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

Seeing Stars

Screen shot 2012-01-24 at 10.54.06 AM.png

This Sunday is a good chance to regrout the bathroom all-star day, beginning with the NHL All-Star Game at 4pm Eastern. Nothing new uni-wise, as they’ll be wearing the exact same uniforms as last year. In the past, the NHL has used the ASG as a laboratory for experimenting with new officiating uniforms, but not this year.

Then, at 6:30pm Eastern, it’s the Pro Bowl. Not much new here either, as the word from the NFL is that this year’s uniforms are essentially the same as last year’s, only without the long pants (forgot about those, didn’thca?). Also: As I reported a few days ago, there will be no maker’s marks. Also-also: New Nike cleats and gloves, as a test-drive for next season, and New Era sideline headwear.

I expect to have news regarding the NBA’s all-star uniforms (which are not the same as last year’s) by this time next week. But one thing has already begun circulating: these sock designs.

+ + + + +

Screen shot 2012-01-24 at 6.38.21 PM.png

As I’ve been saying all along…: Back in October of 2010, Nike exec Charlie Denson was quoted saying, “We plan on changing the NFL jersey dramatically, just like we’ve done with the college programs.” That quote led to all the Photoshopped “NFL Pro Combat” concepts that everyone mistakenly thought were real (or as I like to call that chapter in uni history, “Gullible’s Travels”).

Anyway: I suspected at the time — and have been saying ever since — that Nike “changing the NFL jersey dramatically” would mostly be about tailoring and fabrication, not about graphics. And now the NFL has confirmed that. Here’s the key passage from that article, in a quote from NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy:

Logos are controlled by teams and the NFL. That will not change. Teams have to apply to league to make changes to logos and colors. We anticipate new uniform technology (i.e., performance-driven, lighter materials). That’s what Nike’s [Charlie] Denson was referring to in his interview in 2010 regarding changes.

Hmmm, where have I heard that before? Oh, yes: Right here on this web site for the past year-plus.

Incidentally, that article also says players who want to change uni numbers during the Reebok/Nike changeover won’t have to buy out all the excess inventory, so we may see a flurry of number changes (or maybe even name changes) this off-season. One player who’s apparently thinking in that direction is Adrian Peterson.

Meanwhile, as long as we’re talking about the NFL, reader Clint Richardson says, “I follow Jaguars equipment manager Drew Hampton [on Twitter], and he has been dropping some good hints about a black uni coming in ’12, with a whole new set in ’13.” So that’s something to keep an eye on.

+ + + + +

Uni Watch News Ticker: Here’s how the Super Bowl logo will look on the Pats’ jersey and the Giants’ helmet. … Nice People Bearing Nice Gifts, Part 1: The increasingly indispensable Mike Hersh stopped by Uni Watch HQ for dinner a few nights ago and brought me a pair of belated Hanukkah gifts: a vintage Lady Met rainout decal (never seen that particular illo before) and a 1953 Felco uniform catalog (I’ll post some scans from the interior pages soon). … Nice People Bearing Nice Gifts, Part 2: Gene Biros, who I met at the Cleveland Uni Watch party, sent me a pair of game-used — and, more importantly, striped — Browns socks. Wearing ’em right now as I type this! … Here’s our real photo of the Rockies’ new road jersey. ”¦ In a related item, remember that Giants alternate road jersey that leaked a while back? According to the last bulleted item on this page, the plan is for it to be worn on Sundays, although I have a feeling it’ll show up more often than that (from Shane Barclay). … When Viktor Jakovljevic played for the Milwaukee Wave in the early ’90s, he only had his first name on his jersey. “Fewer letters and easier to spell than Jakovljevic,” says Kenn Tomasch. … “Air Paternos”? Details here (thanks, Kek). … Coupla nice pics in this Astros uni-history slideshow (from Ben Melson). … SMU has switched outfitters, from Adidas to Nike. … I have a feeling we may have seen this before, but just in case: Lots of readers are enjoying the retro-style NFL logos that can be found here. … That stolen Old Dominion basketball gear has been found (from Jonathan Leib). … New mascot for Stetson University (from Paul Gloersen). … Charles Sollars has uploaded all of his pro and college football uniform concepts to Flickr and is welcoming feedback. … Soooo much to like — and so many uni-related details! — in this photo of a young Prince Fielder (big thanks to John Okray). … Special Gary Williams shoes for Maryland hoops. ”¦ Neglected to mention that the Heat wore their Floridians throwbacks on Saturday night.

269 comments to Seeing Stars

  • Jonathan Sluss | January 25, 2012 at 7:37 am |

    Is Wes Welker borrowing a Titans helmet in that Pro Bowl photo?

    • Kyle Allebach #school | January 25, 2012 at 8:08 am |

      No. That’s Mark Mariani of the Titans. He went to the Pro Bowl as a Return Specialist.

      • Paul Lukas | January 25, 2012 at 8:17 am |

        Yeah, the US Presswire caption is incorrect.

        • Rob H. | January 25, 2012 at 11:17 am |

          That’s the kind of errors you get when you let multiple players on the same team wear the same number. I liked the old days when Derrick Brooks had to wear 52 because another NFC linebacker was 55.

        • Rob H. | January 25, 2012 at 11:18 am |

          ..unless you’re MLB on April 15, then it’s okay.

  • Danya | January 25, 2012 at 8:00 am |

    Why do you have a feeling the Giants’ alternate road jersey will show up more often than they say? They introduced orange jerseys and orange billed hats two years ago and stated each of these items would only be worn on Fridays and Sundays, respectively, and I am positive they have adhered to that. With only one exception: when they played the Orioles in a Monday-night “Halloween in June” promotion where they were their orange jerseys and Orioles wore their black ones.

    • Paul Lukas | January 25, 2012 at 8:16 am |

      For one thing, a road jersey presents different issues, because it means packing extra stuff to take on the road. If they’re already planning to bring the alt jersey along for a Sunday game, I can see that they might just say, “Fuck it, we’ll wear that for the whole road trip,” esp. if they’ve been winning with it. Also, I think it’s going to be very popular with the fans.

      I’m not saying it’s going to totally supplant the regular road jersey. I just think they may end up wearing it more often than just on Sundays.

      • Danya | January 25, 2012 at 9:28 am |

        Ah yeah, good point about packing extra stuff for the road. I am curious to see how popular these alts end up being. For me, I think the whole “cap logo on left breast” thing is getting a little overplayed by now. But I do think the Giants’ “SF” is very nice, so we’ll see.

        • Jeremiah | January 25, 2012 at 2:28 pm |

          I’ve always liked the unis those are harking back to. They can make the script one the alt, and it’d be fine with me.

  • Kevin Poss | January 25, 2012 at 8:02 am |

    The first NHL link is broken

    • Paul Lukas | January 25, 2012 at 8:14 am |

      Thanks. Now fixed.

  • Dumb Guy | January 25, 2012 at 8:10 am |

    I’m glad you wrote “…a young Prince Fielder”, and not “..Prince Fielder when he was little”.

    • Shane | January 25, 2012 at 8:18 am |

      Oh god, the Zubaz.

      • Ryan B | January 25, 2012 at 8:25 am |

        Cubs Zubas, no less.

        • Ryan B | January 25, 2012 at 8:25 am |

          Crap…I meant “Zubaz”. Dang it.

        • Rob S | January 25, 2012 at 10:10 am |

          Cubs Zubaz with a New York Football Giants T-shirt that looks like it has a Zubaz pattern on it…

          Well, at least he’s color-coordinated!

    • Geeman | January 25, 2012 at 8:54 am |

      It is a great picture.

    • jdreyfuss | January 25, 2012 at 9:34 am |

      I’ve got to ask: given that he’s wearing a Tigers hat and Cubs pants, is that Giants shirt the baseball or football Giants? I would logically assume baseball, but the colors look more like blue and red than black and orange to me.

    • nobody | January 25, 2012 at 12:46 pm |

      zubaz pants+astroturf reminded me of this:

    • SDot | January 25, 2012 at 12:52 pm |

      I have to think that picture is taken in Toronto, most likely in the first few year of the SkyDome, which opened in 1989.

      Blue seats and turf…I could be wrong, but looks like Toronto.

  • Kyle Allebach #school | January 25, 2012 at 8:10 am |

    Is it really that hard to make all NFL socks just one piece, like Paul’s stripped Browns socks?

    • Paul Lukas | January 25, 2012 at 8:21 am |

      The issue isn’t about how they make the socks; it’s about what the players want to wear. Most of them now wear full-length team-colored tights under their pants (which makes sense for cold-weather games — it’s basically long underwear), so there’s no need for an over-the-calf sock. That’s why so many of them wear leg-warmer socks or just white crew socks.

    • Andy | January 25, 2012 at 9:06 am |

      To further elaborate, every team is issued one-piece socks. Presumably, they are also issued the ‘leg-warmer’ style socks as well (you can sometimes find these on ebay), but I don’t know why or when that practice originated.

      • Paul Lukas | January 25, 2012 at 9:24 am |

        In short, as I’ve mentioned before (and has become the case in baseball as well), hosiery is no longer treated as part of the uniform. It’s now more akin to equipment, which means the player has a lot of options in terms of how to wear it.

        • Bernard | January 25, 2012 at 9:41 am |

          A few weeks ago, the B1G Network showed the 1969 Michigan-OSU game, and I was surprised by the variations in lower-leg stylings for both teams. Now obviously that’s college, and the reasons were probably very different, but this phenomenon is a lot older than I thought it was.

        • Chance Michaels | January 25, 2012 at 9:51 am |

          hosiery is no longer treated as part of the uniform. It’s now more akin to equipment, which means the player has a lot of options in terms of how to wear it.
          And that’s a damn shame.

        • Paul Lukas | January 25, 2012 at 9:58 am |

          Visually, yes — a shame.

          But I think it’s also one of those form-follow-function things. For most players, tights make more sense than socks. The old format was no longer meeting their needs from a function/performance standpoint. When that happens, it’s up to designers to come up with a new solution. Why can’t they make team-striped tights, e.g.? Hasn’t happened yet, but a solution that’s practical and aesthetically pleasing is certainly possible.

        • Geeman | January 25, 2012 at 10:20 am |

          Tights only apply when it’s cold, which is barely more than half the season. What about the rest of the year?

          And why not make the socks compression socks just like tights?

  • Glenn | January 25, 2012 at 8:11 am |

    I saw a picture of the Rockies new road jerseys over the weekend as well. So essentially, the new roads are the old ones rehashed, with “Colorado” instead of “Rockies” on the front, but including player number. Not necessarily complaining about the look, sometimes less is more, and the purple pins on the road always looked a little too busy/cluttered.

    • Geeman | January 25, 2012 at 8:55 am |

      The new road top looks great.

      • YP | January 25, 2012 at 8:59 am |

        It’s probably just the lighting, but “COLORADO” looks black in that picture. The letters are purple, right?

        • jdreyfuss | January 25, 2012 at 9:48 am |

          If that is purple, it’s a darker shade or less shiny material than the piping. The headspoon still looks like royal purple under the same lighting.

    • Arr Scott | January 25, 2012 at 10:03 am |

      Still a major downgrade for the Rox, but on the plus side, their headspoon road uni is much better than the new Giants headspoon road uni. If nothing else, the new Giants road alt very helpfully makes all the other teams in their division with boring road headspoon unis look pretty darn good.

      • Matt | January 25, 2012 at 10:34 am |

        In your humble opinion of course.

        • Arr Scott | January 25, 2012 at 2:30 pm |

          Dude, aesthetics is all opinion. And no opinion worth having was ever humble.

          In less subjective terms, I would submit that there are three rational, not-entirely-opinion, reasons for regarding the new Rox unis as a downgrade, and regarding the new Rox unis as superior to the equivalent new Giants unis.

          First, the new Rockies road unis breaks what had been a thread of consistency among the team’s home and road unis. Used to be, if you saw a team with dark pinstripes and a black cap, you could be reasonably sure you were seeing the Rockies. Home or road. (It was 1-in-3 at home, 1-for-1 on the road, which in both cases is better than most teams’ unis.) Since one of the fundamental purposes of uniform design is to make a team distinctly and easily recognizable, this was good design. The new road uni means that the entire Rockies uni set now lacks this virtue. That is, objectively, a downgrade. Now, if you see a player dressed sort of like Colorado, odds are higher than formerly that you’re seeing a White Sox, or a Padre, or a player for several other very similarly dressed teams. From the standpoint of what a uniform exists to do, this is worse than the old uni.

          Second, another of the basic functions uni design exists to serve is differentiating between the two teams on the field of play. Modern MLB road unis tend to have a very light shade of gray that is much harder to distinguish from home whites in some lighting conditions than older, darker gray unis. Colorado’s road pins significantly darkened the appearance of their road unis, and thus made them much more recognizable on the field of play. Again, the word for a change that reduces the amount of objective virtue is “worse.” So, yes, it’s a downgrade.

          As for the Giants, the new Rox road unis have the virtue of matching internal elements to one another. Like is executed as like. The Giants unis fail this basic test of design quality, and use mismatched trim elements in a way that became rare in the sport 80 years ago.

          Now, all of those relatively objective standards don’t amount to much if the end result is prettier than it used to be; subjective taste can matter more than objective quality. But in this case, I’m just not seeing improvement for Colorado, and I’m sure not buying the idea that deliberately sloppy execution of a me-too uni makes the new Giants road alt anything other than the worst road uni in the NL West. Which is a shame, since I love San Fran wearing the SF on the chest.

        • Phil Hecken | January 25, 2012 at 7:10 pm |

          the rocks dumped the pins on the road grays

          that ALONE is an improvement


      • Marc | January 25, 2012 at 3:00 pm |

        You are aware that during the 80s the Giants SF road unis also had mis-matching headspoon and sleeve stipes as well, right? If anything they’re replicating that look much more closely than with matched piping.

      • Casey | January 25, 2012 at 5:14 pm |

        I’ve never been a fan of away pins, so I’m in favor of this change. My $0.02.

    • Winter | January 25, 2012 at 11:35 am |

      I actually like it, if only for the decision to put the “city” name on the uniform. Road uni’s should have that, at least in baseball.

  • The Jeff | January 25, 2012 at 8:15 am |

    Ugh, that guy with the retro NFL logos ought to try not using the exact same faded-and-ink-splotched effect on every single logo. Even without that, they nearly all look like they belong on a wine bottle, not a sports team.

    • Dumb Guy | January 25, 2012 at 8:29 am |

      They look sort of like olde-tyme letterhead to me.

    • Wheels | January 25, 2012 at 8:32 am |

      The only one I like, the Philadelphia Eagles, instead looks like it belongs on a beer bottle. It reminds me of this:

      • teenchy | January 25, 2012 at 8:47 am |

        Apologies that I didn’t read your post when making mine re beer labels.

    • Connie | January 25, 2012 at 8:33 am |

      I agree with TJ as to the overuse of the faded splotches, but on the whole, I like ’em.

      • M.Princip | January 25, 2012 at 10:24 am |

        I agree with Connie, I like ’em, for the most part. The stand outs were; Steelers, Giants, Chargers, and Cardinals. Not too crazy about the Seahawks logo he did. I also liked the Vikings one, however the Minnesota & Vikings wordmarks not being centered bothered me, and it also looked better suited for a rowing team.

        • The Jeff | January 25, 2012 at 10:34 am |

          The Chargers? Really? I thought that was among the worst because it’s just a Padres logo with an extra letter stuck on it.

        • M.Princip | January 25, 2012 at 11:38 am |

          Well, you have a point there Jeff, no doubt, just felt it was a good SD mash up logo. The colors, interlocking letters, and the small bolt just works for me right now.

    • Andy | January 25, 2012 at 9:09 am |

      I think that’s the point, Jeff. Re-imagining sport logos as if they were designed during a bygone era when there was no expectation of what a sport logo should look like. Logos were logos back then (there was no specific visual language that defined sport logos), and they were clumsy-looking, as many of these are.

      • Tom | January 25, 2012 at 9:32 am |

        Well then he should have a hundred different logos for each team because anyone can come up with a hundred different logos with zero visual that look clumsy. Thats the challenge, to come up with something relevant and visually appealling AND give it an old time feel, this guys abandoned those challenges and just come up with some logos and slapped that smudgy grainy affect on them.

        • interlockingtc | January 25, 2012 at 9:46 am |

          I think the guy does impressive work, as a whole, and a few of his concepts are more visually appealing than what many teams are currently using. Among the many striking examples, just look at what he has done with the Broncos.

        • Andy | January 25, 2012 at 11:38 am |

          Which is exactly why many of these are unsuccessful; most of them don’t possess a strong visual. Still, that doesn’t mean they don’t look authentic to the era. Many logo designs of the past were unsuccessful in some way due to various limitations (creativity, education, craftsmanship, technology, etc.) There’s nothing wrong with trying to recreate something faithfully, just as there’s nothing wrong with using the past for inspiration to create a great contemporary piece with retro flair.

        • Andy | January 25, 2012 at 11:39 am |

          Sorry, that was in reply to Tom, not interlockingtc.

        • Wheels | January 25, 2012 at 6:17 pm |

          @ i-tc, yes the Broncos logo is also good.

      • Tom | January 25, 2012 at 9:35 am |

        And one more thing. I was looking for my team, something visual that makes me say “hey theres my team”. But the logo was so far off from what I’m used to seeing I couldn’t even put it together. Not that a completely different feel or look or colors would be wrong, but visually you have to be able upon seeing it the first time to say “thats my team.”

    • jdreyfuss | January 25, 2012 at 9:55 am |

      I wish someone could find another basic logo for the Browns than that stupid football. Off the top of my head, I’d take a white shield and bisect it with an orange-brown-orange bend, then charge it with either a brown block C or an orange bulldog’s head in profile.

  • Connie | January 25, 2012 at 8:28 am |

    That Lady Met raincheck unearthed by the IIME is magnificent. Who is the master who produced it? Arts people are all in a tither these days as to whether “La Bella Princezza” can be rightfully attributed to Da Vinci, but here before us is a provenance question of the highest urgency.

    • Paul Lukas | January 25, 2012 at 8:31 am |

      Back in 2010 I tried to find out who illustrated the original Mr./Lady Met series, which is spectacular. Came up empty. Very frustrating.

      The Mets, of course, have no idea.

      • Connie | January 25, 2012 at 8:34 am |


      • Chance Michaels | January 25, 2012 at 9:52 am |

        And unfortunately, I suspect that’s one of those things that will be harder to uncover with every passing year.

        • Paul Lukas | January 25, 2012 at 10:00 am |

          With the recent passing of Bob Mandt — who had worked for the Mets since 1961 and was the single greatest living repository of info on the team — a lot of early Mets knowledge is now gone forever.

          But even he didn’t know who drew Mr. Met.

        • Chance Michaels | January 25, 2012 at 10:33 am |

          And with Google no longer adding newspapers to the archive, that’s another resource gone.

        • Chance Michaels | January 25, 2012 at 11:02 am |

          It’s a fantastic graphic, though. The rain check Mr. Met has long been one of my favorites.

          Makes the Mets so much more interesting than the Yankees.

        • Chance Michaels | January 25, 2012 at 11:05 am |

          I mean, seriously. What kind of team puts a crying version of their mascot on every single ticket?

        • Phil Hecken | January 25, 2012 at 7:14 pm |

          “What kind of team puts a crying version of their mascot on every single ticket?”


          mr. met feels the pain of his team’s fans…

  • teenchy | January 25, 2012 at 8:46 am |

    A small sigh of relief here re the confirmation of your Nike/NFL comments. The franchises, not the suppliers to the franchises, should be in the business of defining their brands.

    Why do those retro-style NFL logos remind me of beer labels?

    • Capital Z | January 25, 2012 at 9:41 am |

      I do wonder if we will be experiencing a redux of the NHL Reebok Edge, with teams, not Nike, using the tailoring and fabrication changes as a reason to implement graphical redesigns. But – and this has been covered in this blog – it may be a great opportunity to “use Pro Combat for good, not evil” for example putting the sleeve stripes on the compression sleeves rather than squishing them up on the fabric of the non-sleeves of the modern NFL jersey.

      • Chris D | January 25, 2012 at 2:17 pm |

        How about just putting sleeves on the jerseys…worked well for years

      • Andy | January 25, 2012 at 4:46 pm |

        For the last time, 80% of NFL players do not and will not wear compression sleeves. Putting stripes on them will create a bigger problem than we already have.

  • Sam | January 25, 2012 at 8:48 am |

    I’ve been wrong before, but, does it look like that Pats Super Bowl uni has no Reebok logo on it? In just a quick perusal of the interweb I could see the Reebok logo on the shoulders (ex.
    I remember it being mentioned that the Pro Bowl unis would have no vector, but will the Super Bowl unis also be vectorless?

    • Shane | January 25, 2012 at 11:25 am |

      Those are the “Pro Line” jerseys, apparently done in-house by the NFL to cover the changeover between Vector and Swoosh.

      There’s been mention of them on here a few times in the past week if you want some more information.

  • Graf Zeppelin | January 25, 2012 at 8:56 am |

    Definitely like the Rockies’ roads.

  • walter | January 25, 2012 at 8:56 am |

    While farting around in the comments section yesterday, I lurched into a good idea for the Astros’ rebranding. If they made their new nickname the “Astronauts”, it would indicate a fresh start without causing fans to change their habits. For years, I thought that was their full name, anyway- a la, “New York Metropolitan Baseball Club”. Thoughts?


    • Chris Holder | January 25, 2012 at 9:19 am |

      So, officially rename themselves the Astronauts, but then go back to casually just using “Astros”? I would be fine with it if they would go all out pushing the space theme. I mean, here’s one team that could REALLY have a lot of fun with their nickname. And yet they are so confused that if you go to their own stadium you didn’t really get an idea what the name is supposed to mean. That’s crazy.

      So yes. I’m up for anything that gives them a fun new image and uniforms. I mean heck, they suck at actually playing baseball, now is as good a time as any to do it.

      • Chris Holder | January 25, 2012 at 9:21 am |

        Ok, an addendum to that. I do see one downside to the name. As long as they continue to be Not Good, every media hack in the country will conveniently call them the “Nauts” rather than “Astros”.

        • Perry | January 25, 2012 at 10:06 am |

          Nah, they’ve got plenty of old favorites to use. Lastros. Disastros. And for the young minor-leaguers, Half-Astros.

        • elgato11x | January 25, 2012 at 12:47 pm |

          Lol at Half-Astros…

    • Ricko | January 25, 2012 at 9:30 am |

      My guess would be the new owner doesn’t really have much serious intention of changing the team name.

      “Everything’s on the table” is a quite common–though not always entirely true–statement when new owners take over a struggling company, both in and out of sports.

      Seems more like a tactic to get people to adjust the way they think about the Astros. Want to replace “They suck,” with “Jeez, don’t change the name; a lot of great players have been ‘Astros’…and, yeah, right now they suck, but we still care.”

      • Chance Michaels | January 25, 2012 at 9:56 am |

        If he had any serious intent to change the name, the overwhelming tide of fan opposition seems to have dampened it.

        From their Facebook page: Jim Crane is the most open-minded owner in sports, and he is considering anything that will potentially improve the fan experience. We want to be clear that nothing has been decided concerning a change to the team name. We invite you to continue the discussion and assure you that we are listening to what the fans have to say.

        • Ricko | January 25, 2012 at 10:01 am |

          It worked.

        • Le Cracquere | January 25, 2012 at 11:12 am |

          So the Houston team will continue to have a prefix, rather than an actual name? What a damned shame.

        • Winter | January 25, 2012 at 11:33 am |
        • Le Cracquere | January 25, 2012 at 11:57 am |

          Touché–I mean, rood roint.

  • Geeman | January 25, 2012 at 8:57 am |

    So the Jags are getting a new black uniform? Wow, that is an original idea. Will every sports team be outfitted in white, black, or gray from now on? No need for color TV or photography anymore.

    • Chris Holder | January 25, 2012 at 9:22 am |

      While it’s stupid and boring, isn’t black at least one of their actual colors? They would certainly have more of a claim to using it than some *cough*CARDINALS*cough*.

      • The Jeff | January 25, 2012 at 9:31 am |

        The stupid part about it is that when they made the uniform change, they spouted off a bunch of bullshit about lacking an identity and using too many uniform combinations. The new uniform was supposed to be one home uniform and one away uniform. Here we are just 3 years later and they’ve already ditched that approach and are adding alternate jersey again.

        • Chance Michaels | January 25, 2012 at 10:35 am |

          We agree.

          Obviously the real problem wasn’t the uniform mess, but we can understand why that’s what they addressed.

        • Andy | January 25, 2012 at 11:40 am |

          I think that was the philosophy of the previous owner, no? Now that there’s a new owner in town, I’m sure there will be changes of this sort.

        • Clint | January 26, 2012 at 11:20 am |

          Past owner? Not so much. Accourding to Drew Hampton, they have been in talks about black unis for the past two years. The fans were not happy about losing that one. And yes, black is a team color, along with teal and gold, so it is not BFBS.

  • DakkoN | January 25, 2012 at 9:01 am |

    When are the new Nike basketball uniforms supposed to be unveiled? Haven’t seen any info regarding them except on this site..

    • Paul Lukas | January 25, 2012 at 9:08 am |

      Around 10am.

  • Geno Clayton | January 25, 2012 at 9:19 am |
    • Rob S | January 25, 2012 at 10:20 am |

      Rich played alongside his twin brother Ron for most of three seasons with the Flyers, from 1983 to 1986. The two reunited in St. Louis from 1991 to 1993.

    • ken | January 25, 2012 at 5:32 pm |

      Sutter & Sutter & Sutter & Sutter. I had the wonderful pleasure of being at an Islander/Flyers game in 1983 when Brent, Duane, Rich & Ron all played ~ and ended up on the ice at the same time. I was getting some food when the was a big cheer ~ somebody asked what happend and response was “Sutter scored…” followed by a big smile and a “which” one. I also had the pleasure of being at a baseball game in the 70s when all 3 Alou bothers played (but not all on the same team)

  • TOMtiger | January 25, 2012 at 9:35 am |

    im actually kind of excited about nike-nfl.

    im in favor of a massive overhaul for atleast 1/2 of the nfl teams. teams like the bengirls, panthers, jags,seahawks, and JETS need a makeover. just leave the nfc north teams alone.

    • The Jeff | January 25, 2012 at 9:41 am |

      When you say massive overhaul, do you actually want *new* designs, or do you just want Nike to pretend it’s 1978 again?

      • Ricko | January 25, 2012 at 9:48 am |

        Speaking of the 70s…

        What’s going on in football right now feels very much like the ’70s in MLB. “Yeah, man, these are the unis of the future; we’re changing how the game looks. Bright colors, pullovers and sansabelts, that’s the way the game will be from now on, you’ll see.”

        Then the pendulum swung back the other way.

        Those who love change need to grasp that sometimes it changes back again.

        • Chance Michaels | January 25, 2012 at 10:04 am |

          True enough.

          As the saying goes, the future just ain’t what it used to be.

        • Capital Z | January 25, 2012 at 10:07 am |

          More recent NFL uni changes are a bit more practical. Football has seen changes as a bit of form-following-function, as opposed to merely flashing it up for color TV. Tighter jerseys are harder to grab for tackles. Compression garments keep players warm, improve blood circulation and wick away sweat. As for the graphics, football has always been colorful (unlike baseball’s white vs. grey template).

        • Ricko | January 25, 2012 at 10:12 am |

          Wasn’t talking about technical improvements.
          Or color specifically.
          Just the attitude.

          Same thing for big fins on automobiles.

        • Geeman | January 25, 2012 at 10:14 am |

          That has to be the Quote of the Day, Ricko.

          Anyone wearing Ricko’s powder blue Deluxe Ruffled Tux today?

        • Geeman | January 25, 2012 at 10:15 am |

          The specific quote I was referring to is:

          “Those who love change need to grasp that sometimes it changes back again.”

        • Phil Hecken | January 25, 2012 at 7:20 pm |

          like in 2013?

      • TOMtiger | January 25, 2012 at 10:21 am |

        wish the jets used this logo. nobody uses cursive script on the helmets anymore.

        • teenchy | January 25, 2012 at 10:47 am |

          Actually no, if they want to use a script they should develop their own and not use a repurposed Mets script.

          FWIW, I had my high school senior class photo taken in a powder blue deluxe ruffled tux; it was the only option as powder blue was one of our school colors. No, I will not be posting that photo.

    • Capital Z | January 25, 2012 at 9:46 am |

      GB, Chi, I agree, don’t touch.
      Detroit, whatever.
      Minnesota, needs to turn the clock back on their look.

      Or not: they may soon be the Los Angeles Vikings, and aesthetics could be an issue for the Minnesota Jaguars in a couple years.

      • Ricko | January 25, 2012 at 9:57 am |

        Yeah, saw an estimate that, because of smaller seating capacity and lack of luxury boxes, playing at TCF Bank Stadium for two or three seasons while a new stadium is built on the Metrodome site could cost the Vikings $50 million or more.

        The Wilfs are not thrilled.

        Here’s a thought. Vikes vamoose (maybe with a Mayflower van, even) and–oh, look–sign Peyton Manning so their debut in L.A. in 2012 has lots and lots of “buzz”.

        • Ricko | January 25, 2012 at 10:06 am |

          Or they use that high draft choice to take RG III instead of a tackle.

        • TOMtiger | January 25, 2012 at 10:22 am |

          its not looking good for the rams in STL either :(

      • Arr Scott | January 25, 2012 at 10:11 am |

        At this point, I don’t care what happens to my Vikings, stay or go, just so long as they do not become the Los Angeles Vikings. I don’t even care if any new team in Minny gets to use the Vikings name – in fact, I’d prefer not. I’m just that sick of teams keeping names that make no sense in their new homes. If Wilf & co want to play that game, they should go all-in and name the team the Los Angeles (football) Lakers, in honor of all the lakes the City of Angels is famous for.

        One of the finalists for naming the Wild was Voyageurs. If a relo shuffle winds up with the Vikings becoming the Los Angeles Anythingbutvikings, and the Jaguars becoming the Minnesota Voyageurs, I’d actually call that a trade up for Minnesota.

        • JTH | January 25, 2012 at 10:32 am |

          I hate the Vikings, even more so than the Packers. And that’s a good thing.

          I suppose I could grow to hate the Voyageurs (assuming they end up in the NFC North), but it would be a difficult adjustment for me.

          Keep the Vikings in Minnesota!

        • Capital Z | January 25, 2012 at 10:39 am |

          Good point about inappropriate team names. There’s a topic for me to guest-blog on (Hello? Paul?) some point down the line… Arizona Cardinals? They don’t even have an archbishop, let alone a cardinal. L.A. Dodgers? Not too many “trolley dodgers” i.e. Brooklynites in la-la land. Tennessee Oilers? At least they saw the light.

          But I suppose Houston’s newer NFL entry will split at some point and become the Utah Texans.

        • The Jeff | January 25, 2012 at 10:41 am |

          Somehow I don’t think the NFL is going to bother re-aligning if a team moves. It took the expansion to 32 teams to finally get Atlanta out of the West, and then they still kept Dallas in the East and put Indy in the South. If the Vikings go to LA, then LA will be a northern city, regardless of how stupid it looks.

        • Chance Michaels | January 25, 2012 at 10:47 am |

          I really don’t want the Vikings to go, but the name wouldn’t be terribly incongruous in Los Angeles.

          Unlike “Lakers” (yes, I’ve been waterskiing on Castaic, and no, it doesn’t count), “Vikings” is just fine. It wouldn’t have the same resonance it does in Minneapolis, becoming less about local demographics and more a generic marauding band name like “Raiders” or “Pirates”.

        • Le Cracquere | January 25, 2012 at 11:14 am |

          I dunno … isn’t L.A. kind of notable for its high incidence of tall blondes and looting?

        • Winter | January 25, 2012 at 11:28 am |

          The purple and gold would work. Name them the Legion or something, they could have the same alliterative spin as the Lakers.

          Then again, that’s a collective name, and I hate collective names. Keep the Vikings.

        • Ricko | January 25, 2012 at 11:44 am |

          Don’t bet on Voyageurs.

          All you have to do is mention just once to team decision-makers that in print it looks a lot like “Voyeurs” and it’s dead.


        • JTH | January 25, 2012 at 11:53 am |

          Could be a great advertising slogan:

          “We like to watch… and so will you.

          Reserve your season ticket package NOW!”

          maybe not.

        • Jim Vilk | January 25, 2012 at 12:42 pm |

          They should just keep the name Vikings. It’s a lot shorter than calling them the LA Just Be Glad We Don’t Take The Twinses…

        • JEDI54 | January 25, 2012 at 2:27 pm |

          The Cowboys will never move out of the NFC East. Too much money involved.

        • Rob H. | January 25, 2012 at 6:58 pm |

          I would think if the Vikings did move to L.A. they would do the easy thing and move St. Louis to the NFC North and L.A. to the NFC West. Not everyone has the pull of Jerry Jones.

  • Chris Flinn | January 25, 2012 at 10:17 am |

    Paul, get a chance to watch either episode of All-Star Dealers last night? It was their first two episodes….

  • Rob S | January 25, 2012 at 10:37 am |

    Not surprised that the NHL All-Star Game unis are staying the same this year. They generally do try to get at least two seasons out of most designs. 2004 (Minnesota) and 2009 (Montreal) were notable exceptions, as both of those designs were tied to the host team.

    I still don’t know what reason they had for using Wild colors in 2004. Green with “Minnesota wheat” trim (kind of like the Wild’s current third) vs. “Minnesota wheat” with red trim? Sadly, that’s probably the beginning of the “vintage white” movement there (even though “Minnesota wheat” has been part of the Wild’s color scheme since the team was first named back in 1998).

  • Paul Lukas | January 25, 2012 at 10:37 am |

    The new Nike designs:

    Writing something about it now for ESPN. Link coming soon-ish.

    And remember — it’s not gray, it’s platinum.


    • The Jeff | January 25, 2012 at 10:43 am |

      So gray is the new black. Wonderful.

      • Arr Scott | January 25, 2012 at 2:37 pm |

        Somehow, GFGS doesn’t offend me as much as BFBS does. Two theories:

        1. Could be that many teams wear black as an actual team color, so when a team without black as a team color wear black, it’s breaking its own team color code. Whereas few teams wear gray as a color, so it retains a sense of neutrality when a non-gray team wears it. It’s a canvass color, not a paint color.

        2. I very much prefer gray to black, as a color, so I’m just being swayed by sentiment here.

    • Chris in Nashville | January 25, 2012 at 10:45 am |

      Would these be GFGS?

      • The Jeff | January 25, 2012 at 10:47 am |


      • Chance Michaels | January 25, 2012 at 10:48 am |


    • JTH | January 25, 2012 at 11:10 am |

      My wedding ring is mostly platinum. I’m looking at it as I type this and its color in almost no way resembles the color of that fabric.

    • Matthew Robins | January 25, 2012 at 11:22 am |

      Those are some awesome socks.

    • Bernard | January 25, 2012 at 11:26 am |

      Well, those are just despicable. Pukers.

    • Fran | January 25, 2012 at 11:27 am |

      Here are some more pics of Syracuse’s “platinum” uniforms:

    • Fran | January 25, 2012 at 11:29 am |
      • Jet | January 25, 2012 at 11:57 am |

        Some things you just can’t UN-SEE!!!


    • Shane | January 25, 2012 at 11:36 am |

      I really, really dislike the trend of making team names/numbers/NOB the same color as the jersey.

      It’s hard enough to figure out who’s who when the Braves and Angels do it with their alt jerseys, but this is just a whole new flavor of dumbsauce.

      • Jim Vilk | January 25, 2012 at 11:52 am |


        • Jim Vilk | January 25, 2012 at 11:56 am |

          Clint Deans would not approve.

      • Phil Hecken | January 25, 2012 at 7:28 pm |

        “I really, really dis like the trend of making team names/numbers/NOB the same color as the jersey.”



    • John Curran | January 25, 2012 at 12:10 pm |

      I can’t take credit for this. I saw it on a Facebook comment. If they shortened “Syracuse” to “Cuse” shouldn’t “Kentucky” be “Ucky” which would seem appropriate?

      • JBeamer | January 25, 2012 at 1:39 pm |

        And why is that? Why don’t you take hate nonsense to a Rivals message board.

        • John | January 25, 2012 at 8:36 pm |

          Not Ucky as in Kentucky is ucky. Ucky as these uniforms are all ucky.

      • Ray Barrington | January 25, 2012 at 3:23 pm |

        I am all for OREGON being GON.

    • Adam R. W. | January 25, 2012 at 12:20 pm |

      All these identical gray jerseys with team names and trim colors being the only variables is another huge step towards promoting “Team Nike” rather than the schools.

      Forgetting the fact that they look terrible and make no sense, the pure idea of them is garbage.

    • Tom | January 25, 2012 at 12:31 pm |

      “‘CUSE” shouldn’t be anywhere near a uniform. Totally arrogant.

      Likewise, neither should SENS, BOLTS, D-Backs or PHX or any of the other nicknames or abbreviations the teams are called.

      I can imagine every single time the Senators are referred to in the area of Ottawa they’re called the Sens but anything like that has no place on a uniform. Unprofessional.

    • Flip | January 25, 2012 at 12:56 pm |

      None of those models look very happy.

      • Flip | January 25, 2012 at 1:04 pm |

        Less baggy, more pleats, too.

    • Joe D | January 25, 2012 at 4:20 pm |

      Is it just me, or does it seem like Nike has made all of these uniforms gray in order to further highlight the bright multi-colored shoes and socks which just so happen to be available for retail sales?

    • LarryB | January 25, 2012 at 6:31 pm |

      I thought somebody was being funny and photoshopped that.

  • Ben | January 25, 2012 at 11:10 am |

    How long do you think it will be before Nike totally ruins SMU’s look?

    • Ricko | January 25, 2012 at 11:40 am |

      As soon as Nike gets the make the call, SMU’s sleeve stripes will be gone. Can take that to the bank.

      Stripes are adidas. Nooooooo stripes on a Nike designed uni.

      • LarryB | January 25, 2012 at 6:16 pm |

        I was talking about this on OSU board. About bring back the gray sleeves. I showed SMU and somebody said Nike does not do sleeve stripes.

        But how about Iowa?

        Same pattern and Ohio State old gray.

      • Phil Hecken | January 25, 2012 at 7:31 pm |

        “Stripes are adidas. Nooooooo stripes on a Nike designed uni.”


        oh bullshit

        they’ll make the stripes actually look like stripes, too, not those stupid stretchy shit things badidas has been producing for the past 3 years

        • Ricko | January 25, 2012 at 8:40 pm |

          Didn’t meant adidas DOES stripes, meant Nike sees stripes as reinforcing the adidas brand. They must. They avoid the hell out of them.

          And I also have said, repeatedly, “Left to their own devices.” That lets out Iowa or LSU or Alabama or any other that has said “No” to a Nike redesign.

          Other than a couple exceptions (which would NOT prove the rule) show me a bunch of full Nike designs that feature much of what anyone would call typical, traditional striping.

        • Ricko | January 25, 2012 at 8:42 pm |

          oops. A couple exceptions would NOT defeat my contention.

        • LarryB | January 25, 2012 at 9:23 pm |

          So if Iowa can tell Nike they want sleeve stripes, so can Ohio State? If they chose to.

        • Phil Hecken | January 25, 2012 at 10:40 pm |


          that argument makes no sense

          if SMU tells nike “make this jersey” they will…just like LSU, bama, penn state, and countless other schools

          how does this prove “they won’t do stripes”? of course they will, and do, and they will do it better than adidas that uses that shitty material which stretches the everliving shit out of the stripes…or they completely truncate them like UCLA or the colts

          if you’re asking nike designers to come up with a completely new design, would they not use traditional striping patterns? probably…but that doesn’t mean they can’t…and there is no indication they will do anything but what SMU asks them to

          shit, if reedidas had their way, every goddam uniform would have their three stripe signature look all over the thing, like they do with NBA warmups and a lot of soccer uniforms and a shitton of golf and tennis outfits — give nike some credit for at least not plastering some 8″ swoosh in the middle of every jersey

          im not saying nike is the greatest thing either…and yes, “left to their own devices” they do go crazy more often than not, but who doesn’t?

          i will bet their NFL unis are a hell of a lot more palatable than reebox and their stripes will not expand and bend like we’ve seen at the college and pro levels

          and they’re also a lot better at producing better throwbacks and whatnot (when they want to) than is majestic on the MLB level…i wouldn’t mind seeing nike get a shot at the baseball contract, because majestic just plain sucks

  • Johnny O | January 25, 2012 at 11:26 am |
  • M_Frick | January 25, 2012 at 11:42 am |

    Paul, do you have any news on which teams will be making a uniform overhaul? I know a while back you mentioned Seattle and possibly Carolina, any updated news on this?

    • Paul Lukas | January 25, 2012 at 12:09 pm |

      That’s still all I know.

      • Geeman | January 25, 2012 at 12:15 pm |

        Let’s eliminate school colors because the schools are no longer individually identifiable entities; they are now subservient to Our Corporation, as evidenced by our corporate color of gray. This is now Team Corporation. The distinctive Carolina blue or Syracuse orange will no longer exist, all in service of the Great Corporation. There is no longer need for color TV, or for color that matter, because everything will be the same, shades of gray. Here’s to the Corporation.

        • Paul Lukas | January 25, 2012 at 12:20 pm |


        • Adam R. W. | January 25, 2012 at 12:25 pm |

          I think that’s the Nike mission statement isn’t it?

        • Ricko | January 25, 2012 at 1:22 pm |

          That and “no straight stripes.”

        • Ricko | January 25, 2012 at 1:23 pm |

          Said it before.

          Kobe, for example, plays for the Lakers.

          But he works for Nike.

        • JTH | January 25, 2012 at 5:02 pm |

          And Dwight Howard works for adidas, which is why the Bulls have zero chance of trading for him as long as Derrick Rose is still on the team.

  • Andy | January 25, 2012 at 11:46 am |

    I love orange and silver together, but that might have just ruined it for me. Leave it to Nike to ruin an interesting concept.

    • Andy | January 25, 2012 at 11:49 am |

      Looking at the additional images, those are quite possibly the ugliest uniforms in recent memory, and I usually have a pretty open mind about stuff like that. What is going on with the apostrophe ahead of ‘CUSE?

  • Jet | January 25, 2012 at 11:56 am |

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t the Astros the last team to change their name while remaining in the same city, i.e. Houston Colt 45’s became the Houston Astros?

    Before that you’d have to go back to maybe the Boston Bees becoming the Boston Braves in ’41?

    Or the Phillies becoming the Bluejays during wartime, although that wasn’t official…


    • Teebz | January 25, 2012 at 12:02 pm |

      Washington Bullets became the Washington Wizards on May 15, 1997.

      • Winter | January 25, 2012 at 12:13 pm |

        Reds changed to the Redlegs, then changed back, didn’t they?

        • elgato11x | January 25, 2012 at 12:59 pm |


        • Ricko | January 25, 2012 at 1:30 pm |

          Yes, because in the early to mid-’50s they decided was better to be named after murderous Civil War raiders (we’ve seen THE OUTLAW JOSEY WALES, right) than Communists.

          Then, once people realized there weren’t Soviet sympathizers in every supermarket and Hollywood film company, they went back to Reds.

    • Ricko | January 25, 2012 at 12:03 pm |

      Memphis Pros became the Memphis Tams, which had to be later because ABA didn’t exist when the Colt .45s went away.

      Now, if we want to talk about teams that are still around, the Denver Rockets had to change to Nuggets owing the merger and there already being a “Rockets” in the NBA.

      Those are a couple I think of.

      Any others?

      And, of course, the Tennessee Oilers didn’t last long.

      • Ricko | January 25, 2012 at 12:11 pm |

        For the record, their first season as the Titans was ’99.

    • Jim Vilk | January 25, 2012 at 12:11 pm |

      MLS – NY/NJ MetroStars became NY Red Bulls. KC Wiz became the KC Wizards, then became Sporting KC. Dallas Burn became FC Dallas. San Jose Clash became San Jose Earthquakes.

      NFL – Before the Astros’ time, the Pittsburgh Pirates became the Steelers.

      • JTH | January 25, 2012 at 12:21 pm |

        Several NFL examples

        Staleys -> Bears
        Braves -> Redskins
        Titans -> Jets

    • Valjean | January 25, 2012 at 12:13 pm |

      Hard to find documentation for this, but I believe the A’s formally changed their name (back) to “Athletics” sometime in the ’80s. Previous ownership — that is, the flamboyant Charlie Finley — had officially changed their name to “A’s” somewhere along the line, maybe even as far back as Kansas City.

      • Ricko | January 25, 2012 at 12:24 pm |

        I don’t know that is ever was officially changed.
        But I do recall Charlie Finley going to “A’s” on the front of the gold unis in ’63 (after beginning the season with “ATHLETICS”)…
        …and saying something like, “What the hell’s an ‘athletic,’ anyway.’

        • JTH | January 25, 2012 at 12:28 pm |

          According to the Vast Repository Of All Human Knowledge, the renames occurred in 1973 and 1980.

        • Geeman | January 25, 2012 at 12:38 pm |

          And they waited until 1987 to put Athletics on the uniform again.

        • Jet | January 25, 2012 at 12:52 pm |

          Sorry, I should have specified I was mentioning baseball teams only that changed team names…


    • Winter | January 25, 2012 at 12:16 pm |

      Weren’t the Yankees the Highlanders?

      • JTH | January 25, 2012 at 12:23 pm |


        And it seems like AL/NL charter franchises who’ve NOT changed names are the exception, not the rule.

    • JTH | January 25, 2012 at 12:30 pm |

      Oh, shit. Here’s a much more recent example: Tampa Bay Devil Rays.

      • Ricko | January 25, 2012 at 12:36 pm |

        Splitting hairs (which of course is what we do here) the A’s and Rays were more about truncating, and for the A’s subsequently un-truncating, than full-on name changes in an effort to create a whole new identify for the teams.

        So I guess there kinda are two categories in this.

        • Valjean | January 25, 2012 at 1:12 pm |

          Yeah, agreed — though I brought up the A’s example because it really was an attempt by Finley to create a new identity. He clearly saw the Philly/KC “Athletics” as stodgy and old-school — and if you remember Finley, he hated anything like that. The chirpy, abbreviated “A’s” seemed to fit better with the flashy green/gold look, white shoes, donkey mascot and the other shenanigans of good ol’ Charlie O.

          JTH: Thanks for digging up the dates. I had no idea the change was that late — and the change back that early.

      • Kyle Allebach #school | January 25, 2012 at 12:36 pm |

        You could argue that the Rays are just “streamlining” their name. A change, in my opinion, is more of going from Colt .45’s to Astro’s or Titans to Jets, instead of Devil Rays to Rays.

        • Mike Engle | January 25, 2012 at 1:21 pm |

          But the Tampa Bay un-deviled Rays completely changed their colors, as did the Titans=>Jets, and overhauled their logo set (the diamond logo, the sunburst, the new TB) as well. Really, the only things the Devil Rays and Rays have in common (aside from being the same TB-based franchise and playing in the dome, natch) are the last four letters (RAYS) and the stingray sleeve patch. And honestly, those two factors were all about “We’re completely changing everything, but we’ll keep a couple of things for consistency’s sake and a little bit of familiarity.”
          Maybe it’s one of those “I call them as I see them” things, but I see the Devil Rays to Rays as a complete identity change, instead of a streamlining.
          The Bullets to Wizards case is interesting in the opposite way, now that the blue and bronze is gone. If the Rays represent “same name, but completely different,” then the Wizards are essentially “exactly the same, just with a wildly different name.” Edy’s and Dreyers, anyone?

        • Komet17 | January 25, 2012 at 2:43 pm |

          Also, my understanding is that “Devil Rays” referred to fish, while the change to “Rays” was consciously done to refer to, e.g., rays of sunshine.

        • Phil Hecken | January 25, 2012 at 7:36 pm |

          “those two factors were all about “We’re completely changing everything, but we’ll keep a couple of things for consistency’s sake and a little bit of familiarity.””

          like when the broncos dropped the brown and gold for orange and blue, but kept that little bit of brown on the helmet

    • Jonathan Sluss | January 25, 2012 at 3:47 pm |

      What about the California, no wait Anaheim, no wait Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim?–Not a nickname change but a name change still

  • Mat | January 25, 2012 at 12:25 pm |

    Not sure if this was posted, but the All Star topic reminded me..

    Did anyone catch the “Brady 6” show, and see Brady say to Hines Ward (I think) at the Pro Bowl “We look like idiots in these things”?

    • Skott S. | January 25, 2012 at 6:46 pm |

      Yes he did. “These uniforms are hideous. We look like idiots in these things.”

  • Kyle Allebach #school | January 25, 2012 at 12:34 pm |

    Jesus. Gray looks so depressing. It’s just saps any and all enjoyment you may get from a uniform.

    At least black conveyed some emotion. Gray sucks it all away.

    • Ricko | January 25, 2012 at 12:42 pm |

      But drab is still in.
      Monochrome is better.
      Because life is The Matrix.
      No fun. No optimism.
      But mostly nothing that questions our testosterone levels, our manliness, our warrior personality.
      We are grim, earnest and macho.
      As we sit in our basement and play Halo.

      But, hey, does this uni have nice butt stripes or what!

    • Jim Vilk | January 25, 2012 at 1:11 pm |

      Stick to football, Nike.

      Seriously, just leave hoops alone.

      • Paul Lukas | January 25, 2012 at 1:13 pm |

        NO! Exact opposite, please.

        • Phil Hecken | January 25, 2012 at 7:39 pm |

          nike is a helluva lot better than reedidas

          and either are preferable to under armour

          besides, no one cares about college hoops anyway

      • Jim Vilk | January 25, 2012 at 1:14 pm |

        Stick to football track, Nike.

        Seriously, just leave hoops everything else alone.


      • Mike Engle | January 25, 2012 at 1:27 pm |

        Dear Nike,
        Do whatever the hell you want to the universities. I am completely numb and no longer care. Instead, I’ll be grateful that the NFL owners won’t let you cause too much fracking on the pro scene.
        Now, while you do your asshat mockery songs, dances, and dog-and-pony runway shows, I’ll just buy what I like, if anything at all. And if that entails ordering “typical, traditional” items from university bookstores instead of going to Modell’s, so be it.
        See you on football Sundays,

        • scott | January 25, 2012 at 1:59 pm |

          Do college basketball fans really buy basketball jerseys to wear? I can’t see too many forking over money for jerseys that aren’t even in the school’s colors.

        • Corey | January 25, 2012 at 2:36 pm |

          I’d venture a guess that more shorts for college teams are bought than jerseys. I’ll also probably pick up a pair of the Duke shorts whenever they show up online.

    • LarryB | January 25, 2012 at 6:18 pm |

      If gray is part of school colors it looks good.
      Scarlet and Gray

    • The Hemogoblin | January 25, 2012 at 1:12 pm |

      Seems really weird that they’d roll these out for that group of national champions but not do so for Oregon – the original national champion AND the original Nike school.

      Not that I’m complaining or anything, but it just seems that when Nike was out to make a mockery of how college basketball looks, it missed a spot.

      • Eric | January 25, 2012 at 2:46 pm |

        The uniforms are only for schools that have won championships while wearing Nike uniforms, something Oregon hasn’t done. Same reason why you won’t see a Michigan State one since they were a Reebok school when winning their last one. Plus, Oregon already has some god awful gray uniforms.

    • nobody | January 25, 2012 at 2:58 pm |

      As an Arizona State student, I’m glad the uofa’s jerseys just say “ZONA”, it makes them look extremely foolish.

  • Jet | January 25, 2012 at 1:26 pm |

    Don’t know if this guy frequents UW, but I found his re-design of my favorite team, the California Golden Seals, on Chris Creamer’s forum. Apologies if this has already been posted


  • Paul Lukas | January 25, 2012 at 2:31 pm |

    New counter-corporate slogan: Pray the gray away!

  • Komet17 | January 25, 2012 at 2:35 pm |

    Re: the Prince Fielder picture–(a) Fielder already LOOKS like an athlete (form-wise); (b) what do you think Alan Trammell is thinking as he looks on?

  • RespectCondor | January 25, 2012 at 3:19 pm |

    As a Syracuse Alumni I am disgusted. Say what you want about the ‘CUSE word mark but that has been around campus and the Central New York for ages now and it was only time before it showed up and a jersey. There are a ton of people who use only ‘Cuse when referring to the school and save Syracuse for the town. Now that is the only thing I understand about this. As a proud holder of a Bachelor of the Fine Arts degree from Syracuse i couldn’t not feel more shamed. Nike should be ashamed of themselves by pretending to celebrate schools “championship tradition” by putting them in nike billboards with with some nice colored trim thrown in for school spirit.

    And the backs of those uniforms are the worst thing I have ever seen. bad design in every sense of the word. My old professors would have ripped me apart if I every tried to hand in a composition such as that.

    • RespectCondor | January 25, 2012 at 3:48 pm |

      I just talked to a fellow syracuse alum and he added this

      “Its just so hideous. I almost wish we didn’t win a national championship, because then we wouldn’t have gotten these stupid things.”

      hahaha I almost agree,

  • Paul Lukas | January 25, 2012 at 3:23 pm |

    I don’t normally do this, but the new CotD is total fucking genius.

    • Tim E. O'B | January 25, 2012 at 3:37 pm |

      Pretty fucking awesome, but if he’s so into Swiss modernism, instead of berthold akzidenz grotesk, he should’ve used Neue Haas Grotesk AKA Helvetica AKA “Swiss” (Helvetica is Latin for Swiss)

    • Dumb Guy | January 25, 2012 at 3:58 pm |

      Love the Bikini Kill and Lemonheads ones.

    • Andy | January 25, 2012 at 4:50 pm |

      Akzidenz is very much a typeface of the Swiss Style, Tim. Probably even moreso than Helvetica.

      • Tim E. O'B | January 25, 2012 at 4:58 pm |

        Akizidenz is German, and while Helvetica is based off of it, it’s Swiss.

        • Tim E. O'B | January 25, 2012 at 5:00 pm |

          Plus it looks better.


    • Andy | January 25, 2012 at 4:52 pm |

      I don’t know about genius. Extremely attractive and fun to look at? Sure, but genius may be overboard.

  • Winter | January 25, 2012 at 3:32 pm |

    We talked above about teams that changed names, but stayed in the same location, and I thought about it…

    What about the Phoenix/Arizona Cardinals? Or the California/Anaheim/L.A. of Anaheim Angels? Does a place name change count when you don’t go anywhere?

    And then what about the Kansas City – Omaha Kings? When’s the last time a team was shared between cities like that?

    • Mike Engle | January 25, 2012 at 3:41 pm |

      Quad Cities, which includes Dubuque, IA (lots of university books published there) and three other cities I can never remember.
      Tampa Bay being Tampa and St. Petersburg.
      How about the NY/NJ teams like the Hitmen and MetroStars?

      • JTH | January 25, 2012 at 3:50 pm |

        Dubuque isn’t one of the Quad Cities. Also, there are actually five of them.

        Rock Island, Moline and East Moline are on the Illinois side of the Mississippi; Davenport and Bettendorf are in Iowa.

        • Winter | January 25, 2012 at 3:53 pm |

          Are games played in all four cities?

    • Paul Lukas | January 25, 2012 at 3:46 pm |

      Packers used to play some of (half?) their home games in Milwaukee, although it wasn’t reflected in the team name.

      • Winter | January 25, 2012 at 3:54 pm |

        I seem to remember when the Warriors became Golden State they played in more than one home venue.

      • Johnny O | January 25, 2012 at 4:33 pm |

        The Packers played two, or sometimes three, games per year in Milwaukee from 1933-1994. They also hosted a pre season game annually. Borchert Park, Wisconsin State Park, Marquette Stadium, and Milwaukee County Stadium all hosted the Packers in those years. County Stadium held the most games, from 1953-1994. Now, they Packers have “gold package” season tickets which are primarily old Milwaukee season ticket holders. The gold package also get a pre season game every year.

  • concealed78 | January 25, 2012 at 4:35 pm |

    This popped up on my Twitter feed:

    White Sox will be wearing 1972 home jerseys on Sundays:

    • JTH | January 25, 2012 at 4:55 pm |

      To commemorate the 40th anniversary of…?

      Well, they look nice. Too bad (and it’s no surprise at all) that Majestic went with button-fronts rather than zippers.

      • Whitesox5187 | January 25, 2012 at 5:53 pm |

        It will be the 40th Anniversary of Dick Allen’s AL MVP award and for White Sox fan 1972 is a special year as they were in contention all year and that year more or less saved the franchise as it appeared that they were likely moving prior to then.

        • concealed78 | January 25, 2012 at 7:35 pm |

          Yes, they played 9 regular season home games in Milwaukee 1968 & 11 in ’69, and Seattle was a possible mid-70s destination.

    • Adam | January 25, 2012 at 5:13 pm |

      For at least a few years, I know some fans have been clamoring for red 70s throwbacks, and the marketing people on the team basically said it wasn’t going to happen because they only wanted to throwback to teams that had won something . Guess they changed their mind.

      • concealed78 | January 25, 2012 at 7:02 pm |

        This is the first time they’ve thrown back to the red pinstripes, but they already did throwback to non-championship club; 1964 home set with a fake patch in July 5th of 1995:

        I like the red ones only because it actually has some color as opposed to the awful & bland current colorless black & silver. It’s time to leave those back in the early 1990s with the L.A. Kings & Raiders, Bud “Grandmaster B” Bundy and rap videos where they belong.

    • Mike Engle | January 25, 2012 at 5:26 pm |

      Damn it.
      Yes I said it. Remember a while ago, we had a weekend post on “anti-uni secrets?” Well, here’s another one. I HATE red pinstripes. They look like candy canes. And for the record, I dislike the Phillies’ home pins for the same reason. (They do get “cool” points for the sleeve numbers though.)
      That’s not to say all pinstripes are good. Depends on the team and the uniform. But in general, my rule of thumb is this: if it’s a good color for a sport coat, it’s a good color for baseball pinstripes. Black, navy, or brown? Bring it on! Green or maroon? Sure. Royal? Meh, gonna have to go case-by-case for that. Red or purple? HELL NO.

      • concealed78 | January 25, 2012 at 7:08 pm |

        Anti-uni secrets?? Oh, where people confessed their love for Tequila Sunrise and shit?

        I guess pullovers would be mine. I really don’t care for button-ups because they just don’t flow right / break up continuous scripts. Tho they’re fine for the Tigers & Yankees; I just wish every club didn’t use button-ups.

        Question: did the Phillies ever really have maroon/crimson pinstripes? Because they were bright red in the 1970s/early 80s as far as I know despite the darker racing stripes, wordmarks & numbers.

        • Simply Moono | January 25, 2012 at 11:28 pm |

          “Oh, where people confessed their love for Tequila Sunrise and shit?”

          No, those are uniform guilty pleasures. Mine being the 2009 Florida State Nike Pro Combat uniforms.

  • JSDem | January 25, 2012 at 4:42 pm |

    Butler Men’s Basketball doing the camo jersey thing tomorrow vs Milwaukee for reasons I have yet to find out yet.

    • JSDem | January 25, 2012 at 4:46 pm |

      It’s Military Appreciation Night for the Milwaukee Panthers. Have yet to see the home teams’ version.

  • Andy | January 25, 2012 at 4:54 pm |

    For a company that claims to stand for innovation and individuality, trotting out all your championship teams in the same grey uniform might not have been the best course of action.

  • Ben Fortney | January 25, 2012 at 5:10 pm |

    To piggyback on the earlier convo about teams changing names, Creamer has a great post about individual players changing unis.

    Apparently when Octavio Dotel takes the mound for the Tigers this year he will also take the crown from Matt Stairs for having worn the most uniforms… or something along those line.

    Click the link, CC explains it much better.

    • Patrick_in_MI | January 25, 2012 at 6:45 pm |

      I wonder if Mr. Dotel will be wearing Tiger-striped stirrups this year.

  • TJ | January 25, 2012 at 7:01 pm |

    Could someone please help me remember the name of the company that produces the custom, one-off replica jerseys (such as high school, little league, etc.) that has been featured here on Uni Watch before? I think they have been an advertiser as well. I have racked my brain and can’t come up with it!

    • Paul Lukas | January 25, 2012 at 7:20 pm |

      I believe you’re referring to Classic Old School, whose ad is in the right sidebar.

  • Patrick_in_MI | January 25, 2012 at 7:27 pm |

    Interesting pic of a young Prince Fielder and his father, noted for the Rawlings wordmark on Cecil’s right sleeve stripe.

  • Wheels | January 25, 2012 at 7:54 pm |

    I’m watching a little of the 76ers-Nets game (don’t ask me why and shit). I know they’ve been out for a couple years now, but the Sixers redesign is really such a disappointment. All they had to do is go with these: Hopefully, their blue alts will look good on the court when they finally wear them.

  • Wheels | January 25, 2012 at 8:10 pm |

    Wow, I just saw a glance of some dark Cleveland Cavs alts… interesting. What say you, Jim Vilk?

    • Jim Vilk | January 25, 2012 at 10:10 pm |

      I’d wear that!

      It’d be even better if they stayed with wine and gold, but it looks good.

      • Phil Hecken | January 25, 2012 at 10:30 pm |

        “I’d wear that!”


        of course you would

        that is not bad, but the cavs need to decide if they’re a wine and gold team or a navy and gold team, but not both…that would look 2000% better if they simply made the uni wine and left the gold outlines (which are sweet) and wine numbers…leave the blue completely out of there

        not a huge fan of the waistband, but it definitely stands out … make the pants wine and keep the gold-wine-gold band and we’re golden…no pun intended

  • Douglas King | January 26, 2012 at 12:08 am |

    With the news that the Jags will apparently be getting a black jersey and the possibility of a new set in 2013 maybe someone owes Gabbert an apology for this comment:

    “Jacksonville QB Blaine Gabbert has seen next season’s Jags uniforms and he likes them. Now, keep in mind that Jags equipment manager Drew Hampton has already stated that the team’s 2012 uniform won’t have any design changes, so I’m not sure what Gabbert means by “new uni’s” [sic], aside from “I’m spreading the Nike gospel cuz that’s what they want me to do””

    The way you worded that tidbit in the ticker that day made it unclear if it was your remark or that of the uniwatcher, Patrick Sokolowski who sent it in.

  • Andrew Landoll | January 26, 2012 at 1:08 am |

    Duke and Maryland went color vs color in tonight’s game in College Park

  • Attila Szendrodi | January 26, 2012 at 3:27 am |

    Watching Sportscenter and during the Drew Brees interview the Pro Bowl practice shirts have the Nike logo. I thought they’re not involved until April?