worn with a certain commoness in MLB for almost 40 years now.

    How long before something becomes “traditional”?

    • Craig D | October 21, 2011 at 9:50 am |

      Having grown up in the 70’s and 80’s as a Reds fan, I didn’t see too many teams go with the softball look. Not because it wasn’t being done, but because games were rarely televised. My team never wore red tops. So traditional to me was the white over white or grey over grey.

      Since the 90’s or so, baseball is on TV all the time and highlights are everywhere. My guess is that the kids who started becoming fans in the 90’s and 00’s will grow up thinking softball tops are as traditional as anything else.

      So to answer your question, I’ll say sometime in the next decade or two when those kids become the ruling generation.

    • Connie | October 21, 2011 at 9:53 am |

      There’s a good question. Before Scott joins in with a more learned inquiry… Maybe the key question is whether widespread frequency over two decades is tantamount to tradition. I would say “not necessarily.” Two reasons I can think of.

      1. While colored-top-over-light pants may have been around for 40 years or so, it never became, on MBL level, the predominant look. Might have come close in some years, but I would the look never became the norm. Hence color-over-white can be “throwback,” but not “traditional,” except perhaps within the narrow context of local histories of MLB franchises located in territories wrested from Mexico.

      2. I believe that for the concept of tradition, there’s also a cultural something-or-other that’s at work here, some kind of gestalt-y whatever that bestows the word traditional without reference to frequency or duration, but instead somehow provokes a widespread response of appropriateness and fidelity. But I need more coffee.

      • Ricko | October 21, 2011 at 10:06 am |

        Follow up question…

        How common was mono dark, and for how long, in MLB?

        I ask because having leafed through Okkonen’s book many times over the years since it was published my overall impression is that it wasn’t like everybody and their brother wore mono dark.

        (Not taking sides, just trying see if there’s a valid comparison…or at least a parallel).

        • scott | October 21, 2011 at 2:33 pm |

          I grew up a baseball fan in the ’70s and ’80s and hated astroturf, cookie cutter stadiums, the designated hitter, pullover jerseys and beltless pants and non-white and gray uniforms. So perhaps the generation growing up today will likewise rebel against things that go against baseball tradition, like interplague play and softball tops.

  • interlockingtc | October 21, 2011 at 9:38 am |

    If some sports team was actually named the Canaries, that would be a cool logo. Imagine that bird on a football helmet or baseball cap.

  • Pierre | October 21, 2011 at 9:49 am |

    Paul was interviewed by our local New Orleans newspaper, The Times Picayune, for an article about LSU’s Pro Combat uniforms they’ll be wearing tomorrow against Auburn. Unfortunately, the online version is abbreviated and some of Paul’s comments, and even an expalanation of who he is, were left out of the online version:


  • Brad | October 21, 2011 at 10:04 am |

    Paul, hate the John Sterling reference, he doesn’t deserve the pub as simply a team shill who doesn’t understand that radio broadcasters have to paint the picture for listeners. Hopefully, with the Yankees radio rights up for grabs Sterling won’t return in 2012, but I’m not holding my breath. Heck, Sterling makes Wayne Hagin sound like Vin Scully. Sorry, Vin.

    • Ben Fortney | October 21, 2011 at 12:06 pm |

      Disagree, nobody makes Hagin sound good. (and I can’t stand Sterling)

  • Travis | October 21, 2011 at 10:10 am |

    Sorry if this has already been brought up, but one can argue that the Yankees’ NY has transcended the sport to the point where it doesn’t really represent the team – both in the US and abroad.

    Jay-Z rapped about making the hat “more famous than a Yankee can” and you can’t help but wonder how on point he is. Nowadays, I feel like it’s more of a symbol of American culture (when worn overseas) than of really having any idea at all about the Yankees.

    • Pierre | October 21, 2011 at 10:20 am |

      Travis, you’re right.

      Last year my family and I went to a Hornets game and after the game ended we were waiting for an elevator with a few other people. One guy in “urban” attire had on a cool Yankees warm up jacket and Yankees cap. My wife, who means well but doesn’t get out nearly often enough tells the guy “Oh, we’re Yankees fans, too.” And my kids just rolled their eyes and moved away from her in embarrassment. ;>)

    • Ben Fortney | October 21, 2011 at 12:11 pm |

      That Jay-Z line has always irked me – I’m willing to bet more people know of Babe Ruth than Jay-Z, and he’s been dead for a long time.

      But, yes it has become a generic representation of NY (or US). I was in Pisa, Italy once (getting my lean on) and all the crappy souvenir vendors had NY caps. Logically there is absolutely no reason for this, other than foreigners associate the logo as something that “should” be on a baseball cap.

      I’m curious how many people outside the US actually know that it’s an NY and not some abstract logo, or for that matter know a thing about baseball.

      • JTH | October 21, 2011 at 12:23 pm |

        I have a Yankees pinstriped cap (late teens/early 20s throwback). When people ask if it’s a Yankees cap, I tell them that it’s actually a Neil Young cap.

        • KWest | October 22, 2011 at 12:48 am |

          JTH, I’m sorry no one else has acknowledged your comment, but that was hilarious.

        • JTH | October 22, 2011 at 10:35 am |

          Thanks. I’m sure everyone else was laughing too hard to type a response.

      • Ry Co 40 | October 21, 2011 at 1:27 pm |

        can we please never take anything jay-z (or whatever of the 100 made up nicknames he’s using for himself these days) seriously???

        just be glad the guy actually rhymed a verse for a change…

  • JeffM | October 21, 2011 at 10:14 am |

    Hebron High School outside of Dallas also uses the Hitman Logo http://www.hawksfootball.org/fbc/modules/news/

  • JimWa | October 21, 2011 at 10:22 am |

    I put this in a response to a comment above, but since this answers the the lead question, I’m putting it here, too.


    (it was fitted)

  • Johnny O | October 21, 2011 at 10:34 am |

    A few days ago, Clay Matthews posted this on Twitter:

    “Just received the new Nike Pro Combat cold weather gear from @usnikefootball… Check me out in the new Nike campaign launching soon!!”

    • Tim E. O'B | October 21, 2011 at 10:43 am |


      • JTH | October 21, 2011 at 10:54 am |

        You really are clueless, aren’t you, Tim?

        Clay Matthews is a Packer, for God’s sake — A PACKER!

        • Johnny O | October 21, 2011 at 11:00 am |

          Even though I hate the Bears, if you posted something uniform related that deals with them, I wouldn’t be rude like you.

          In case you are clueless… I posted this because of the lead entry in the ticker. Seems that Nike is already releasing Nike NFL items to their “poster players”.

        • Tim E. O'B | October 21, 2011 at 11:07 am |

          Nike has contracts with players all the time, had ’em forever. And those players then wear Nike Shoes, Nike shirts, Nike underwears… etc.

          Look here’s a different fudge packer wearing NIKE http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v232/Timmacane/5a4713af.jpg


          not news.

        • Tim E. O'B | October 21, 2011 at 11:14 am |

          This is not news at all.

          NFL players wear Nike product all the time, shoes, shirts, underwear, visors, etc.

          Look, here’s Charles Woodson wearing NIKE. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v232/Timmacane/5a4713af.jpg

          That took me about 0 seconds to find. NFL players wear Nike all the time and get free shirts and shit all the time and some of them even appear on the TeeVee in Nike Ads (where they wear Nike).

          This is not news.

          (and there may be another comment similar to this coming soon, but when I posted it, it disappeared into the ether…)

        • JTH | October 21, 2011 at 11:18 am |

          Settle down, Johnny. I was just fucking with you (and Tim). Please accept my humble apology.

          That being said, the first entry in the ticker is about Nike helmets, not cold-weather gear so your comment really does come off as yet another excuse for you to post something Packers-related.

        • JTH | October 21, 2011 at 11:19 am |

          congrats on the super-classy double post, Tim.

        • Tim E. O'B | October 21, 2011 at 11:19 am |

          Sorry double post! Stoopid ether…

          I blame Phil.

        • Johnny O | October 21, 2011 at 11:31 am |

          Again with the rudeness Tim. It seemed, to me at least, that Matthews was referring to the new clothing for next year. Almost like a prototype item. My apologies for posting something I thought was related to the entry today.

          I am fully aware that players wear other gear, and not JUST reebok, but you don’t have to be a jerk about it.

          This is why I don’t post in the comments section anymore.

        • Phil Hecken | October 21, 2011 at 11:50 am |

          “I blame Phil.”


          yup…it’s all my fault


        • Tim E. O'B | October 21, 2011 at 11:51 am |

          Just givin’ you greif, jeez don’t take the comments so seriously and you wont be so offended.

          and your original post is basically:

          “Hey, look what at clay matthews said: “I’m a living Nike advertizement and I got some free t-shirts! w00t.””

          you didn’t say anything about, “hey are these prototypes?” or, “what could this mean?” you just ReTweeted on Uni Watch (or RTUW), so how were we supposed to gather that you misunderstood a tweet?

        • Johnny O | October 21, 2011 at 12:06 pm |

          Fair enough Tim. I should have prefaced my post with more detail. I do apologize for coming off harsh, but the thing is, is that I don’t need any negativity in my life, and when someone is very condescending towards me in real life, or online, I get frustrated. All you needed to do was ask me for more detail, or where I was going with my post. No need for rudeness. There are many more problems in there world than getting angry at a Packer fan on a uniform blog.

  • JTH | October 21, 2011 at 10:36 am |

    Mohammed hits a mountain of a shot!”

    Touch ’em all, Paul.

  • JTH | October 21, 2011 at 10:57 am |

    OK, am I really going to be the first one to point out how appalling this is (unless I missed something in the comments up above)?

    The Stars and Stripes as pitstains? Really?

    • Pierre | October 21, 2011 at 11:07 am |

      Ohhhhhhhh…very bad idea.

      It’s like making a jockstrap with a picture of your mother on the front.

      • Jim Vilk | October 21, 2011 at 11:36 am |

        I have a feeling we’ll be seeing this quote again tomorrow morning…

      • Phil Hecken | October 21, 2011 at 11:32 pm |

        “I have a feeling we’ll be seeing this quote again tomorrow morning…”


        oh…so close, movi

        it was in the running, but there is a much better one a-comin’

    • R.S. Rogers | October 21, 2011 at 11:42 am |

      How is that worse than slapping a flag patch onto a helmet/cap/jersey? At least with this jersey, the flag elements are much less likely to actually get soiled in the dirt or stepped on than, say, the flag on the back of an NFL helmet or on the collar of an MLB jersey. It’s either OK to put the flag on an athlete’s uniform, where it will get rubbed in the dirt, stained, stepped on, and ripped, or it’s not. If it’s OK in any instance, it’s no less OK in this one.

      • JTH | October 21, 2011 at 11:46 am |

        Where am I saying that any of your examples are OK?

        • R.S. Rogers | October 21, 2011 at 2:27 pm |

          You weren’t. I was just anticipating what seems to be the consensus opinion hereabouts that taking the actual U.S. flag and desecrating it for the entire length of a ballgame is A-OK. If we accept that 80 guys on a football field soiling and trampling Old Glory is permissible, then we have zero grounds for objecting if 15 guys sweat a little on Old Glory for the length of a rugby match. Didn’t mean to attribute that opinion to you personally. Anyway, I’m not arguing against desecrating the flag, I’m just saying let’s be consistent in our permissive attitude toward flag desecration.

        • Bernard | October 21, 2011 at 3:00 pm |
      • Tim E. O'B | October 21, 2011 at 11:56 am |

        So we have an absolutest in our midst…

        This argument is, IMO, pretty bustable:

        I have a new uniform for sport X that features a small flag on the jersey.

        Now, I have a new jersey for sport Y that features a design on the seat of the pants that make it look like a flag is emerging from the players b-hole.

        One of those is ok and one isn’t.

      • Phil Hecken | October 21, 2011 at 12:13 pm |

        paging jason bernard…paging jason bernard

        mr. bernard? cleanup in aisle 4

      • Pierre | October 21, 2011 at 12:21 pm |

        I draw the line at flag jockstraps…

      • Bernard | October 21, 2011 at 12:22 pm |

        You rang?

  • Cort McMurray | October 21, 2011 at 11:48 am |

    There have been uniform sightings throughout the Libyan Uprising, most of them involving rebel soldiers wearing European soccer team gear: I saw a guy sitting on a commandeered armored personnel carrier, dressed in a Chelsea jersey, and a guy brandishing a machine gun in what appeared to be the change shirt of Olympique Marseilles. And wasn’t there a kid in a Kobe Bryant jersey? I think I saw that somewhere.

    The Yankees hat is immediately identifiable as “American”, and that still has some cachet in many parts of the world. But it doesn’t mean anything, any more than all those people in the 80’s who walked around in t-shirts bearing giant kanji symbols were actually trying to make statements in Japanese. It’s just fashion.

    • Ben Fortney | October 21, 2011 at 12:14 pm |

      The Kobe jersey was a Lakers throw-back being worn by the kid from Cali who ran off to Libya to join the rebels.

      • Ben Fortney | October 21, 2011 at 12:15 pm |

        …and I commented above basically saying the same thing about it being “American”.

        • Cort McMurray | October 21, 2011 at 2:26 pm |

          You certainly did. And I thought I was replying to your comment, agreeing with your point.

          I hit the wrong button. Useless, useless sausage fingers!

  • Vasav | October 21, 2011 at 11:51 am |

    I remember reading somewhere-heck might’ve been here-that the Yankees has the most recognizable sports brand worldwide. I was surprised that it was a baseball team and not a soccer team but the article pointed out that the famous English soccer team didn’t have a logo as recognizable as the Yanks’ NY

  • Vasav | October 21, 2011 at 11:53 am |

    I wish USA rugby would go back to the red-white-blue hoops that they were selling as polo shirts for this years world cup. A great, historic, and potentially iconic loil for a scrappy program.

  • Ferdinand Cesarano | October 21, 2011 at 12:09 pm |

    I am as interested in language as I am in unis; so I’ll make a language comment first: it always grates to hear or to read “Yankees cap” or “Yankees fan”. That may be how they do it in the rest of the English-speaking world; but the idiom here in New York is that, when a team name is used as an adjective, we use the singular form: “Yankee cap”, “Yankee fan”; “Met fan”; “Giant fan”; “Jet fan”; “Ranger fan”; etc. The only exception is with the “Sox” teams, which are usually said in full: “Red Sox fan” — even though it is not uncommon to hear also “Red Sock fan” and “Red Sock jersey”. (But you’d never see those things written.)

    About the Yankee cap being worn around the world: the sport I watch most is English football (soccer); and I often see fans in the stands wearing Yankee caps. Last year in Scotland, Celtic manager Neil Lennon was attacked by a fan who ran out of the stands; this guy was wearing a Yankee cap.

    Several players wear these caps in their off-time. I have seen Wayne Rooney wearing a Yankee cap and Emmanuel Adebayor wearing an Atlanta Brave cap. I was half-watching the Champions League Magazine show on TV, in which players are interviewed while relaxing; and there were several players shown wearing Yankee caps and Red Sox caps.

    For me, this is not a good thing. I really don’t like to see people wearing a logo *solely* for its look, and not knowing or caring anything about the team, either current or historical. I recently read a piece about the Tigers’ logo being worn by people who don’t care about the team, because they perceive the logo as emblematic of city pride. While I am all for city pride, wearing a team’s logo despite having no interest in the team is not the right way to go about showing it.

    All of the logo caps that I wear have logos of teams (or of other entities) which I know something about. There certainly are plenty of other teams’ logos which I find beautiful; but I wouldn’t ever think to wear them, because I couldn’t answer the first question about the team in question. (The Devils’ “NJ” logo is a good example.) In a just world, we’d be allowed to slap those people who wear Cardinal caps or Red Wing caps, but who couldn’t tell you who Stan Musial or who Gordie Howe are.

    • Paul Lukas | October 21, 2011 at 12:11 pm |

      That’s bullshit. My whole life, I’ve been a Mets fan (and a Yankees hater). You can go singular or plural as you please, but don’t go imposing rules on the rest of us.

      • Ferdinand Cesarano | October 21, 2011 at 12:22 pm |

        I am imposing nothing; I am only reporting what I have noticed for my entire life (I’m 46).

        When I was in grammar school, I’d hear every day “are you a Ranger fan or and Islander fan?”; “are you a Yankee fan or a Met fan?”, and so forth. So this is what sounded right to me. Ever since then, I have noticed that it is said this way only in New York; it is as much a part of the New York idiom as “on line” versus “in line”.

        • JTH | October 21, 2011 at 1:33 pm |

          Only in New York? Do you get out of New York much?

          And I’m not saying that to be a smartass or anything. I’m just saying it because I hear singular team name + fan all the time. Cub fan, Bear fan, Hawk fan.

          Hell, look a few posts up, Johnny O referred to himself as a “Packer fan.”

    • Ben Fortney | October 21, 2011 at 12:18 pm |

      I usually explain to non-sports fans that you can spot a “real” Mets fan easily because nobody in their right mind would wear a Mets hat in public unless they supported the team.

      (exception being the mid-80s Mets craze)

      • Ben Fortney | October 21, 2011 at 12:19 pm |

        I also agree that singular/plural usage are interchangeable.

    • David | October 21, 2011 at 12:31 pm |

      I agree with Paul and Ben – Yankee/Yankees; Met/Mets, Oriole/Orioles. I use both, and am never grated when I hear or read one or the other.

      Regarding your last sentence – I hope) you are being sarcastic when you recommend a team history test before wearing of the logo is permitted. Are you suggesting that a 10-year old boy in St. Louis be slapped for knowing Albert Pujols’ carrer stats, but NOT knowing Stan Musial’s?

      I like many current teamn logos, and even more previous logos, and have owned many shirts and caps emblazoned with them. Did I know some of their playters? Sure. Did I know the entire team history? Not at all.

      We are all fascinated with uniforms here, but threatening corporal punichment for not wearing colors without knowing history is going a bit too far.

      • Ferdinand Cesarano | October 21, 2011 at 12:43 pm |

        I was not being sarcastic — but I also did not say that someone should know *only* the old-time players. I slammed those who wear a logo while knowing nothing either current or historical about the team. Dizzy Dean, Stan Musial, Bob Gibson, Lou Brock, Ozzie Smith, Albert Pujols, whatever: makes no difference. For me, you gotta know *one* of them in order to wear a Cardinal cap. (Other people have their “douche tests”; I suppose that’s mine.)

        • Pierre | October 21, 2011 at 12:49 pm |

          Dizzy Dean was from Mississippi and said “He slood in there!”

          Stan Musial played the harmonica.

          Bob Gibson would throw at your head.

          Lou Brock stole bases.

          Ozzie Smith did back flips.

          Albert Pujols went to a Glenn Beck rally in D.C. with Tony Larusso.

          Did I pass? ;>)

        • Teebz | October 21, 2011 at 4:42 pm |

          Do you know anything about the clothes you’re wearing? If they have a logo on them, you better know something about that brand according to your rules.

          The logo is just a brand identifier. The computer you’re reading this on? Branded. The internet browser you’re reading this on? Branded. The page you’re reading? Branded. The mouse you’re moving? Branded. The underwear you’re wearing(if applicable)? Branded. Do you know anything about any of those companies?

          I’ll play Devil’s Advocate and ask: why is it that sports teams’ brands are held to a different standard than the brands of fashion or technology in your world?

    • Ry Co 40 | October 21, 2011 at 1:17 pm |

      pittsburgher here that wears a cleveland indians “C” hat and couldn’t, with confidence, name 3 players on the team. sorry… not gonna change that

      also, it grinds on me to hear people say the names of teams wrong most of the time… and ferdinand… you’re wrong.

      when people say, or i read “steeler nation”… i cringe. seriously. the “pittsburgh steelers,” or, the “steelers” is the brand. as are the penguins, pirates, indians, & yankees etc. so, they ARE wearing a yankees hat, as i am wearing a pirates hat in steelers nation…

      • Jim Vilk | October 21, 2011 at 1:39 pm |

        I have a Charleston River Dogs hat, and I don’t even know what their MLB affiliation is. I was in Charleston, I wanted a light-colored hat (they wore teal with a purple brim at the time), so I ended up getting one. And one of these days, when they once again offer an adjustable version, I want a Montgomery Biscuits cap, because I love the mascot and the colors.

        I don’t know about everyone else here, but I woke up in the USA this morning…a land where people can choose to research the teams whose hats they wear, or they can choose to buy a hat because they like the way it looks. I don’t see this as a good vs. bad situation.

        • Ferdinand Cesarano | October 21, 2011 at 2:04 pm |

          Of course people can choose to wear a logo just based on the looks. Just as people can choose to leave the stickers on their caps, and can choose to wear caps many sizes too big.

          However, no one here seems to have any compunction about denouncing those latter two choices. (Denunciations which I agree with, incidentally.) So, I feel like it is pretty fair comment for me knock the choice to wear a logo solely for the look, and in ignorance of the thing it represents.

        • Lane | October 21, 2011 at 2:49 pm |


          I’m a Montgomery native. Took my late father to the very first Biscuits game in 2004. I loved seeing your comment. I even gave out adjustable Biscuits hats in 2003 to my groomsmen (because I didn’t want to deal with sizing). They were the old blue with yellow bill away version with the biscuit mascot that looks like an egg mcmuffin. They retired that version of the away cap a couple years ago. The new away cap is a solid cap, darker blue with a B, but as long as my head doesn’t swell, I still prefer the egg mcmuffin. I don’t know why the adjustable New Era hats aren’t on the website, because they were in the stadium store in July. Looks like they would be easier to stock and ship that fitteds. Anyway, cheers.

        • Lane | October 21, 2011 at 2:50 pm |


        • Jim Vilk | October 21, 2011 at 7:28 pm |

          If any of your groomsmen ever want to get rid of theirs, you can send them my way. Long live the Egg McMuffin hat!

          They had adjustables in the spring, but by the time I went to order one they took them off the site. Grrrr.

      • Ferdinand Cesarano | October 21, 2011 at 1:45 pm |

        Well, I’m not wrong; I’m describing a localised linguistic phenomenon. As I mentioned, it doesn’t apply in most other places; most English-speakers use the plural team name as the adjective. But, in New York, most of us (even if not all of us) use the singular as the adjective. This is the reason for the name “Yankee Stadium”, and the for sayings “Yankee baseball” and “Yankee pride”. (It would seem that O’Malley took this usage with him out West when he named Dodger Stadium!) Are you Pittsburghers “wrong” for saying “yinz”? Clearly not; it’s just a localised linguistic phenomenon.

        However, it’s a bit strange for you to describe using the singular form as “say[ing] the names of teams wrong”. Even if you don’t say “Steeler Nation”, I’m sure that you would say that Franco Harris was a Steeler.

        • Ry Co 40 | October 21, 2011 at 2:06 pm |

          would you say a wallgreens employee was a wallgreen?

          franco played for the steelers. where does big ben play? oh, he’s on the steelers. you know, he playes for the pittsburgh steelers…

          yankee stadium just sounds like the name of the stadium where the yankees play. and, for what it’s worth, sounds much better than “yankees stadium” would

        • R.S. Rogers | October 21, 2011 at 2:20 pm |

          No, you are wrong, in that you were not “describing a localised [sic] linguistic phenomenon.” To quote you:

          it always grates to hear or to read “Yankees cap … this is what sounded right to me”

          That reads naturally as a prescriptive statement. That is, a reader would understand from the words you used that you find the non-singular modifier to be incorrect. When one calls a thing “right” and calls its opposite “grating,” one is presumed to be expressing the opinion that the thing is right and its opposite is not. And, in terms of the difference between descriptive and prescriptive grammar, suggesting that a thing described is “right” is all the difference. We’re not in descriptive territory anymore when we say that a thing is “right.”

          As to Franco Harris, I suggest a refresher course in the rules of agreement, and also the distinction between nouns and adjectives. A more correct comparison with “Steeler[s] Nation” would be “Steeler[s] player Franco Harris.” Which raises the purely descriptive question, would you describe Jeter as “a Yankee player” or “a Yankees player”?

        • Skycat | October 21, 2011 at 2:42 pm |

          I’m with you on this one, Ferdinand. “Yankee fan” always sounded better to me than “Yankees fan,” but I suppose the terms can be interchangeable and it really is a matter of preference.

        • Ferdinand Cesarano | October 21, 2011 at 3:19 pm |

          Mr. Rogers makes a couple of good points, which I invited due to my sloppiness.

          When I said that “Yankee fan” sounded “right” to me, I meant only that this was the version that I became accustomed to. I noted in the next sentence that I soon noticed that only New Yorkers say it this way, while other people say it another way. So I have long been aware that it isn’t a matter of right/wrong in any objective sense; it is a matter of localised custom. (And the suffix -ise is mainly, though not exclusively, British. I admit that I tend towards the British-style spellings.)

          I said that this usage “Yankees cap” grates because of my expectations. I perceived the author, Paul, as a New Yorker — I began reading him, and first spoke to him, when he was writing for the Village Voice. So, I expected the form which I associate with the New York idiom. I would have had the same reaction if he (or any New Yorker) had used the word “pop” instead of “soda” — “soda” sounds right to me; which means only that it is what I am accustomed to; it does not mean that it is right and that “pop” is wrong. (Paul has already answered, saying that he uses the version “Mets fan”, which, in my experience, is a minority usage in New York City. So that’s that.)

          Mr. Rogers is also correct that calling Franco Harris a Steeler is not a direct comparison to any question inolving the locution “Steeler Nation”. However, I was responding to the assertion on Ry Co’s part that any use of the singular (implicitly regardless of the part of speech) is somehow saying the team’s name wrong. (But to address the direct comparison: I’d certainly call Derek Jeter a “Yankee player”.)

          Since Mr. Rogers is clearly interested in language, I will mention to him that the whole thing doesn’t really have to do with adjectives, anyway. He and I both have been sloppy in calling “Yankee” an adjective in “Yankee player”, and likewise “Steeler” in “Steeler Nation”. Really, it is the appositive. (Such as in “bird house”, where “bird” is a noun in apposition, not an adjective.) Most adjectives also work in post-position; and clearly, no matter whether you say “Yankee cap” or “Yankees cap”, the word “Yankee(s)” is a noun in apposition (not an adjective, as “blue” is in “blue cap”), because we cannot put it in post-postion — we cannot say “the cap is Yankee(s)” (as we can say “the cap is blue”).

        • Ry Co 40 | October 21, 2011 at 3:43 pm |

          the Pittsburgh Steelers is a brand, so there is a right and wrong way to say it. plain and simple

          would you tell someone you were/are on a US Airways flight, or a US Airway flight?

        • dalek | October 21, 2011 at 5:08 pm |

          I was 14 before I found out that “damnYankees” was two words. ;-)

  • JimWa | October 21, 2011 at 12:18 pm |

    Can I just say for a second that the the lettering and numbering on the Texas Texases uniforms really, REALLY bothers me.

    Complicated font. I don’t mind it really. On its own.
    Blue letters. I’m good with that.
    Red outline. Kind of hard to see against the blue, but OK.
    White outline. Wouldn’t be needed without another layer or seven coming after.
    Black dropshadow. What is this? 1999?

    On top of it all, I just realized something that I didn’t even realize was bothering me all along – the style on the front of the jerseys is different from the back! Blue/Red/White/Black or Blue/White/Red/Black. Which is it?

    Put it all together, and there’s just WAY too much going on. Now PLEASE go beat the Cardinals!

  • "born in Bridgeport" | October 21, 2011 at 12:22 pm |

    Unaffiliate baseball is a bit of a pasttime I have, but am I the only one who wonders why a team in Texas is joining the Atlantic League?

    The travel costs seem to be extreme. Is there a history I’m not aware of?

    • AnthonyTX | October 21, 2011 at 12:56 pm |

      According to Wikipedia (grain of salt included, obviously), “The Skeeters will be the first Atlantic League team to play outside of the Northeast megalopolis; the team will also be the first of a planned Western division to include four to six other teams.”
      I guess the Atlantic League is expanding; perhaps an effort to gain more notoriety or legitimacy for more money?

      • "born in Bridgeport" | October 21, 2011 at 5:45 pm |

        But the league site I think already mentions Sugarland in a division with teams from the northeastern base.

        All remains to be seen for Opening Day 2012. Maybe they’re whipping up a Western Division as we speak.

        Speaking of the Canaries, I remember the upper-midwest Northern League had an “umbrella arrangement” with the Northeast League for a few years. Don’t know what kind of interdivison play that meant except for the championship, but it’s gone back to separates now.

        • scott | October 21, 2011 at 7:38 pm |

          No, the schedule has already been released. There is no “western” division for the 2012 season.

    • Andy in Chicago | October 21, 2011 at 1:02 pm |

      One must indeed wonder why the heretofore relatively stable Atlantic League would want to place a team so far from its core territory. Forgetting for the moment how the already-existent teams will expense the cost of trips to Sugarland, TX, how will Sugarland pay for its road trips?

      A lesson can be gleaned from the far-flung North American Baseball League, which placed a team in Maui, which the Zion, Illinois-based Lake County Fielders (owned in part by Kevin Costner) flat out refused to visit because it was just too costly.

      Minor league baseball is low margin baseball. Unless the Skeeters are a beachhead for some southern tier of the Atlantic League, they won’t last much longer than any one of the insects for whom they’re named.

      • scott | October 21, 2011 at 2:40 pm |

        Obviously the Atlantic League has a successful business model and I’m quite sure its people know what they are doing. To compare them to the North American League is silly. A better comparison would be to the Pacific Coast League, which also requires its teams to fly on occasion.

  • Bill Maselunas | October 21, 2011 at 12:49 pm |

    To underscore Paul’s point about Yankees gear:


    • Pierre | October 21, 2011 at 12:51 pm |

      Man those UnderArmour vests are cool…

  • AnthonyTX | October 21, 2011 at 12:53 pm |

    “Sugarland Skeeters” is possibly the most appropriately-named team of all time. I live in Houston (of which Sugarland is a suburb) and while walking dog this morning, I was bitten by no fewer than 7 mosquitoes. I’m not exactly happy that it’s 79 degrees and mosquito-y on October 21st.

    • Cort McMurray | October 21, 2011 at 2:47 pm |

      AHHHHH! AHHHHHH! I live three or four miles from site of the stadium site, which is in the shadow of the old Imperial Sugar plant. The city is named Sugar Land, because Imperial Sugar produced sugar there. The quaint little bungalow houses in the neighborhood closest to the stadium site were originally the homes of Imperial Sugar employees. The old schoolhouse (now a seldom-used community center) in that neighborhood features a molded crown design on its exterior, because Imperial Sugar constructed the building. In an area bereft of a sense of history and identity — Sugar Land today is a loose collection of gated subdivisions, shopping malls, and upscale Harley Davidson dealerships, plastic as plastic can be — here was a chance to do something really cool. Sugar Land Imperials? Sugar Land Kings?

      Nope. We get the freaking Skeeters. A quick check of Urban Dictionary turned up a salacious connotation, popular among the frat boy crowd; suffice to say a “Sugar Land Skeeter” is either a minor league ballplayer, or a guy from the southwest suburbs who practices the Withdrawal Method. Yes, we have mosquitoes. We also have hurricanes, a serious obesity problem, and a mania for the Big Red and cough syrup cocktail called Drank. That doesn’t mean any of them should be chain-stitched on a baseball jersey.

  • Eric S. | October 21, 2011 at 1:32 pm |

    Were the Oilers and Wild doing a throwback to 2007 night last night?


    • Mike Engle | October 21, 2011 at 2:30 pm |

      I had no idea the Oilers’ midnight jersey was still kicking around as an alternate. Guess the Pro-Shop still has a bunch of unmoved merchandise.
      But at any rate, the answer is “no,” as you can tell by the shoulder patches donned by the Wild. In 2007, “Wild” was written in a scratchy cursive, but now it is in an all-caps font to match the numbers.
      And there’s a serious answer to a LOL-worthy question. :-P

      • Rob S | October 21, 2011 at 3:43 pm |

        Ugly Oilers uni, and ugly Wild patch.

  • Robert | October 21, 2011 at 2:22 pm |

    Im a normal UW reader, but dont post much. Im out of town right now and havent been keeping up as much lately, so please forgive me if this has been covered and I missed it. When Mike Adams was brought into the game last night, it looked like the red stripe on the TX flag patch on his left sleeve was actually pink. I rewound the TV to make sure I wasnt seeing things, and it looked pink to me. A little while later Mike Maddux and Mike Napoli went to the mound and their patches looked red, but Adams’ patch still looked pink. Did anybody else see this or is my tv just screwing with me

    • Brendan | October 21, 2011 at 5:58 pm |

      It’s not your TV.

  • Tim E. O'B | October 21, 2011 at 3:22 pm |


    Cool video of bears players playing cricket.

    At the beginning you can see Jay Cutler batting lefty, so he throws right and bats left.

  • R.S. Rogers | October 21, 2011 at 3:30 pm |

    This Slate article on the evolution of auto colors ends with a note that matte finishes are becoming a thing on luxury cars in the European market. This example is reminiscent of some recent football helmet treatments. Wonder if there’s any overlap in the technology between that applied to car exteriors and that used on football helmets?

    • Kyle Allebach | October 22, 2011 at 12:39 am |

      There is to an extent; I know automotive paint has begun to switch to a waterborne paint within repair shops (it’s more environmentally friendly), but usually automotive paint is magnetized so that you can waste less paint painting a car.

      On another note, this shade of gray used on this Benz S-Class is pretty freakin’ sweet, and it’s equivalent to what we have been seeing in some college football teams.

  • Simply Moono | October 21, 2011 at 6:28 pm |
    • Rob S | October 21, 2011 at 8:49 pm |

      Okay… let’s find you an open chimney to climb into!

    • Phil Hecken | October 21, 2011 at 9:47 pm |

      oh SIT, man!

      • Simply Moono | October 22, 2011 at 12:31 am |

        *Facepalm* I just now noticed that.

  • captincanuck | October 21, 2011 at 6:52 pm |

    The Hebron Hawks here in the DFW metroplex also use the hitmen logo. http://www.championsportsradio.com/blog/?p=435

  • johnj | October 21, 2011 at 8:00 pm |

    Rutgers wearing another style of helmet tonight at Louisville (3rd this season) … black matte with white block-R

    • LarryB | October 21, 2011 at 8:07 pm |

      Rutger Scarlet Knights not looking scarlet again.

      • Phil Hecken | October 21, 2011 at 9:48 pm |

        well…they are playing the cardinals…if there was ever a time for BFBS, this would be it

    • Jim Vilk | October 21, 2011 at 9:54 pm |

      That’s a great look…if you’re the Ottawa Rough Riders.
      But you’re not, Rutgers. You most certainly are not.

  • Rob S | October 21, 2011 at 9:00 pm |

    Y’know, the thing that interests me in that picture in today’s article is NOT the Yankees cap… it’s the gun.

    The gun, which presumably belonged to the deceased dictator, looks to be a gold-plated Browning Hi-Power. Specifically, it looks to be an older design (a version of which is still available as the Hi-Power Standard), compared to the modernized Mark III.

  • MMueller | October 21, 2011 at 9:52 pm |

    A few other schools in Texas use the Hitmen H logo, Hamlin Pied Pipers, Clint Horizon, Pflugerville Hendrickson, Hillsboro, and Hico.

    • Simply Moono | October 21, 2011 at 11:14 pm |

      Don’t forget Hoover HS in Hoover, AL.

  • Tim E. O'B | October 21, 2011 at 10:04 pm |


    God I hope the bears don’t wear white pants on Sunday.

    • Phil Hecken | October 21, 2011 at 11:26 pm |

      “God I hope the bears don’t wear white pants on Sunday.”


      much better

      • Tim E. O'B | October 21, 2011 at 11:51 pm |

        All white = weak sauce
        White over blue = dead sexxy


  • Jennifer Hayden | October 21, 2011 at 10:58 pm |

    Northwestern’s Head Coach, Pat Fitzgerald tweeted the following a few minutes ago:

    The ‘Cats have a surprise in store for tomorrow night… yfrog.com/o0nkjkej

    (If this has been mentioned previously, sorry for the redundant info!)

    • Tim E. O'B | October 21, 2011 at 11:10 pm |

      So excited!

    • Simply Moono | October 21, 2011 at 11:15 pm |


    • Simply Moono | October 21, 2011 at 11:16 pm |

      P.S.: You may want to add a “www.” to that link. No shade, though.

      • Jennifer Hayden | October 24, 2011 at 3:12 pm |

        Yeah, it had no www in the URL in my browser. Considering how touchy yfrog and lockerz are with shortened URLs, I never add anything especially since if it works on my local machine, it may just be re-loading the cached page and may not work for others….Y’all can copy/paste!

    • Phil Hecken | October 21, 2011 at 11:24 pm |

      here…lemme fix that for ya ;)

    • Tim E. O'B | October 21, 2011 at 11:47 pm |

      I’m guessing from the helmet that the throwback will be from 57-68, or just a composite.

      Whatever it is, expect a LOT of purple


  • Dave B. Merriman | October 22, 2011 at 12:51 am |

    Has anyone bought a tom brady stitched home jersey?

  • Dan in Houston | October 22, 2011 at 11:58 pm |

    Thoughts at the end of the day…

    1. Other than the purple pit stains, LSU didn’t look too bad.

    2. Boise State…just about the worst look I’ve ever seen.

    3. In re: the Rangers being blue or red — Texas state flag has both in equal parts, but I’ve never liked the Rangers in red, especially now that every body and their neighbor is wearing red. Given that their major division rival is the Angels, another all red team (to the point of having red numbers on a red jersey), the more blue the better.

    4. Any idea when the new Blue Jays unis/hats are coming out?