Congratulations, Mr. Delap: It's a Ball

Delap towelshirt.JPG
Is Rory Delap of Stoke City giving birth to a bouncing baby soccer ball? Nope. Reader Andy Dunbar explains:

Stoke City has players who specialize in throw-ins, and they are known for being able to throw the ball very far into the box to create scoring chances. At their home matches, the ball boys have towels available for them to dry the balls off, which has been a bit controversial. Based on Monday’s match at Aston Villa, it looks as if they’ve come up with a solution for away matches, where no towels are available: Two Stoke players — Rory Delap and Ryan Shotton — had towels sewn in underneath their jerseys to dry off the ball. The announcers even made a comment about it because Aston Villa fans booed them whenever they were used.

I’m sure there’s a Hitchhiker’s Guide joke to be made here, but I’m typing this late at night and I’m too tired to think of anything clever. Sorry, lads.

New ESPN column today, about women’s uniforms (part of ESPN’s celebration of the 40th anniversary of Title IX) — here you go.

+ + + + +

Collector’s Corner

By Brinke Guthrie

Ever seen something on eBay that’s amazingly cool, but you know there’s no way you’ll ever afford it unless you score on the next lottery? That would seem to be the case for this massive model replica of the original Yankee Stadium, submitted by reader Mike Hersh. Only $125K, and local NYC pickup only. Working lights, 50,000 seats, the works. I can totally see this in Uni Watch HQ! [Correction: It’ll be a cold day in Phoenix before anything Yankees-related crosses the threshold of this apartment. ”” PL]

Speaking of pricey items, Warren Junium sent in this Dice K baseball glove, which will set you back $6,500 — or about 530,725 Yen.

Of course, not everything on eBay is quite so pricey. For example:

• Like, dig this groovy 1971 Atlanta Braves scorebook, man.

• Also quite cool — uh, make that Joe Cool — is this Snoopy SF Giants tote bag.

• Here’s a nice 1985 California Angels 25th-anniversary mug/sunglasses set.

• Mike Clary sent along this vintage basketball jersey and wool stirrups set.

• A Collector’s Corner rule: If it’s from the NFL in 1967, we like it. Thus, I present this 1967 NFL folder. We’ve also got a pair of thermal cups from the same year, for the Coastal Division and Central Division.

• And from the eBay photo archive, how about this 1960s shot of Bambi going way up for a pass, and a totally retro 1975 shot of Johnny Bench wearing leisure suit and puka shell necklace. A regrettable sartorial effort on JB’s part — but given the year, understandable.

Seen something on eBay or Etsy (or anywhere else) that you think would make good Collector’s Corner fodder? Send your submissions here.

+ + + + +
Uni Watch News Ticker: Last week I passed along news from a little birdie — or, more accurately, a little birdie’s friend — who said this year’s MLB stars/stripes caps would be regular game caps with camo logos. But that report has now been contradicted by John Sheehan, who writes: “I was at the Red Sox team store and they had all the new hats on display, including this years stars and stripes. It’s their regular hat, regular colors, but with an American flag patch. The employee told me it’s going to be the one they’ll be wearing.” Hmmm. Not sure what to think about that, since (a) the “patriotic” caps usually aren’t released/unveiled/etc. until we’re deeper into the season, and (b) team store employees are often more than a little bit fallible. ”¦ The Houston Cougars’ new logo can be seen on this T-shirt. “They’ve made tweaks to the interlocking UH, which is now beveled and featuring gray for the first time,” explains Perry McDaniel. “The logo will be on the helmets, which will be officially unveiled at the spring game this Friday.” Plus there’s a new secondary logo. ”¦ If TCU had gone with that crummy new logo that was leaked a while back, here’s what the resulting merch would have looked like (from Mike Barron). ”¦ Speaking of TCU, they may have a new helmet. Ditto for Harvard (from Walter Ford). ”¦ “A college hockey fan named Sara Fagan brought her camera to Tampa this year for the Frozen Four and shot as many different jerseys being worn by fans as she could,” writes Joe Makowiec. “By my count, she got 42 of the 53 D-1 programs.” ”¦ The baseballs being used at Astros games this season have the team’s anniversary logo stamped on them (from Andy McNeel). … Chris Straube notes that although the Orioles are now using the white-paneled batting helmets, their base coaches are not. ”¦ Can someone please explain why an under-seven soccer game would have corporate advertising — for a fucking insurance companyon the goals? Yes, I know, for the parents, blah-blah-blah, it’s still repulsive. Douchebags (from Cody Kennedy). ”¦ G.I. Joe jerseys aren’t enough for Padres pitcher Andrew Cashner, who also wears a G.I. Joe undershirt (from Tyler Gibbens). ”¦ Here’s a slideshow with all 16 Euro Soccer Championship Kits. “It’s organized by group, too, which is awesome,” notes Nick Orban. ”¦ The latest state whose legislators and bureaucrats are too cowardly to do their jobs and would rather sell out to corporate-sponsored bridges and roads is Ohio. Shame on all involved (from Kevin M. Mueller). ”¦ The Blue Jays’ home opener was yesterday, and those new home unis sure looked nice. ”¦ Thanks to everyone who suggested names for the annoying triangular field on the Seahawks jersey that was obviously created just to house the swoosh. My three favorite suggestions were: (1) Nikiosk (suggested by reader Jimi Jamm). (2) Swooshbag (rhymes with douchebag, suggested by James Huening). (3) Just stick with Ree-box (which would essentially become a generic, like Kleenex or Xerox, suggested by several readers). Here, you can weigh in for your favorite:

282 comments to Congratulations, Mr. Delap: It’s a Ball

  • Phil Hecken | April 10, 2012 at 7:23 am |

    swooshbag ftw

    • The Jeff | April 10, 2012 at 7:33 am |
      • NickV | April 10, 2012 at 7:45 pm |

        Seahawks shoulder treatment is kinda crappy – sort of a copy of the u Miami shoulders about 10 yrs ago that were copied by 29 college teams and 1200 high schools.

        Pretty unimaginative for the NFL

    • Paul Lukas | April 10, 2012 at 7:36 am |

      People, you already get to vote in the poll — no need for electioneering in the comments.

      • rpm | April 10, 2012 at 2:53 pm |

        one quick election reflection…
        are they kisoks either? and it does resemble a bag. why so literal, think outside the re-box maaan. open your mind, let the colours in maaaaan. don’t lay your conservative trip on me THE maaan.

  • The Jeff | April 10, 2012 at 7:23 am |

    <i?That would seem to be the case for this massive model replica of the original Yankee Stadium

    There’s no clickable link here…

    • Paul Lukas | April 10, 2012 at 7:36 am |

      Now fixed.

    • Andy | April 10, 2012 at 9:20 am |

      Weren’t the seats more of a royal blue?

      • IowaAnt | April 10, 2012 at 10:52 am |

        That looks like New Yankee Stadium built in 2009, not 1923.

        • concealed78 | April 10, 2012 at 11:13 am |

          Definitely. The gigantic scoreboards should had been the giveaway.

        • EddieAtari | April 10, 2012 at 11:38 am |

          That’s definitely New Yankee Stadium. Original Yankee looked like this.

  • mike | April 10, 2012 at 7:26 am |

    Red Sox Team Store employees don’t know shit. John’s right, don’t trust that information.

    • Arr Scott | April 10, 2012 at 9:48 am |

      I’ll be hopeful anyway. Sure, flags on caps is flag desecration, that’s less offensive to me than the standardized, bastardized S&S caps they’ve worn in recent years.

      • Bernard | April 10, 2012 at 10:23 am |

        Yes indeed.

    • Sam D. | April 10, 2012 at 11:40 am |

      That can’t be true. Normal team caps with flag patches were worn on 9/11/11 by every team, and of course, they’re still on display. No way those are going to be worn this year.

  • The Jeff | April 10, 2012 at 7:45 am |

    On that 1967 NFL folder, why does the Saints logo have a line across the middle? I don’t think I’ve seen that particular variation before.

    • Kyle Allebach #school | April 10, 2012 at 8:06 am |

      I’ve never seen that San Fran logo, either.

      • MEANS | April 10, 2012 at 8:41 am |

        it’s used on a lot of throwback apparel right now.

      • NickV | April 10, 2012 at 7:52 pm |

        That 49er logo was on a ot of stuf way back when. I remember seeing it on textbook covers and such back in the 1960s, and Ebeets Field Flannels had a set of 49er throwbacks osing it pretty well about 10 years ago ….

    • walter | April 10, 2012 at 9:04 am |

      It looks like the Saints’ insignia furnished to retailers was in a period of flux. The team had already hit the field at that point, right?

      • The Jeff | April 10, 2012 at 9:11 am |

        The team had already hit the field at that point, right?

        Depends on if we’re looking at an item released in March or December. 1967 was the Saints first season, so I guess it is possible that we’re looking at a prototype logo.

        • Kerry P | April 10, 2012 at 11:32 am |

          This would be my guess as well. It’s possible no “official” logo had been released yet so this may be something the manufacturer came up with.

        • NickV | April 10, 2012 at 7:50 pm |

          I agree with Kerry P. That logo has never really been used by the team. I have seen these oddly-shaped fleur de lis placed on cheap, “unofficial” merchandise … Nothing ever used by the team or retailers. My guess is that the uniforms and logos were not yet set when this book came out ….

  • The Jeff | April 10, 2012 at 7:51 am |

    So much for anonymous voting…

  • RJ | April 10, 2012 at 7:52 am |

    1) Nobody in Boston knows anything.
    2) Youth sports leagues are hurting for cash, I coached both soccer and t-ball, T-ball unis had Dunkin Donuts on the front (I have an extra if you want it) and it’s coming for soccer. Fees have gone up and if a bit of corporate money keeps fees down more kids will be able to play. If Allstate wants to buy our league logo encrusted goals I’ll give them our league directors number, our goal posts are in need of work.

    • Steve | April 10, 2012 at 8:01 am |

      Hear hear. My sports teams growing up were always sponsored by local shops and businesses. The companies get advertising, the league continues to operate, everyone wins.

      • Paul Lukas | April 10, 2012 at 8:15 am |

        Big, big difference between local shops and a mega-corporation. Kids are exposed to way too much corporate advertising as it is. They shouldn’t be fed more of it at the soccer field.

        • Rob H. | April 10, 2012 at 10:01 am |

          So if it was sponsored by Joe Smith, local AllState agent, it’s be okay?

        • Arr Scott | April 10, 2012 at 12:00 pm |

          Ads is ads. If there’s some kind of mom-and-pop vs big-box issue here, it’s that big-box stores have gutted the mom-and-pop Main Street, not that leagues should accept ads from the one and not the other. It’d be nice if every youth team could be sponsored by Joe’s Diner or Bub’s Pub, but the reality is that in most of America, it’s Applebee’s or nothing.

        • Aaron B | April 10, 2012 at 7:39 pm |

          I coach for Idaho Rush Soccer Club and we have those same Allstate Ads on our goals at our practice facility. I asked one of our club directors if we see any money from them and he said we don’t get a cent! They signed a national contract since Rush clubs are all across the country. I wouldn’t care about this normally but we have had to sand bag the goals to keep them down because on windy days the adds actually act as sails and move the goals! Talk about dangerous!

      • Tony C. | April 10, 2012 at 9:00 am |

        same here, My rec league sponsor where Play It Again Sports.. it was cool because we had home and away shirts, but they were paired with these terrible orange hats

    • scott | April 10, 2012 at 8:04 am |

      Corporate sponsors helping defray the costs of running these sports leagues seems like a good thing. Locally, parents have asked for this sort of help to reduce the fees they would otherwise pay – but they want only local businesses to do the advertising. I suppose people feel better about a small business doing the advertising than a national or multinational corporation.

      • Paul Lukas | April 10, 2012 at 8:17 am |

        Corporate sponsors helping defray the costs of running these sports leagues seems like a good thing.

        That is a really unfortunate statement.

        I suppose people feel better about a small business doing the advertising than a national or multinational corporation.

        That is a much better statement.

        • gueman | April 10, 2012 at 4:34 pm |

          Paul Lukas are a douche…have kids run a sports league then comment. Do you have any idea how much it costs to run a league? We take any and all donations we can get as long as they are not in bad taste. Sponsorship at any level from tots to HS, is welcome to help defray the cost. The idea is to keep the cost as low as possible so as many kids can play. So you are telling everyone that reads this page that you Paul Lukas would rather charge the kids more and perhaps keep kids from playing sports so you do not have to take a sponsor? What a douche!

    • Peter | April 10, 2012 at 8:44 am |

      Paul, I take it you don’t have kids, so the cost of their sports are not part of your daily life. With the costs of these youth sports (and with the insurance alot of leagues have to take out), this is not an unreasonable solution.

      Advertising on a local level or corporate level appears in school year books, team sports and many of these booster clubs.

      I would be more than welcoming to a corporate sponsor to offset the cost of any youth sport, especially hockey.
      Just a question, no sarcasm: does Uni-Watch sponsor any sports or give under it’s banner?

    • Jerry | April 10, 2012 at 8:49 am |

      You are correct sir. Tight budgets for most youth sport leagues means we search for funds wherever they can be found. A banner on a net inside a goal is no different than the signs that hang in the outfield of little league fields.
      Oh, I doubt the kids even notice. All they care about is the post game ice cream!

      • RJ | April 10, 2012 at 9:15 am |

        Its much more on a baseball issue than soccer, with baseball the sponsor is the team name, Dunkin vs Ford Dealer the schedule might read. Baseball fees stayed flat. Soccer which hasnt embraced sponsors as much has gone up 50% in 3 years. Its not an ideal situation, but it is what is. In our leagues its mostly locals but times are tough. And so many “local” buisnesses are national corp offices or franchises.

        We have had logo creep for awhile, logos on team pics, I know there are kids in my neighboorhood who dont play because of money, if Allstate can get a kid or two on the field who otherwise wouldn’t I’ll take the logo.

        • Piping Mike | April 10, 2012 at 11:21 am |

          Correct about it being more prevalent in baseball. It’s been common there for years. So much in fact you’ve likely seen it hundreds of times and it never crosses your mind Paul, to even comment on it. Little leagues have forever had local sponsors on uniforms and signage of outfield fences. Even insurance companies are not rare. I imagine on Little League diamonds across the country you’ll find countless references to things like “The Smith Agency.” The picture posted just stands out more because it’s the generic national brand.

    • Pat C | April 10, 2012 at 9:22 am |

      It could be a local advertiser. Local Allstate dealers would be allowed to advertise their business and if its affiliated with Allstate they could in turn use that brand.

      • EddieAtari | April 10, 2012 at 11:43 am |

        Those kids are in good hands.

    • Komet17 | April 10, 2012 at 1:51 pm |

      In my seven years of Little/Pony/Colt League baseball, my teams were sponsored by:
      1. Scotty’s Restaurant
      2. Gease’s Golden Arrow Dairy
      3. AV-WEP (A navy fighter weapons division)
      4. Jack-in-the-Box
      5. Harley Davidson
      6. Pizza Hut
      7. Steve’s Bar and Grill

      • EMD | April 10, 2012 at 4:55 pm |

        I hate Clark VFD (Volunteer Fire Department) emblazoned across my Little League chest for 3 seasons.

        They were tequila-sunrise inspired but in varying shades of GREEN.

        At least I never had to play for Lake-to-Lake Waste Disposal.

        • EMD | April 10, 2012 at 4:56 pm |

          had, not hate. What a typo.

    • Mike MIller | April 10, 2012 at 2:26 pm |

      Getting past the idea of sponsorship for a minute. Yes, youth leagues need sponsors to keep costs down, but there are better ways to execute it. Putting sponsorship signage on a goal net is technically illegal in the FIFA Laws of the Game.

      (scroll down to commercial advertising)

      Granted most of the FIFA Laws are ignored or modified on a local youth level. No youth league only allows three substitutions during a match.

      • EMD | April 10, 2012 at 4:53 pm |

        I’m not sure most of these local-level soccer organizations are FIFA sanctioned, to be honest.

        Paul also hates Chico’s Bail Bonds. ; )

  • Phil Hecken | April 10, 2012 at 7:57 am |

    ozzie said something stupid yesterday?

    i’m shocked, SHOCKED in disbelief

    • JimWa | April 10, 2012 at 10:16 am |

      No doubt Ozzie says something stupid every day. The even-more-offensive-than-usual thing he said was actually said a while ago. It just went public yesterday. Which proves that no matter what he says today, he’s not sorry that he said it, he said he’s sorry that it went public.

    • Brinke | April 10, 2012 at 10:42 am |

      like the marlins didn’t know what they were getting when they signed him.

      • Marc | April 10, 2012 at 1:18 pm |

        Jeff Loria: “Who should we hire for Manager, David? Let’s keep in mind that this is a team with an enormous Cuban-American fanbase.

        David Samson: “How about a fellow who’s publicly stated that he admires Fidel Castro and has a habit of speaking his mind whether or not it’s appropriate?”

        Loria: “Um…how long ago did he say he admired Castro?”

        Samson: “about 4 years ago, in Mens Journal.”

        Loria: “Well, I guess it’d be ok. I doubt anybody remembers that he said it…and I doubt he’d be stupid enough ever to repeat anything like that again–ESPECIALLY here in Miami. Hire him!!”

    • Arr Scott | April 10, 2012 at 12:04 pm |

      One thing pisses me off even more than Ozzie’s repeated praise for Latin American tyrants: People demanding that he be fired from his non-political job for expressing a private political opinion. Firing people for their political opinions is, you know, the kind of thing Castro’s regime does that a free country doesn’t. Or shouldn’t, anyway.

      • Jim Vilk | April 10, 2012 at 12:45 pm |

        Good point.

        • Connie | April 10, 2012 at 2:21 pm |

          You bet it’s a good point. And guess what else? Fidel Castro is a mixture of laothesome and admirable. Spre me South Florida politics.

        • JimWa | April 10, 2012 at 3:33 pm |

          So he’s like the Yankees?

        • Marc | April 10, 2012 at 4:31 pm |

          Except is WASN’T a private opinion–it was a PUBLIC opinion–expressed to a national audience in two publications–big difference.

          If I admire Hitler privately, that’s my business. If I admire Hitler and express it in multiple public interviews…and 50% of my employers clients were Jews, how on earth is it not my employers right to fire me? How on earth do you expect my clients not to get upset?

        • Arr Scott | April 10, 2012 at 4:51 pm |

          No, it was a private opinion. He’s not a public figure on account of political activity or allegiance, he’s a baseball manager. If I read or hear his opinion on any subject other than baseball or the managing of a team, and I care one way or the other, that’s my problem, not his.

      • Marc | April 10, 2012 at 5:03 pm |

        Private opinions are those expressed in private conversation.

        Statements expressed to a Time Magazine reporter for the direct intent to be read by a world-wide audience are PUBLIC opinions.

  • Adam R. W. | April 10, 2012 at 8:02 am |

    I know when I played tee ball all the teams were sponsored by local businesses. I’m guessing that’s the casse with the Allstate goal. Probably a local Allstate agent who has a kid playing in the league, who wants to both support the league and get some advertising time. And ps: it’s probably pretty cool for the kids. I know when I was in tee ball I couldn’t wait to move up to little league, because they had billboard on the fences, and it seemed like a more legitimate stadium.

    • Phil Hecken | April 10, 2012 at 8:09 am |

      “I couldn’t wait to move up to little league, because they had billboard on the fences”


      just like they planned it

      • Paul Lukas | April 10, 2012 at 8:19 am |

        Yeah, that is about the saddest thing I’ve ever heard.

        • Piping Mike | April 10, 2012 at 11:27 am |

          Yet Paul, you practically jizz in your pants if you come across an eclectic bar with an old beer sign, which is nothing more than advertising. For you it’s part ambiance. For a kid trying to play on the cool diamond it’s the same thing. The kids have no clue about the individual business, they just think the patchwork look is cool and more big league.

      • Piping Mike | April 10, 2012 at 11:30 am |

        Phil I think you’re getting a little jaded. There’s not always some big big corporate ulterior motive behind everything.

    • Paul Lukas | April 10, 2012 at 8:16 am |

      And does it say “Joe’s Pleasantville AllState office”?

      No, it says Allstate, period.

      Fuck that.

      • EMD | April 10, 2012 at 5:03 pm |

        Why don’t you do some of your blessed research to find out where the goal logo originated from, instead of jumping to conclusions when things don’t fit with your worldview?

        I can deal with an Allstate logo or two if it means I pay $125 for my kid to play little league instead of $175. And that’s on top of all the other expenses for all of the other school-related and sports-related activities.

        • Paul Lukas | April 10, 2012 at 7:04 pm |

          So you’re saying you’re willing to sell out your kid’s well-being to save 50 bucks.

    • Ricko | April 10, 2012 at 9:37 am |

      I gotta defend Adam here. Back in the days when huge billboards filled MLB parks (Ebbets, Griffith and most others) it was SO COOL to be 10, 11 or 12 years old and play on field that not only had fences, but had SIGNS on them. It was part of the whole deal…matching uniforms with numbers on the back and pants and stirrups…a dugout to sit in with a bat rack, even…real bases with chalked baselines and batter’s boxes…full catcher’s gear…umpires!…a PA announcer… Wow, just like the big leaguers.

      A different time, I suppose. Not some much organization. We actually played ball–or even had a catch–when it hadn’t been scheduled by adults. So we didn’t see the signs as being to condition us. Quite the contrary. They were just one of the things that meant we’d…arrived. We were playing real ball now.

      • Tom V. | April 10, 2012 at 10:30 am |

        Agree 100%. I remember growing up from 5 to 9 playing baseball on weird fields, softball fields (skinned infield) etc. The field you played on for 10-12 was set up for 10-12 year olds, appropriate distance to the wall, could be seen from the road, and had advertising on the outfield walls, it meant you arrived. Advertising was mostly local but there may have been some national companies. It didn’t affect me one way or the other.

      • Adam R. W. | April 10, 2012 at 11:12 am |

        Exactly my sentiment… sidenote: I never did “arrive”… as soon as the ball started moving, and didn’t just sit there waiting for me to hit it, suddenly the sport got exponentially harder, and my lack of hand eye coordination just made me very… what’s the word… bad.

      • Phil Hecken | April 10, 2012 at 12:05 pm |


        i barely (but still somewhat vividly) remember little league…but in the texas league, we had blue t-shirts with a sponsor’s NOB…and N#OB…same thing for the pacific — i don’t remember the texas league team, but in the pacific we were the “NEW BANKERS” — the “new bankers” — what the fuck was that? oh, right, we were named for the Continental Bank that sponsored us

        i was actually pretty good back then, so i skipped central and got drafted into the majors — where we played on the nice field, with an actual fence (instead of orange cones) and we had actual uniforms with numbers and everything — but NO SPONSOR — that was making it to the bigs for me

        and when i grew up, unlike you in the days of ebbets and griffith, the ball parks DIDN’T HAVE ADS ON THE WALLS…

        so it was a sign that i’d arrived when i made it to my “show” and there was no feeling of corporate control…in fact, it was just the opposite

        so, defend folks all you want (and that’s fine, because we’re talking about different eras), but in my salad days, NO ADS was the norm, not the exception

        in fact, i couldn’t believe when i actually saw the Bad News Bears and they got those chico’s bail bonds uniforms — my little 10 year old brain~pan couldn’t wrap itself around that…i look back on that fondly now, but then, i thought that was a step backwards

        now, being “drafted” had many drawbacks — like getting stuck in left field for 2 innings and only getting one at bat (which usually ended in a K since i was playing against kids 2 years older and considerably larger), but hey, i was in the major leagues!

      • Chris K | April 10, 2012 at 5:26 pm |

        Boy Ricko, did that trigger something similar for me. I played in a local little league, where like many of you, each team was sponsored by a local business. Some were not brick and mortar type businesses (ie: Rotary, Lions, Demolay) but most were. As I got older, making the all star team was a huge thing. That team would travel to other suburbs and play a tournament. Fields I grew up on, never had outfield fences, had skinned infields, sometimes skinned outfields, and the dugouts were ground level. The fence (backstop) extended up the baselines, just about even to where first and third base were. As we got older, and bases were further apart, the 90 foot bases extended well past the fence’s “protection”. Let’s just say, as a shortstop, I was forced to develop an accurate arm. No advertising signs of any kind on any of our fields. Total opposite for those suburbs that we played all stars against. They were the epitome of what I thought a “real” ballpark looked like. Admittedly, I associated those signs with the big leagues. In trying to see Paul’s side to the argument, saying this advertising has no place at this level, I do see where he comes from. But as a boy in the mid 1960’s, it sure made me feel like a big league player. At the end of the day, I’m really not seeing the harm. It was just my point of reference, as a kid who grew up in a small town, with little money for athletics. And yes, we sure enjoyed beating those kids with all those signs on their fields.

    • JimWa | April 10, 2012 at 10:30 am |

      So a little guy using the power of a big corporation to be able to improve his skills, work with better equipment, and possibly get noticed by a wider audience is a bad thing?

      Just curious, Paul … has your connection to ESPN changed anything about your life?

      Now, I’m a Cub fan. It makes me very sad to see more and more advertising taking over the park each season. I don’t like it, and I wish it weren’t there. Unfortunately, I’m probably in the minority when I say that I’d be willing to pay a 25% premium on my tickets if it GUARENTEED that my ballpark would return to – and then remain – advertising free. Sadly, that will never happen (unless and until somebody buys me a $3 billion winning lottery ticket and I buy the team and do just that).

  • Alex | April 10, 2012 at 8:07 am |

    This past weekend I saw someone wearing a Sox hat with an American flag on the side and a clear, plastic-like squatchee. Very strange.

  • Ricko | April 10, 2012 at 8:22 am |

    Considering Mr. Knight’s involvement, maybe it should “Philboard”.

    • Andy | April 10, 2012 at 9:21 am |


    • Phil Hecken | April 10, 2012 at 12:37 pm |

      now THAT (name) i could get behind

  • Forby | April 10, 2012 at 8:28 am |

    Why is the high hell is that stadium model so expensive? Is it packed with Grade-A heroin?

    I mean come on – it lights up…

    I might – MIGHT – pay $500.00 for it…

    And that would be to light it on fire.

  • Rick Chaney | April 10, 2012 at 8:34 am |

    The O’s base coaches were wearing the white pannel helmets last year for a while when the players were wearing the all black.

    • walter | April 10, 2012 at 9:08 am |

      What would be involved to get the O’s to use the snazzy windswept triangle panel from the ’70s?

  • Drew | April 10, 2012 at 8:38 am |

    Houston’s secondary logo looks like one of those shitty generic logo’s they give you in a video games ‘create-a-team’ mode.

    • The Jeff | April 10, 2012 at 8:54 am |

      Have you seen Madden’s create-a-team options lately? That logo would be a huge improvement over the utter garbage that EA offers.

      • Kyle Allebach #school | April 10, 2012 at 9:51 am |


      • jdreyfuss | April 10, 2012 at 11:28 am |

        I’ve been wondering bout that. Did they lose the license to the WLAF and USFL logos at some point?

    • Chris Holder | April 10, 2012 at 9:32 am |

      It reminds me of Penn State’s logo. I like the new Houston logo though, as it reminds me of my D2 alma mater’s own logo. But I definitely see a similarity between it and the nittany lion.

      • Kyle Hardee | April 10, 2012 at 9:47 am |

        I thought the same thing. Reminds me of Penn State too much. I would be a huge upgrade as a create a team logo in Madden.

    • Cort | April 10, 2012 at 11:43 am |

      I don’t know any UH people who liked the old decapitated Cougar logo: the cat looked crosseyed, and the way it was designed made you think he’d just been guillotined.

      Having said that, the new one is worse. It’s utterly generic, completely unremarkable, and those things that appear to be gigantic whiskers are just stupid. The tweaked interlocking “UH” is nice, but the rest of it, feh!

    • walter | April 10, 2012 at 4:10 pm |

      Plagiarize the Michigan Panthers’ logo; still the best representation of felis concolor out there.

  • Ilana Hardesty | April 10, 2012 at 8:41 am |

    No great pix (someone must have some), but Harvard’s baseball team took batting practice at Fenway yesterday, celebrating the very first game at Fenway (exhibition between Harvard and Red Sox) 100 years ago. Apparently vintage unis were exhibited (if not worn during play):

  • Bchamp | April 10, 2012 at 8:45 am |

    I know that the corporate advertising on a youth soccer goal seems pretty repulsive but if Allstate provides the goals or sponsors the league I don’t have much of a problem with it. Not all parents can afford to pay for their kids to play organized sports so companies chipping in is a good thing even if they go a little too far with the advertising.

    I’d obviously prefer a company to sponsor youth sports purely out of benevolence without getting to stick their logo or name on something but I remember even my tee ball teams 20 years ago having sponsorships – no logos or anything like that but the name of a local business was written somewhere on the shirt or on the hat.

      • Paul Lukas | April 10, 2012 at 8:49 am |

        Me too. Nothing wrong with a local business engaging with the community.

        Lots wrong with a big-ass corporation molding kids’ minds at an early age.

        • Peter | April 10, 2012 at 8:55 am |

          …but it’s okay then to sell sponsorships to the professional level sports so they can pay out the millions to players vs. posting a goalie net ad so 22-33 kids can play together once a week, which is so wrong according to you…can you clarify a position that you would be (REALISTICALLY) happy with? Sponsors big & small have been part of sports at every level forever.

          Instead of voting to name your nike thing, take a serious poll and see how many people don’t mind corporate sponsored youths please.

        • Paul Lukas | April 10, 2012 at 9:00 am |

          No, I don’t think it’s OK at the professional level either — it’s annoying. But to do it for a kids’ league isn’t just annoying. It’s vulgar.

          I already know most people don’t mind corporate-sponsored youth leagues, which I find very, very disappointing. One reason I bring up the issue is to try to change people’s minds.

        • The Jeff | April 10, 2012 at 9:04 am |

          The biggest difference between “local business” and “big-ass corporation” is success. Every huge corporation started as a small local business – the successful ones expanded.

          Where does one draw the line?

          I’m not a fan of corporate sponsorships, but if parents and donations can’t cover the cost, what other option is there?

        • Paul Lukas | April 10, 2012 at 9:08 am |

          The biggest difference between “local business” and “big-ass corporation” is success.

          There is soooooo much wrong with this statement, one doesn’t even know where to begin. Believe it or not, Jeff, some companies don’t have world-domination schemes. Many Mom&Pops are quite happy just being Mom&Pops. I should know — my parents ran such an operation. The fact that you’d consider such businesses to be not “successful” is both sad and offensive.

        • The Jeff | April 10, 2012 at 9:20 am |

          Sure, some people are perfectly happy with having one location and staying small, but that doesn’t negate the fact that every business starts out small and expands. Wal-mart wasn’t founded as a global force, they started locally and grew.

          So how large does a company need to be before it’s no longer acceptable for them to sponsor a youth team?

        • Paul Lukas | April 10, 2012 at 9:24 am |

          Personally, I’d say any company that advertises across state lines is too big for a youth league. But I don’t think it’s necessary to have a rule per se. It’s a smell test kinda thing — we all know corporate advertising when we see, just as we all know local advertising when we see it. Cue Potter Stewart, etc…

          The “Where do you draw the line?” rejoinder is a handy way to negate discussion, but it doesn’t address the real issue: Kids are already exposed to too much corporate advertising. Our goal should be to have less of it.

        • Rob H. | April 10, 2012 at 10:12 am |

          That’s a good idea… let’s draw a line for all the aspiring Mom and Pops out there (nothing against the ones that want to only be successful on a local)… if you get too big you a persona non grata.

          But why assume that all mega-corporations are soulless and have no heart. I’m sure there’s gotta be at least a couple that have stayed true to their integrity and ‘do-the-right-thing’ -ness that I’m sure all Mom-and-Pop businesses have. For all I know, maybe Allstate is one of them (probably not, though)

          Nah, it’s just easier to think all the big corporations are bad and the small businesses are good.

        • Kyle Allebach #school | April 10, 2012 at 10:18 am |

          Big corporations are too…well…big to care about the little people. It’s simple physics.

          It would be better if it was an ad for a local Allstate branch…not just the company Allstate.

          And yes all major companies are soulless. How didya think they got so big? A successful business plan? Perish the thought!

        • Adam R. W. | April 10, 2012 at 11:18 am |

          What you have to realize Paul, is not all “big corporate sponsorships” are really that… McDonald’s sponsors little league teams in my home town, because the franchisees in that town decided to put money towards the local team. It was a local person, with a locally owned franchise sponsoring the kids. The shirts just said “McDonald’s” but there wasn’t any corporate money behind it. It’s the same situation going on with the new “BK Racing” team in Nascar Sprint Cup series. The team is owned by a group of Burger King franchisees. They are using their own money to promote their own stores, just on a large scale. No corporate money from BK funds the team, its all from those individuals.

        • Kyle Allebach #school | April 10, 2012 at 11:56 am |

          “McDonald’s sponsors little league teams in my home town, because the franchisees in that town decided to put money towards the local team

          There’s the point.

        • concealed78 | April 10, 2012 at 12:58 pm |

          “They are using their own money to promote their own stores, just on a large scale. No corporate money from BK funds the team, its all from those individuals.”

          Oh come on. McDonalds is a global corporation franchise brand – the local people were still using the brand recognition to lure in customers. McDonald’s is STILL getting/putting advertising in that town’s team.

        • Pat C | April 10, 2012 at 1:21 pm |

          I’ve known plenty of “mom and pops” that were anything but moral. A majority of the Chamber of Commerce in the small town I used to live in I would call “sleezy.”

        • EMD | April 10, 2012 at 5:11 pm |

          “Believe it or not, Jeff, some companies don’t have world-domination schemes.”

          Most of them don’t. They have growth plans. Some of them grow more rapidly and larger than others.

    • Tom V. | April 10, 2012 at 9:18 am |

      The biggest problem I see is the crappy presentation of the sheet on the back of the goal. It looks like crap. Secondly, it shouldn’t be on the goal, in interferes with the integrity of the game. Like Paul has said, no problem with advertising except when its in the wrong place. Thats the wrong place.

      Put up a 4×8 piece of plywood on the sidelines or something and put a big ol corporate logo on it. No problem with that. But don’t put a sloppy ass sheet on the goal.

      • interlockingtc | April 10, 2012 at 9:37 am |

        How about this?: A corporation wants to buy goals or uniforms or equipment for a local kids’ team and they do it quietly, invisibibly. Like a donation. No logos, no billboards, nothing.

        The corporation does it out of goodwill.

        And if some conversation comes up between parents on the sideline, say:

        “Hey, where’d those new goals come?”

        “Ah, I think, um, Taco Bell donated them.”

        “Really? Huh. Well, good for Taco Bell.”

        …See? Taco Bell earns goodwill, a tax write off and maybe a little more business.

        Just for doing the right thing.

        • Chris Holder | April 10, 2012 at 9:57 am |

          I think what you describe would be a good compromise. I have no kids and no involvement with youth sports, so I don’t know how well the ones in my area are funded. I DO know that the economy still (mostly) sucks, and there are probably small businesses that simply can’t afford to help out. Even if a global company would be getting the ubiquitous “tax writeoff” by donating to a local youth sport, if they did so without publishing it, seems like it would be win-win.

          I agree with Paul’s premise of not exposing kids to corporate advertising. Yet, I also think kids need to have the best experience playing sports that they can possibly have. It’s a fine line to walk, no doubt.

        • Paul Lukas | April 10, 2012 at 10:02 am |

          I also think kids need to have the best experience playing sports that they can possibly have.

          The best experience is one without corporate advertising.

        • Tom V. | April 10, 2012 at 10:16 am |

          InterTC, what you describe is an anonymous donation. I don’t think companies advertising budgets cross over into the anonymous donation realm.

          Companies advertising budgets are set up so they can get their name out there as effectively as possible. As opposed to spending that money to NOT get their name out there at all.

          I don’t have any problem with anyone giving money anonymously, I just don’t think its coming from advertising budgets.

        • Adam R. W. | April 10, 2012 at 3:07 pm |

          “When I retire, I don’t want to just move to some island somewhere. I want to be the guy who gives it all back. I want it to be like, ‘Hey… who donated that hospital wing that’s saving so many lives?’ ‘I don’t know. It was anonymous.’ ‘Well, guess what. It was Michael Scott.’ ‘But how do you know? It was anonymous.’ [pause] ‘Because I’m him.'”
          -Michael Scott

          Yeah, Taco Bell donating uniforms and what not “invisibly” would be great for them… except for the fact that when you do it invisibly, nobody knows it.

        • concealed78 | April 10, 2012 at 6:04 pm |

          “I agree with Paul’s premise of not exposing kids to corporate advertising. Yet, I also think kids need to have the best experience playing sports that they can possibly have”

          No, kids are NOT owed the best possible experience playing sports. It’s only been in the past 15-20 years when parents & these egocentric coaches think Little Leaguers need real MLB caps & uniforms, Gatorade tubs, the shiniest newest aluminum [bullshit] bats & only the finest groomed lit baseball diamonds. Everybody thinks they’re owed something. It’s the Entitlement Generation. People don’t want to give up ANYTHING in their lives – no cable TV – they would die. Everybody thinks their quality of life is supposed to go up all the time. Life doesn’t work that way. That’s why this country is in the shape it’s in – people living well beyond their means. Nobody is owed or entitled to anything. Nothing is free. Parents hide behind the excuse “nothing is good enough for my child” which is why everything is so expensive for these things.

        • interlockingtc | April 10, 2012 at 8:00 pm |

          Adam R.W., yes, that is what I am suggesting. Doing somehting out of generosity and goodwill. Magnanimity.

          With nothing expected in return.

          Yes, I think this is what we aspire to, what we teach our kids. Right?

    • Graham Jaunts | April 10, 2012 at 9:35 am |

      No, you must HATE corporations. Well, except the corporations you like. And the ones that perform necessary functions that probably can’t be adequately performed by local businesses.

      When I was a kid, our Little League teams were sponsored by a local insurance agent for a national company, a regional grocery store chain, a national cable company, a few local restaurants and businesses, and Pepsi.

      Where do you draw the line? Is the local insurance saleman okay, even though he works for a national corporation (performing a function that cannot adequately be performed by a local business)? How about the regional grocery store chain?

      I’ll say this much: when I was a kid, I didn’t know there was a difference between any of these companies, and I certainly didn’t care. Pepsi had ugly jerseys, but the cable company’s were sweet.

      • Graham Jaunts | April 10, 2012 at 9:37 am |

        Heh, asked and answered already. I guess I should type faster.

    • Hank-SJ | April 10, 2012 at 10:00 am |

      With the way the economy has been going, what if small/local businesses just don’t have the means to sponsor a team in a particular area?

      • Corey | April 10, 2012 at 1:26 pm |

        When I was playing youth soccer 14 or 15 years ago we got 2 local business to help buy our uniforms and within a year both businesses had gone out of business. That was the only time any of the kids on any of my various teams growing up gave any thought to sponsors, big or small.

  • Scott Johnston | April 10, 2012 at 8:52 am |

    On Monday’s Newsticker item that the Giants have done away with the nameplates on their road jerseys, they have been gone since 2010. They were sans nameplates when they won the World Series

  • Memal | April 10, 2012 at 8:53 am |

    That’s not the original Yankee Stadium. Can tell by the behind home plate press box and split upper deck stands.

    • Rob S | April 10, 2012 at 9:19 am |

      Not to mention the ginormous modern video screens.

    • Bob Hay | April 10, 2012 at 9:20 am |

      Agreed. The screens, the upper decks, the “Yankee Stadium” lettering, all clearly the new stadium.

    • Andy | April 10, 2012 at 9:24 am |

      That explains it. I was thinking, “Where are the royal blue seats?”

  • Matt | April 10, 2012 at 9:05 am |

    “If TCU had gone with that crummy new logo that was leaked a while back, here’s what the resulting merch would have looked like”

    is this not working for anyone else?

    • Adam R. W. | April 10, 2012 at 9:19 am |

      I loved the update to the horned frog. It kept a distinctly unique mascot, while becoming a little cleaner design.

      • Andy | April 10, 2012 at 9:25 am |

        Unfortunately, besides the head, it was also distinctly ugly and anatomically unclear/incorrect for the animal it was meant to represent.

  • Peter | April 10, 2012 at 9:07 am |

    Well Mr. Lukas, if you can not only change peoples minds, but know a way where consistent funding for these leagues across the nation will happen, then I wish you luck. You can talk all you’d like, I strongly disagree with your position on this, but otherwise, its just empty words.

    • Paul Lukas | April 10, 2012 at 9:11 am |

      All words are “empty,” unless they’re backed by a fist or a weapon. But words have the power to persuade, to make people think. That’s what I’m trying to do here. If I haven’t persuaded you, that’s fine.

      How to survive without corporate sponsorship:

      – Get LOCAL sponsorship.

      – Maybe drive your used car an extra year before buying a new one so you have more money to pay for your kid’s soccer.

      – Maybe do without a few pay cable channels so you have more money to pay for your kid’s soccer.

      – Have a bake sale, a car wash drive, etc.

      – Maybe the more fortunate families in the youth league should help subsidize the less fortunate families (you know, the ones that couldn’t afford pay cable channels to begin with).

      All of these are way better than putting more corporate advertising in front of your kids’ noses.

      • RJ | April 10, 2012 at 9:24 am |

        I love your blog, but..Paul, based on comments above I am assuming you don’t have kids of your own. To some extent, I would likely have some of your opinions if I were not a parent with significant involement in youth sports leagues. I think your really missing it here.

        If you have a niece, nephew in youth sports coach for a season. Get involved. Have the blog sponsor a team. I think your opinion will atleast soften once you get involved.

        Alot of parent spend alot of time, make alot of sacrifice, and some parents are already tapped. Leagues have bake sales.

        It would be great if a few 50/50 raffles would fund the leagues but with insurance, paying refs it adds up.

        I think from a global responsibility point of view Allstate or StateFarm using its advertising budget on soccer goals is much better than billboards.

        • Paul Lukas | April 10, 2012 at 9:27 am |

          True, I don’t have kids. But I care about kids, which is why I feel strongly about them not being exposed to more corporate advertising.

          And I don’t want to further entitle the corporate beast to spread into even more places than it already has.

        • RJ | April 10, 2012 at 9:38 am |

          I’m going to the New Britian Rock Cats game tonight (AA Twins vs AA Nats) I have more of an issue with Free Food night sponsored by BIBO, then soccer goals

      • Peter | April 10, 2012 at 9:48 am |

        You don’t think those avenues have been, and are continuously explore with almost any and all families? Before you start dictating how people save, (next your going to say don’t take up the 3 seater on the metro north when the 2 seater facing the wrong way is available ;) please have a little more compassion to what families DO sacrifice to have kids in sports. Even affluent families donate in my experience, and many of them do it silently. I would like to know you’re involvement in youth sports has been. Have you volunteered umpiring? Coached? Attend games? I feel you are speaking out of the side of your mouth. I am sure all your ideas work just as well in Brooklyn as the would in central Iowa.

        • Paul Lukas | April 10, 2012 at 9:59 am |

          Even affluent families donate in my experience, and many of them do it silently.

          Wouldn’t it be nice if Allstate could do likewise.

          Have you volunteered umpiring?

          Yes. But even if I hadn’t, does that mean I have no right to have an opinion on the matter? And even if that were true (which it isn’t), would that automatically make my opinion wrong? Try dealing with the ideas being discussed instead of trying to make it about me. The message, not the messenger.

          You know how else I’m involved with youth sports? I create discussions about youth sports, like this one.

        • Teebz | April 10, 2012 at 10:20 am |

          Paul, I’m not taking either side here, but what if the Allstate sponsorship paid for the rental of the soccer field that the city or private owner charges, thereby reducing the costs of participating in sports and the league?

          I ask because that, to me, deserves some recognition in that Allstate, despite their advertising, is making a difference in helping more kids play, thereby reducing childhood obesity (in theory). At worst, they are helping kids get off the couch to discover a world beyond the TV and video games.

          Now, I may be way off in that this league plays on a free field where people volunteer their time to keep it pristine, but if the city or company that owns the land is charging for usage, wouldn’t Allstate’s sponsorship being used to reduce league fees be commendable to a degree in this case?

        • Paul Lukas | April 10, 2012 at 10:25 am |

          I’d rather raise the money some other way. What if the local titty bar wants to pay for the field — would you let them put their name on the goal? What about the local liquor store? Are those appropriate for kids? See, I don’t think corporate insurance ads are appropriate for kids either.

          Scroll down and see the comment from Perry. I think that’s a better question.

        • Peter | April 10, 2012 at 10:34 am |

          (1st, stop getting incredibly defensive…I was asking w/out sarcasm if you did volunteer and such, and yes it does matter if you do. It gives merit to what you say. You often pour your rhetoric out on us and never seem to waver even if people provide valid reasoning. You don’t have kids, you live a good life partly due to this fact (not taking away anything you’ve earned and done for yourself), I know you’d be singing a different tune IF you had kids. It seems the majority of us have no problems w/corporate sponsors. I personally welcome it.
          And if you have a problem with that, that’s just your problem, not mine.

        • Teebz | April 10, 2012 at 10:36 am |

          Right, I get what Perry is saying. So if a corporation steps up to help out because they have cash to spare, and that cash goes towards helping more kids play by reducing their fees to play, is that not commendable?

          Again, I’m not giving Allstate a pass by any means because they can turn around and say “paint the entire field with our logo”, but I think that the idea of anyone helping more kids get active and into a game is something that shouldn’t be discouraged.

          We’re outraged when we hear childhood obesity stats – “there’s no way that’s true” – yet we can’t seem to grasp that activity is the best way to counteract that rising number. The problem is that everyone is out to make a buck.

          – the community centers charge for using their fields rather than having adults of the teams using the field look after the fields because it pays for their properties to remain open and viable.
          – the city-owned fields will never escape the constant need for charging money for city services.

          All I’m saying is that IF Allstate’s monies were put towards lowering league fees and covering field costs, it should allow more kids to play for less money. I’m not overly happy that a massive billboard has to be erected for Allstate, but if the enrollment for kids in sport increases because their families can now afford to have them play in an organized league, that’s good for the entire community despite the billboard.

          But there is that big “if” above.

        • Paul Lukas | April 10, 2012 at 10:37 am |

          You don’t have kids, you live a good life partly due to this fact…

          So if you have kids, you’re living a WORSE life partly due to that fact? Interesting analysis.

          if you have a problem with [corporate sponsorship], that’s just your problem, not mine.

          I happen to think it’s everyone’s problem, but you can disagree. That’s why we’re engaged in this discussion.

          Again, stop trying to make it about me. I don’t know anything about you, and I don’t need to. I’m more interested in the ideas you’re expressing.

        • Peter | April 10, 2012 at 10:47 am |

          Its not that families are living worse, but a huge chunk of financial responsibility, personal resources & time are devoted to their kids. Those are just 3 conditions you do not have to devote to the well-being of a child which no matter the economy, are very difficult.

        • Paul Lukas | April 10, 2012 at 10:53 am |

          Duh. And it’s presumably worth it in terms of all the love, satisfaction, etc. you get along the way.

          Look, we all make life choices based on what makes sense to us, and that’s fine. I’m just calling bullshit on someone saying I live “a good life partly due to” not having kids, which basically equates childlessness with a privileged status and parenthood with victimhood. Both of those suggestions are obviously wrong. That’s all.

      • Jimbo | April 10, 2012 at 10:39 am |

        As several folks have already pointed out, the costs of youth sports have made corporate sponsorship almost a necessary evil. Liability insurance costs go up every year, then there are the costs of background checks, first aid/CPR/AED training… it’s expensive. The sponsorships allow us to keep our registration fees low.

        I’m president of a youth football & cheer club and we have sponsors, most of whom (but not all) are local companies. For their financial support, our sponsors receive their logo on our website, on a sandwich board next to the concessions stand and on the roster sheets (aka program).

        We have been asked about signage on the field & a patch on the uniforms. Both suggestions are rejected because 1) the high school (where we have home games) does not allow corporate advertising and 2) we don’t allow advertising on the uniforms (other than the Riddell logos).

        So, you can have corporate sponsorship without whoring yourself out. The vast majority of our sponsors either have, or had, kids in the program. They are being generous in supporting a community organization.

      • Peter | April 10, 2012 at 11:05 am |

        You just don’t get it (how ironic).

        • Tom V. | April 10, 2012 at 11:18 am |

          “…You don’t have kids, you live a good life partly due to this fact…”

          Probably the most fucked up thing ever said on this site.

        • Teebz | April 10, 2012 at 11:20 am |

          He does get it, Peter. Stop being dismissive. He’s simply making light of the fact that you are complaining about how hard your life is because you have kids. While the tone both of you are using is, for the most part, not helping, he’s taking you to task for making it sound like your life is infinitely worse for having children.

          He knows this isn’t the case. And he also knows that it takes a lot of time, effort, and money to raise a kid. He once was a child too, y’know.

          What you need to let go of, Peter, is that your life is any worse than anyone else’s because you have kids because that’s how you’re making it sound. In fact, life should automatically be better regardless of your economic situation. If kids are a financial burden for you, you should have never had them in the first place.

          I’m quite sure you are not saying that in the slightest, so Paul’s mocking of your comments shows he knows exactly what you mean despite you using your kids in this argument as a burden.

        • Peter | April 10, 2012 at 11:40 am |


          I have not once said my life is hard…nor are my kids a financial burden for me (not that it anyone’s fucking business), but for alot people, it becomes very difficult over time.

          And mocking someone, is just a prelude to bullying…I was wasn’t mocking Paul at all, yet he sheds condescending comments and smart ass remarks all the time with anyone who has a difference of opinion.

          It’s like a high school regents math problem with him, regardless of opinion, its show the fucking work with him…explain this, explain that…he’s never satisfied.

          And yes, there is a truth to someone having certain aspects to their lives being privileges they’ve earned by not having family…good for them, I never said Paul didn’t earn his life…

          as he has pointed out “I don’t know anything about you, and I don’t need to”….

          I am done…said my peace…goodbye

        • Teebz | April 10, 2012 at 12:11 pm |

          But you’re using your status as a parent as a crutch in this argument.

          “a huge chunk of financial responsibility, personal resources & time are devoted to their kids”

          Um, yeah, that’s called “parenting”. You can’t do that without kids.

          Paul may not have kids, but he does have cats he looks after. He feeds them, he cares for them, he ensures that they are not put in harm’s way, he takes them to the vet when they are ill, and he generally puts forth “a huge chunk of financial responsibility, personal resources & time” for his kitties.

          Is it comparable to the amount of money needed to raise a child? Probably not. But it’s not like there aren’t two important lives that he is 100% responsible for in terms of their well-being.

          If mocking someone is a prelude to bullying, you may have a class-action suit against any comedian living or dead. Comedians get paid very well to mock anyone and anything, and there are a vast number that mock society in general.

          Showing your work, if you don’t understand why it’s important for kids to do so, is to show that you know how the system works. In math, you prove that your equations are sound by showing your work and battling through the numbers to show that your answer is valid and true according to the system presented – long division, for example. It’s no different in a debate – you have to work through the valid points of your argument to make your point valid and true.

        • concealed78 | April 10, 2012 at 1:08 pm |

          “…You don’t have kids, you live a good life partly due to this fact…”

          I can just FEEL the breeder resentment in that statement. Having kids is a choice, it’s not inevitable.

          “But you’re using your status as a parent as a crutch in this argument.”

          Totally agree with this.

      • Arr Scott | April 10, 2012 at 12:22 pm |

        Gotta say, Paul, this particular post sealed the deal for me. I formerly disagreed with you on the narrow point of national vs local advertising. But this list of facile “suggestions” impeaches your judgment on the question entirely. So, in a manner of speaking, you have persuaded me! Just not in the direction you intended.

      • Jim Vilk | April 10, 2012 at 12:23 pm |

        How to survive without corporate sponsorship:
        – Get LOCAL sponsorship.
        – Maybe drive your used car an extra year before buying a new one so you have more money to pay for your kid’s soccer.
        – Maybe do without a few pay cable channels so you have more money to pay for your kid’s soccer.
        – Have a bake sale, a car wash drive, etc.
        – Maybe the more fortunate families in the youth league should help subsidize the less fortunate families (you know, the ones that couldn’t afford pay cable channels to begin with).

        Local sponsorship is nice…when you have a thriving community. Here in the rust belt, if Taco Bell or Wal Mart wants to sponsor a kids’ team, let ’em. I know this flies in the face of my opposition to ads on professional unis, but it doesn’t. Big league teams don’t live in the real world and need to learn that funds are not limitless. Learn to live within your means and all that. Kids, on the other hand, just want to play. They can’t always do that, because of far worse funding problems. Would you rather have a corporation putting more money into a superPAC, or into a youth sports league?

        Plus, this is my theory – kids get overloaded with so much violence, bad language, suggestive behavior, etc., that they become numb to it and don’t even realize they’ve made it part of their everyday lives. Why don’t we limit kids’ exposure to *these* things instead? I say let the kids get inundated with corporate advertising. They’ll tune it out and within a generation it will lose its effectiveness to influence people.

        It’s not the same scenario as with pro athletes. Blake Griffin has a contract with Subway…you think he’s gonna be seen eating at any other chain restaurant because of that deal? Most likely, no. On the other hand, if a kid is on a Dunkin Donuts-sponsored team, there’s nothing keeping him and his family from walking into a Jubilee Donuts (four locations in the Akron area to serve you) and getting some really good local donuts.

        We have one car that’s eight years old and the newer one we bought is a used car. We don’t plan on getting a new car anytime in the near future, and we don’t live on a convenient route for busing, so that’s not an option. TV? I pay seven bucks a month for local channels. That’s so low they won’t even let new customers do that

        Fundraising? I know you don’t have kids, ’cause they do sooooooooo much fundraising already for schools and other organizations that it’s ridiculous. I’d rather get my kids into volunteering and helping the less fortunate (or just spending some family time at home together) than tying up their small amount of free time doing yet another fundraising gimmick.

        Not every league is comprised of a socioeconomically diverse collection of families. Again, here in the rust belt, a lot of neighborhood leagues are full of people all in the same boat. We may not be poor, but we’re also not at the point where we’d say, “Take your sponsor money elsewhere, Mr. Corporation…we don’t need you.” Now if it was some grossly inappropriate company, yes, I wouldn’t let my kid play for that team, but if it’s an everyday run-of-the-mill business, sure.

        Bottom line, it’s not a clear-cut issue here. Corporate business does not equal evil. Small business does not equal good. There are good and bad of both. Let them put there money and even their ads into youth sports. Maybe then the kids will say, “Thanks to them, I can play in a decent league, and maybe someday I’ll be good enough where I can play professionally in a league that doesn’t need advertising on the uniforms.”

        • concealed78 | April 10, 2012 at 1:27 pm |

          “Kids, on the other hand, just want to play. They can’t always do that, because of far worse funding problems.”

          Not to sound like a douche, Jim, but growing up if I wanted to play ball, we picked up a game & got some neighborhood friends & we played in a field; hell we even played football & roller/foot hockey in the street. Yeah we didn’t have uniforms, organized leagues or kept records, but it was still baseball/sports. Most importantly, we had fun, got exercise, had no parents or douchebag umpires, adults, set schedules & time restrictions or corporate sponsorships to deal with. And I know this sounds incredibly ghetto, but when I wanted to practice pitching, I found a wall or used our garage door to throw against.

          I think if parents got together and organized things themselves, they wouldn’t need to deal with these expensive pain in the ass leagues & fees. Judging from my experience growing up & as a Little League coach, parents found these leagues to be a huge scheduling conflict & inconvenience. I don’t ever recall having the full team altogether at once. And having a practice? Good luck on that.

        • Jim Vilk | April 10, 2012 at 2:00 pm |

          No, you’re not coming across as a douche, here. I know what you mean, ’cause I grew up the same way. It’s just different now…I found that out in my later teen years when we started getting kicked out of places because of liability issues.

          There just aren’t as many kids around here, either. Growing up it was easy to find someone and play. Not so much, now. I’d prefer it if my kids could just play on my wiffleball field all the time, but to get regular play and exercise you almost have to sign them up in a league anymore.

        • teasea | April 10, 2012 at 2:20 pm |

          Well said!
          Thank you, Jim!

          I’d like to hear Paul’s response to your thought-out, well spoken opinion.

        • concealed78 | April 10, 2012 at 6:17 pm |

          “I’d rather get my kids into volunteering and helping the less fortunate (or just spending some family time at home together) than tying up their small amount of free time doing yet another fundraising gimmick.”

          You know, Jim – you are their father. If you want them to do something else, then tell them to.

          I don’t know if you have an antenna on your roof, but a digital converter box is pretty cheap these days & I get my local channels for free.

        • Jim Vilk | April 10, 2012 at 7:19 pm |

          I do. What I meant by that was, I want my kids to play and get some exercise and help out the community instead of playing, getting exercise and having to continuously raise funds for themselves.

          Actually, I’m being hypothetical now. These days none of my kids are in organized sports. My son was, but he’s taking a break. I was all for his decision, not only because I’m not going to force him to play, but I’m not missing all the fees and whatnot. He still volunteers, though. If he wants to play in the future, it will be if we have the spare time and resources.

    • Mike V. | April 10, 2012 at 1:04 pm |

      I am a parent and corporate advertising is low on the list of things in this world that I worry about harming my kid. Yes, I understand where you are coming from and how big corporations have an almost brainwashing mentality when it comes to branding. I disagree with the majority of their tactics and messages as well. I prefer to support local businesses as much as possible. One of the saddest days for me was when my local butcher closed because people decided they would rather get pink slime at Wal-Mart instead of prime meat for a few bucks more.

      However, the All-State sign is there for the adults, not the kids. The kids have no idea (chances are) what All-State is. They help fund the league so the parents can watch their kids play and see their ads. They can put up as many signs as they want, I am not paying attention to their ads, but hey, thanks for the money for my kid. Now, it can also be said that when those kids grow up, All-State is hoping they will have their logo branded in their minds, yadda, yadda, yadda. Ok, but it’s my job to raise my kid to be smart, a thinker, and do their ‘homework’ so as to not fall for cheap advertising tricks.

      Paul seems to take a extreme stance on big corps and advertising. I agree with him most the time. Here we see things differently.

      Though, we NEED guys like Paul to be willing to go to these extremes to remind us not to just accept everything big corps think they should, or are allowed, to do (i.e. Coke’s BS street advertising in New Orleans). As a society, it does seem we are more willing to allow big corps to get away with more. I’m glad there are still venues that are more than willing to call them out for it and keep some portion of the community conscience about what type of advertising big corps are doing and if it should be accepted.

      • Jim Vilk | April 10, 2012 at 2:48 pm |

        Well put, Mike.

        And yeah, I’m completely with Paul on that Coke Zero thing. THAT was total douchebaggery. Today’s stuff is a different story.

  • random reader | April 10, 2012 at 9:09 am |

    About the Stoke City uniforms:

    I think the towel (or whatever it is) sewn underneath their jersey has been common throughout this season; there was a match earlier this year where their players were taking their time wiping down the balls with that towel sewn into their jersey. The announcers also made a comment about that.

  • Teebz | April 10, 2012 at 9:10 am |

    MoVi, I never answered your ballpark question yesterday because I was already in bed. So I’ll tackle it here today.

    Phil has it right about Shaw Park. The hot dogs are good, but they have really expanded the choices on the concourse for all tastes. Nothing like a Goldeyes game in the summer heat with a dog, a few peanuts, and a few cold brews.

    As for my dogs, a touch of BBQ sauce spread the length of the dog, followed by yellow mustard and onions. No one will talk to me for the rest of the game, but it’s baseball heaven when those options are available.

    • Jim Vilk | April 10, 2012 at 12:33 pm |

      Thanks! I’ll skip the onions, though.

  • Keith | April 10, 2012 at 9:11 am |

    The only thing that bothers me about the O’s tri-color helmets is that the orange on the bills is truncated. Look at the picture in the ticker, and you’ll see that the base coaches helmet has orange that reaches its natural conclusion, while the orange on the player’s helmet gets cut off at the same point as the white field. Does this bug anyone else?

    • Rob S | April 10, 2012 at 9:26 am |

      Maybe if the white panel was like this, we wouldn’t have that issue…

  • mmwatkin | April 10, 2012 at 9:11 am |

    Forced nickname is forced.

  • Bernard | April 10, 2012 at 9:27 am |

    I hope that TCU helmet is legit. Man, is it gorgeous.

  • phillipwilson | April 10, 2012 at 9:35 am |

    imo, ReeBox is better because of the comparison to Kleenex and such. Better story behind it besides “sounds like douchebag, get it?” Also it has the bonus of annoying the marketing people that want it there in the first place.

    • Matt | April 10, 2012 at 9:49 am |

      Yeah, just keep Ree-box and add the offender’s name in front of it: the Nike Ree-box, Under-Armour Ree-box, etc. No doubt the companies will hate having their products associated with a competitor.

  • Connie | April 10, 2012 at 9:50 am |

    Re new black football helmet for Harvard.


    • Chris Holder | April 10, 2012 at 10:01 am |

      Violating the “if you’re named after a COLOR, wearing anything other than said color is just stupid” rule. I’m pretty inflexible about that one.

  • Kyle Allebach #school | April 10, 2012 at 9:55 am |

    I agree 100%. If you’re youth league is going to advertise, a local business would be much, much better. Every youth league anything around here gets local advertisers. If it’s going to be a major company, it should be a company that started local.

    Also, I doubt that that Allstate poster ad thing came from a local company, because they would have an office name, agent name, and phone number to promote the local branch of Allstate, not just the whole freaking company itself.

    Unfortunately, in this day and age, advertising is going to be a norm, with agencies and organizations strapped for cash and needing some way to improve the bottom line.

    • Perry | April 10, 2012 at 10:16 am |

      Parents are strapped for cash, small businesses are strapped for cash, local governments are strapped for cash, EVERY-freakin’-body is strapped for cash. Except corporations. Corporations seem to be rolling in cash. Hmmm….

      • Paul Lukas | April 10, 2012 at 10:21 am |


      • JimWa | April 10, 2012 at 10:52 am |

        That’s not the corporations’ fault. Fault belongs to society. I can’t tell you how often I hear/see people talking about how sad it was to see hometown company XYZ close their doors – as they reach into a walmart bag for something they bought.

        As recently as 5 years ago, there was a locally-owned, full service gas station within driving distance of our home. They charged about five cents more per gallon than the stations down the street, but offered FANTASTIC, friendly service. Unfortunately, that’s not what society wanted.

        The corporations are successful (and have money) because we want them to, even if we don’t think we do.

        • ReggieDunlop | April 10, 2012 at 11:16 am |

          Did WalMart start out as a local company, or did they open their doors as the largest retailer in the country? Just like sports, isn’t success favored and rewarded in our nation, and economy? Think about it.

        • Kyle Allebach #school | April 10, 2012 at 11:58 am |

          What Walmart started as and what it has become are two different things. There was a point Walmart only had stuff made in America.

          Just ’cause you were born good doesn’t mean you can’t become evil.

    • Jeremiah | April 10, 2012 at 12:54 pm |

      I agree with Paul on this one. My girls play soccer (NYS), and there in nothing on the jerseys except for their names and uni numbers (first initial and last name since they play for the same team). And I’m glad for that. I have also found soccer to be far less expensive to play and support than baseball, BTW. I grew up with local business sponsors on my own jerseys when I played LLBB, which adds a very local feel to the whole thing, rather then a generic corporate name that one sees ubiquitously already.

  • Matt W. | April 10, 2012 at 10:28 am |

    I almost never post, but read every day and I think that in your zeal to out corporate d-baggery, you have lost sight that sometimes a cigar is just simply a cigar. Large corporations are expected to visibly support local community activities around their corporate locations — only giving anonymously simply doesn’t make sense for them.

    I work for a very large company (Fortune 100) that is exponentially the largest employer in the community and there is an expectation, by employees, that the company actively support local programs. While one might disagree with the netting in this case, I am sure that there are an uncomfortable (for you) number of swooshes in Beaverton, OR, because employees expect Nike to give, just as the Busch name is prominent in St. Louis (even in youth activities) and Procter & Gamble is all over Cincinnati.

    As such, the photo does lack an important contextual element, which is location. If this is in northern Chicago, where Allstate is based, I’d like to think you’d react differently to the photo.

  • Tim Hand | April 10, 2012 at 10:38 am |

    Thanks for posting the Euro kits slideshow. We hear so much about Nike and they have come to dominate the world football scene but Umbro deserves kudos for their current crop of kits. I have the two Ireland jerseys, actually the home one and their previous Away kit, the black one, and they look great and are also very comfortable.

    Can you tell me what the 3 stands for on the Ireland jersey?

    • DJ | April 10, 2012 at 10:55 am |

      It is a telecommunications company that sponsors the Irish team:

      Of course, this logo will not appear on the jerseys worn at Euro 2012.

      • Kerry P | April 10, 2012 at 11:36 am |

        Right. But, as a fan, I don’t believe you can even buy an Ireland jersey without that ugly sponsor logo on it.

        • DJ | April 10, 2012 at 12:42 pm |

          I believe that is the case. It might be possible to get a sponsorless one if you buy a “hero” shirt (with a particular player’s name and number on the front and back), but I’m not confident about that.

    • nico | April 10, 2012 at 12:13 pm |

      You mean Umbro, the subsidiary of Nike Inc?

  • Brad | April 10, 2012 at 10:40 am |

    An Orioles fan created an O’s Tim Tebow jersey. “Tebow is the only one that can save this dreaded franchise.” Story on Washington Post:

  • timothymcn | April 10, 2012 at 10:42 am |

    Shouldn’t swooshbag be reserved for Nike execs and proliferaters who insists on slapping swooshes on everything?
    Damn those swooshbags, for turning those college athletes in swooshkateers!

    • timothymcn | April 10, 2012 at 10:43 am |

      Just saying that it’s a better descriptor of people than a uniform element.

      • Phillipwilson | April 10, 2012 at 10:47 am |

        I was thinking the same thing. The term works better as you used it than “Look at those swooshbags on the shoulder of their new uniform”

        • Phillipwilson | April 10, 2012 at 10:48 am |

          (submit too fast)

          “Look at the lame ReeBox that the swooshbags put on the Seahawks new uni”

  • TOMtiger | April 10, 2012 at 10:58 am |

    good for houston. i’m a big fan of colleges using letters for their logos. that old cougar always looked horrible to me. as for the secondarly logo– all i can say is thundercats

    • jdreyfuss | April 10, 2012 at 11:37 am |

      They already had a better interlocking UH. The beveled and shaded logo is gonna look awful dated in a few years.

      The last cougar’s head logo looked like a minor league hockey team, but the new one isn’t any better.

  • ReggieDunlop | April 10, 2012 at 11:07 am |

    On the “local” vs. “national” advertising sponsorship in youth sports: When I was seven years old, I moved up from T-Ball to regular pitch little league. Every team had a sponsor/advertiser prominently displayed on the uniform, and every kid in the league wanted to be on the Holiday Inn team, because they had the sweetest unis–they were all green and gold, with a contrasting hat brim, while every other team was one color and white. The nearest Holiday Inn wasn’t even in our city. By the way, this was in the late 1960’s, the uniforms were flannels, and corporations were viewed as employers and drivers of the nation’s economy, not demonized as profiteering(gasp!) oppressors, as they’re depicted today.

  • teenchy | April 10, 2012 at 11:09 am |

    Surprised no one has yet pointed out that the Snoopy Giants tote bag doesn’t date from 1971. The “GiantS” home script was used from the 1983-93. Maybe the 1971 refers to the copyright on the Peanuts character?

    • Paul Lukas | April 10, 2012 at 11:15 am |

      I’d say more than half of the dates in eBay listings are wrong. Doesn’t matter — the object is the thing.

      • Rob S | April 10, 2012 at 12:03 pm |

        The back of the bag reads “(c) 1971 United Feature Syndicate, Inc.”, which would be referring to the appearance of Snoopy. Might be the year the original image (on which the Giants logos) was made…

        • Brinke | April 10, 2012 at 8:08 pm |

          Yeah I noticed that in the ad- and I have a GIANTS mug here with that logo, so I knew it was an 80s logo-but I went with the ad text.

  • Original Jim | April 10, 2012 at 11:18 am |

    Most youth leagues now are sponsored. We can’t see the entire field, only the goals themselves (which from the players’ perspectives read backwards). It’s very possible that one of the sidelines is plastered with signs of local sponsors. Most baseball fields I work at are set up like this.

    It’s also very possible that the local agent for Allstate got the sponsorship. Insurance agencies market themselves by their affiliations more than their owners. Maybe Allstate is headquartered in that soccer league’s town (making it a local sponsor, sorta). We don’t know.

    I don’t have an issue with the sponsors, if it helps defray the costs for more participation, equipment, field maintenance, etc. In my home town, a few people worked for the local Pepsi bottler. Through that connection, Pepsi donated money for a new scoreboard, and paid for the game programs.

    We know these companies have money and are pushing their product. But they also send a message that they are involved in the community. And how many of us really stay anonymous with our local involvement?

    Maybe it’s just me. I’m sort of numb to the infiltration of corporate branding I guess. But I remember as a kid that it felt like more “big time” when your facility was branded by the same companies that sponsored the big leagues. Just like in movies and TV shows that use actual brands rather than generic labels, things feel more “real”.

    …and on a different note,

    eBay descriptions are very misleading. The Snoopy Giants tote bag says “1971”. It’s clearly not 1971. The Joe Cool/Snoopy character is copyrighted 1971, because that’s when Charles Schulz introduced him. The Giants script on the bag is from 1985 ( I think).

    • concealed78 | April 10, 2012 at 12:40 pm |

      “But I remember as a kid that it felt like more “big time” when your facility was branded by the same companies that sponsored the big leagues.”

      And you just played right into their marketing plans. It’s not like their motives are pure – they’re trying to weasel their message into your mind anyway possible to promote their brand & get you to buy their product & your loyalty. That’s why Paul is so pissed off. They’re definitely getting something out of this, and advertisers know the easiest minds to influence & manipulate are youths.

      Maybe it’s because I’m from a different era, but when I started watching MLB, there were no advertisements on outfield walls (team logos or nothing at all), and I find them ugly, distracting and distasteful. It’s bad enough I have to see the Pepsi logo or same MGD commercial 10,000 times a season. I also despise and hate stadium corporate names on the same level.

  • Alex Parisi | April 10, 2012 at 11:25 am |

    “Can someone please explain why an under-seven soccer game would have corporate advertising – for a fucking insurance company – on the goals? Yes, I know, for the parents, blah-blah-blah, it’s still repulsive. Douchebags (from Cody Kennedy)”

    It’s a better alternative to charging parents more for registration. If Allstate wants to pay take on the cost of field equipment in exchange that they put their logo on the goals, by all means…

    • concealed78 | April 10, 2012 at 12:50 pm |

      So it offers a discount (mind you, nobody ever mentions or states how much of that it is in exact dollars) so that makes it okay? Maybe if parents fund raised a little more or cut back some frivolities in their lives (like Paul suggested) then they could afford Little League or Soccer. Except it’s just easier to let a corporation in & do it then sacrifice and the parents would rather not deal with it.

      Doesn’t anybody ever wonder if childhood obesity is linked to all this corporate whoring?

      Or maybe, just not sign up for these extravagantly expensive leagues at all. You don’t need a league to play baseball if exercise is the goal.

      • EMD | April 10, 2012 at 5:29 pm |

        “So it offers a discount (mind you, nobody ever mentions or states how much of that it is in exact dollars) so that makes it okay? Maybe if parents fund raised a little more or cut back some frivolities in their lives (like Paul suggested) then they could afford Little League or Soccer.”

        Fundraising happens in our school system and sports orgs 24/7 — we are inundated with fundraising in addition to registration fees and equipment costs.

        “Doesn’t anybody ever wonder if childhood obesity is linked to all this corporate whoring?”

        By sponsoring goals on a soccer field?

        “Or maybe, just not sign up for these extravagantly expensive leagues at all. You don’t need a league to play baseball if exercise is the goal.”

        We often play sports in the yard with the neighborhood kids, but my son also really enjoys a level of competition and teamwork that only organized sports can provide.

        • concealed78 | April 10, 2012 at 5:57 pm |

          “By sponsoring goals on a soccer field?”

          Right. Because kids don’t work up an appetite or thirst by playing sports or go anywhere after games.

          Nobody has to play sports or donate to any fundraising. When I went to school, I went for an education – not so the football team could have new shiny helmets or new uniforms. It pissed me off, even back then. “How much is enough?” Nothing, apparently. Maybe it’s time to stop these things.

    • Mark K | April 10, 2012 at 2:24 pm |

      Yeah, no big deal. They’ll just raise everyone’s rates to pay for it anyway.

  • Jerry | April 10, 2012 at 11:53 am |

    Mom and pop businesses are great. My parents too for a time operated their own business.
    That being said it I don’t agree with all these vitriolic feeling towards corporations. Millions of Americans feed their families due to being employed by corporations. I would rather have some large corporation have success than some politician give their money away in pointless government programs that only exacerbates problems and further erodes civil liberties.

    P.S. Free Ozzie Guillen….

    • Paul Lukas | April 10, 2012 at 11:57 am |

      Millions of Americans feed their families due to being employed by corporations.

      Yes, and I am one of those millions (well, I’m not technically an employee, but still…). I never said such companies shouldn’t exist. I just wish their advertising would stop encroaching into every facet of American life.

      • Brinke | April 10, 2012 at 8:04 pm |

        Yeah that’s it totally. Advertising is a way of life, always has been, it’s just when you reach into every nook and cranny. I swear I heard Jon Miller say the other day:

        “And….we’re back here in Arizona, from the (something)Airlines broadcast booth, let’s check the (casino name) out of town scoreboard…”

        Miller is so elegant to listen to, but that made me upchuck.

    • Brinke | April 10, 2012 at 8:09 pm |

      Like the Marlins didn’t know what they were getting with Ozzie. A insert-your-foot-here waiting to go off. Surprised it took til the first week of the season. He may get canned for this if the heat gets too much- he’s already looking at a five game siesta.

  • pushbutton | April 10, 2012 at 11:58 am |

    Thank you for any and all off-field photos of Johnny Bench, a man who seems to have lived 70s life to its fullest.

    Someone should run that incredible photo of him loading “Jesus Christ Superstar” into his home 8-track player again.

    • Piping Mike | April 10, 2012 at 12:30 pm |

      Johnny’s still living life to its fullest. He’s on wife #3 and she’s probably 25-30 years younger than him.

    • Brinke | April 10, 2012 at 8:06 pm |

      I remember that shot. JB, who used to stop by the station now and then- and believe it or not did an answering machine message for me- lived in a hip Cincinnati bachelor pad in a hip area called Mt. Adams–his address was “The Cloisters.”
      Total leisure suit/puka shell/disco pad city back then.

  • mike 2 | April 10, 2012 at 1:02 pm |

    Both my kids play youth soccer, sponsored by Tim Horton’s. Tim’s also sponsors hockey in Canada to a HUGE extent.

    As a volunteer I’ve seen the numbers for our league, and if it weren’t for the sponsorships the cost of the league would be about double.

    If it were up to me, I’d turn down the sponsorship and I’d personally pay the cost for a low-income kid to play. If every parent with sufficient means kicked in a few bucks, we wouldn’t need sponsorship.

    And here’s why its important to me: because kids brains are soft and pliable. Because I take my kids to soccer and now they recognize every Tim Horton’s in the city and want to go to Tim Hortons whenever we drive by. Because they’re 4 and 6 years old and have a loyalty to Tim Horton’s already.

    Sponsorship for adult sports, blah blah blah, don’t care. If you know anything about kids and how impressionable they are, this is why advertising to kids is so easy and so wrong. And its doubly wrong that the sponsors get to portray themselves as some sort of charity for doing this (because without them there wouldn’t be soccer).

    • Mike V. | April 10, 2012 at 1:08 pm |

      Very valid points

    • scott | April 10, 2012 at 2:04 pm |

      Why the hate for Tim Horton’s? They have good food.

    • mike 2 | April 10, 2012 at 2:53 pm |

      Its not about the food (which I don’t hate, but don’t love either). Its about the way we allow our children to be marketed to that bugs me. Trying to get brand loyalty imprinted into their still-forming little minds while they’re fresh.

      “A healthy society raises children to be responsible citizens rather than just consumers.”

  • Clint | April 10, 2012 at 1:04 pm |

    Ive been calling the Seahawks ‘swoosh-box’ the teardrop since they were revealed. Not a fan of it. Definatly looks much better when the teardrop matches the ‘stripes.’

  • HHH | April 10, 2012 at 1:10 pm |

    The whole point of soccer is not being able to use your hands to move the ball around. So why is it ok to use your hands on throw-ins? Why not have kick-ins?

    And why they heck do you have to keep both hands on the ball when you throw it in?

    • ThePonchat | April 10, 2012 at 1:48 pm |

      That’s the rules.

      Why can’t you move your feet in basketball more than a couple steps without dribbling? You can take 2-3 steps when shooting a lay-up or dunking…but not when you just catch a ball anywhere else on the court?

      That’s how the game was designed. Ask the creators of the game.

      The same silly questions can be asked of any sport. There are legitimate reasons, but it’s not even worth replying with them to such a silly questioning post…

      • HHH | April 10, 2012 at 4:15 pm |

        Silly questions?

        So everything in life shouldn’t be questioned and we should accept everything the way it is? We shouldn’t wonder what the reasons are for certain things?

        If anything is silly, it’s considering curiosity to be silly.

        • diz | April 10, 2012 at 4:33 pm |

          kick-ins have been experimented with. they turned out to be rubbish and took too long

        • George Chilvers | April 10, 2012 at 4:35 pm |

          I’ll humour you. If the result of the ball going out the sidelines was a kick, then this would be like a free-kick every time enabling the ball to constantly be pumped into the goal area. It would become a “Route One” nightmare (look it up if you don’t know what I mean) with no build up play. The only requisite would be to have a couple of tall players upfield. Stoke’s style of play is frowned upon by purists.

          Throwing the ball in keeps play moving quickly more or less from where the ball went out of play.

        • ThePonchat | April 10, 2012 at 9:07 pm |

          Yeah, silly questions about rules in sports equates questioning things in life. Good job there.

          If you would think about it before asking silly questions, then you’d understand it.

          Thanks to George Chilvers, you have an answer to one silly question.

  • Paul Lukas | April 10, 2012 at 1:17 pm |
    • Mark K | April 10, 2012 at 2:05 pm |

      Nice piece. I think the Zola Budd write-up should say “South African” instead of South American.

      And I’m not sure she’s considered a sprinter if she’s running the 3,000 meters.

    • Paul Lukas | April 10, 2012 at 2:18 pm |

      Yikes — will have them fix.

    • Arr Scott | April 10, 2012 at 2:42 pm |

      Agreed – nice piece. I hope there is a pool of details and trivia that didn’t make it into the ESPN piece but will be seen here!

  • ThePonchat | April 10, 2012 at 2:12 pm |

    While I understand the “corporate whoring” argument…I don’t support it.

    I don’t have kids. I am a coach. I have helped with youth leagues. I put on youth camps. Any money that can be utilized, I want it.

    If it supports the kids and their endeavors…I’ll take it. Yes, there are some things I stay away from — titty bars and other adult venues (regular bars, for example). But, I don’t have much problem with insurance companies, car lots, food joints, hair/nail salons, tanning shops, etc. I remember growing up having pharmacies and grocery stores sponsoring my youth sports teams. I think I even had attorneys sponsor teams.

    It helps reduce the costs. If companies and corporations decide to quietly sponsor…great! If not…I’ll gladly wear their logo and support them. I had a tax service give some sponsorship money to a camp, I’ll paste them everywhere I can in order to help the kids.

    As a previous poster noted, some areas are more downtrodden than others. My hometown is one of the poorest areas in Ohio. I heard that there is a 43+% of kids on free and reduced lunches. The unemployment rate is above 12-13%. We always had the highest teenage pregnancy rate in the state. Any opportunity to help and support kids…I’d take it!

    I would even like it more if there were big corporations that would do MORE of it. I love the Pepsi ReFresh project. It’s great. They made a 10-field soccer complex in a town I used to live in. If more companies did that…I’ll continue to support the large corporations. With the help of those large corporations, small mom & pops also get to help out.

    Maybe I am different, but I never wanted to go to McDonald’s or Subway because they sponsored teams in my youth leagues. I just viewed it as another cool t-shirt to wear around. Sure beats the crappy youth league jerseys that are around — High Five and BigToe, anyone?

    Then again, I am a soccer guy…and sponsorships have been around soccer for YEARS. It’s nice to have sponsorships on the kits because it jazzes them up a bit more. It sure beats having a large corporation as opposed to some Native American mascot/imagery.

    Fundraising sucks. I’ll say that. It’s hard to continue asking money from the same people, companies, groups, etc. that everyone else asks. If someone wants to come sponsor something I do…let me know…I’ll plaster your name EVERYWHERE!

    • Christopher F. | April 10, 2012 at 2:27 pm |

      Then why not do it silently? Or just issue a press release for the good PR?

      Donating money to kids sports and advertising on their field(s) of play are NOT mutually inclusive.

      You realize that companies like Pepsi, Nike *DO* often give money to groups without insisting they advertise.

      • ThePonchat | April 10, 2012 at 3:02 pm |

        Why do it silently? Some want to. My father-in-law does things that way.

        Why do it publicly? Some want to. They like seeing their name? They like giving credit where credit is due? They are required to?

        Either way…I’ll use the money for good. Either way…I hope most youth sports organizations use the money for good.

        I do realize that some companies do it quietly. That’s great! No issues with that. I applaud them. But, I also applaud if a company wants to put their logo out there. There’s some companies that deserve it.

        For those that can be philanthropic…good for them! I wish I could do more financially. I’d love to. But, until then (if it ever happens), I’ll continue trying my hardest to reach kids with the philanthropic donations!

        • Paul Lukas | April 10, 2012 at 3:14 pm |

          No need to stay silent. A company can announce on its web site that it’s given a donation, or in a newsletter, or whatever — you know, in things that ADULTS will see — without putting ads in front of children. So they can still get the credit without messing with impressionable little minds, and without passing along the lesson that sports and corporate sponsorship always have to be linked. That would be a much better approach.

    • RJ | April 10, 2012 at 3:06 pm |

      I agree findraising can be a chore, I almost agreed to just pay an extra 150 vs selling 150 of cheesecakes for cheerleading this fall.

    • Kyle Allebach | April 10, 2012 at 3:07 pm |

      “I remember growing up having pharmacies and grocery stores sponsoring my youth sports teams. I think I even had attorneys sponsor teams.”

      Local, local, and local. I have no problem with advertising (because I get the point: everyone needs money), and yes, fundraising sucks, but the point here is why just have ALLSTATE when you could have a local Allstate office and make it less douchebaggy? I mean, we all know Paul hates advertising where it doesn’t belong, but I think it’ll be a little less heinous if it was a local entity than a multi-state/multinational company.

      • ChrisH | April 10, 2012 at 3:17 pm |

        What’s the difference again? Whether it’s a local ‘mom and pop’ or a ‘douchy’ corporation, if the sponsorship leads to increased business for them and eases some of the financial burden for the league, don’t both parties benefit from the relationship? Isn’t it the choice of the potential consumer to ultimately patronize the business regardless of its’ size?

        • Phil Hecken | April 10, 2012 at 4:07 pm |

          so, you’re fine if hooters or marlboro or stohli sponsors teams then?

          what’s the difference again?

        • Teebz | April 10, 2012 at 4:32 pm |

          But each case of advertising is a one-off, Phil. It’s not all carte blanche for any advertiser. You, youself, know this better than most.

          I know this from being swamped with “Can I buy space” emails for my blog from various sources through email. I’m going to guess you and Paul get exponentially more due to the traffic you generate. But it comes down to you as to what you are willing to allow on your site.

          Paul has said that sites with poorly-chosen Native American imagery will not be allowed to advertise on UW, and he has removed any sites that are doing this type of advertising. That’s his choice, and he’s welcome to do so.

          The same goes for those people who runs the leagues. They choose who can advertise based upon morals, ethics, and good taste.

          It’s fine to lob the “what about titty bars and drunk tanks and cigarette pushers” softball every time someone makes an argument that’s an exact counterpoint to your own, but you’re missing the point in that these leagues are still responsible for the children’s best interests, and there would be a vast majority of parents outraged if their son’s and/or daughter’s league was sponsored by the “Hooch’s Coochie”. That’s just bad business for the league.

          I’m sorry, but the “what if” argument is nothing more than a fallacy in this debate. Allstate is far more reputable than some dive bar that pushes skin on a stage.

        • Jim Vilk | April 10, 2012 at 4:35 pm |

          Then that’s where you draw the line. Same thing if the local strip club or smoke shop sponsored a team. Inappropriate is inappropriate…doesn’t matter if it’s corporate or local.

          If the only way our kids could get to play is for Phil’s scenario, then that’s where they learn that you don’t get everything you want in life. But why not delay that from happening if a kid-friendlier corporation wants to sponsor them?

        • Teebz | April 10, 2012 at 4:35 pm |

          Furthermore, why do the San Diego Padres get a pass for outfitting a dozen teams in uniforms in San Diego, but Allstate in a smaller community does not?

          If you think the Padres aren’t a business first, I have an Annual Financial Report to pick with you. If one is wrong, so is the other. It doesn’t matter the intention or the business.

        • Phil Hecken | April 10, 2012 at 6:00 pm |

          clearly, teebz, you’ve never had allstate insurance or been to my local titty bar

          but i digress

          i was not speaking to you, i was answering ChrisH, who seems to feel it’s not important whether, and i quote, “it’s a local ‘mom and pop’ or a ‘douchy’ corporation” or rather, not that it’s not important, but in the end there is no difference between the two, since advertising is advertising

          i beg to differ

          but one point he made IS important and that is, it’s STILL ADVERTISING

          is the ONLY way to run a little league to have advertising on the unis and the outfield walls? seriously, there is NO OTHER WAY?

          what the fuck kind of entitlement society to we live in where all kids HAVE TO HAVE LITTLE LEAGUE? someone’s got to pay for it, so how about we start with the kids’ parents…brand new shiny unis and new aluminum bats cost too much? well, how about the kids do without those? no? can’t…well, how about you just do away with the advertising on the unis and walls then? there’s no other way to make it work? none?

          so, it’s advertising, but only the kind you deem acceptable (but advertising nonetheless), on the unis or the kid is heartbroken, can’t play, and won’t ever make it to the bigs because chuck e. cheese won’t pay for the whole league…or at least a portion of it

          don’t get me wrong, i love little league and played it all through my childhood years, but i seem to recall we had some pretty sketchy unis and parents bought their kids equipment and no one felt any the lesser for it…but at least we did it, for the most part, without any crummy ads on the uniforms and the walls

          but advertising of any kind is kind of like the old line where a man asks a woman, “would you have sex with me for a million dollars?” and she says yes…the next question is “would you have sex with me for 10 dollars,” to which she replies, “what kind of woman do you think i am?”

          well, we’ve already established that, now we’re just negotiating a price

          you want ads on your unis? to my mind, what’s the difference whether it’s taco bell, or biffs cheese shop…

          it’s the price you pay to get your little league

        • Teebz | April 10, 2012 at 6:10 pm |

          But again, you’re viewing this in black and white. And if that’s the case “San Diego Padres” = “”.

          So why is one better than the other?

      • Christopher F. | April 10, 2012 at 4:22 pm |

        So much this. Anyone that’s going to get insurance through Allstate is going to go through a local broker. So let Allstate pay for the ad *for* one or more local brokers.

        Even though I really feel it should not be an ad at all, this makes me cringe much less.

        • ChrisH | April 10, 2012 at 9:33 pm |

          To reply to Phil, yes I am fine with those businesses as sponsors, especially if their applications for sponsorship were approved by the local governing body of the sports program.

        • Phil Hecken | April 10, 2012 at 9:41 pm |

          you’re OK with a porno site sponsoring your kids little league?

  • JimWa | April 10, 2012 at 2:20 pm |

    Here’s a fun project for someone with WAY too much time on their hands … when did massive amounts of advertising in sports venues go out of style … and when did it come back in? Is the timing in direct correlation to the national economy, or are there other major factors involved? In the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s (assuming there WAS little league baseball then), did they have similar questions about company sponsorships?

  • Chris in Nashville | April 10, 2012 at 3:00 pm |

    Sorry to get back to actual uniform news, here are pics of the Astros unis for tonight…

    • ChrisH | April 10, 2012 at 3:09 pm |

      The ‘stros really missed the mark with the smoke-created “C”. The hat’s nice though.

    • JimWa | April 10, 2012 at 3:45 pm |

      Important caption (to this crowd anyway): “You think the caps are funny…wait ’til you see the strirrups!”

  • traxel | April 10, 2012 at 3:28 pm |

    I own a small business, have 3 boys that all play in various youth leagues, and I pay for what seems like an endless amount of sponsorships, teams, jerseys, travel expenses, on and on. I also get hit up right and left all year long for donations to every local 501c3 imaginable in our small town. The Boys and Girls Club, UCAN (Local cancer support group), the public school foundation, the community college endowment trust, our local theater and depot restoration projects, the United Way, the Jaycees, etc. as well as Rotary, Kiwanis, and Lions clubs that all do good things, the list is endless. They always want to plaster our name around but I tell them that a small business listing is plenty. We don’t get any business through that advertising anyway. We do everything we can as a small company but it is never enough. Our soccer fields are in extremely poor shape. We have no where near enough baseball fields. But everything is paid for by local businesses including McDonald’s as the franchise owner is a friend of mine and his advertising comes out of his local budget. He’s on our school board and does a tremendous amount of volunteer work around town. I don’t think any kid is being influenced by Allstate as I don’t think any kid that plays on those fields buys insurance. Is it ugly? As sin it is. I hate the way it all looks. I hate all the local business signage around our football field. It looks crappy. Makes us look cheap. But without it we wouldn’t be able to field many of the teams we do and our kids would be severely limited in their opportunities. I choose not to have my name plastered around but I can’t speak for others, it’s their decision. If the alternative is to not have youth leagues it is worth it to have their money. There are always sponsors for 90% of the Little League teams but the other ones are named Team #11 or Team #13. It is scary to find out what team you are going to be on each summer for fear of ending up on one of those teams which won’t even have uniforms. The money is desperately needed. It is ugly, but it is needed. In our very poor neck of the woods, putting a kid in an Allstate uniform (or Kroger, or Coca Cola, or IGA, or the Hair Port) is much better than having him come up with his own not quite matching T-shirt. And the ends justify the means. That is our situation. Everyone is different, but this is what I see here in Swampeast Missouri, a very poor part of the country. And we welcome corporate cash, even if it influences a kid to drink Powerade over Gatorade.

    • Jim Vilk | April 10, 2012 at 4:23 pm |

      I was hoping you’d post, especially with your experience as a small business man (as opposed to a small businessman…). Thanks for your perspective. I don’t own a small business, but I’ve heard from others who do. They get hit up for EVERYTHING and just can’t do what everyone wants them to do for them.

      Small businesses need to focus on surviving first and foremost, especially these days. If a big business wants to sponsor a team or a league, by all means let them, too. As I’ve said, if there was a Jim Vilk Incorporated, my sponsored unis would be logo-less, but I’m not going to say that *has* to be the case for everyone else. Ideally all our kids would play in sponsor-logo-less unis, but there are much bigger fish to fry when it comes to our kids. Sometimes you gotta pick your battles.

      • Mike V. | April 10, 2012 at 5:03 pm |

        here, here

      • Paul Lukas | April 10, 2012 at 5:25 pm |

        Sometimes you gotta pick your battles.

        Totally agree. I just happen to have picked this one.

      • mike 2 | April 10, 2012 at 5:30 pm |

        “especially with your experience as a small business man (as opposed to a small businessman…)”

        Wasn’t this an episode of the Jefferson’s?

        • Attila Szendrodi | April 11, 2012 at 2:39 am |

          A Jefferson’s reference always wins the battle.

  • Keith S. | April 10, 2012 at 3:30 pm |

    The corporate sponsorship of youth sports is really a non-starter. Both of my kids play (or have played) youth sports since they were old enough to swing a bat, or put on a helmet.

    All of the leagues they have been a part of have had some kind of corporate sponsorship. And guess what? My kids (and every other kid out there) could have cared less.

    I could ask my 12 year old what was advertised on the dugout on the field ha played 3 games on last weekend, and he couldn’t tell me. Because he could not care less.

    Now, when kids are online, or watching SportsCenter, they are inundated with advertisements. What’s the difference?
    The difference is that they are focused on whatever they are watching/reading, etc. In youth sports, they are not paying attention to the advertisements.

    I guess I just don’t see corporate advertising as a negative, or bad thing.

  • The Rob | April 10, 2012 at 4:05 pm |

    Somebody up there (too many comments to find it again and reply) suggested, fascietiously I expect, that Uni Watch sponsor a team. Wouldn’t that be fun? Get donations from all of us and sponsor a local (to you) team in some sport. Worth at least a thought.

    • Ricko | April 10, 2012 at 4:21 pm |

      “Mom, what’s ‘Eunich Watch’?”

      • concealed78 | April 10, 2012 at 4:42 pm |

        “It’s a castrated man, just like your father.”

    • JimWa | April 10, 2012 at 5:31 pm |

      Who ever could you find to create some uniform mockups, though?

    • Ryan | April 10, 2012 at 6:00 pm |

      Reminds me of a stunt I heard about from another website I frequent, Back in ’05, when Boston’s FleetCenter was looking to permanently sell its naming rights to a new company, it held an auction online (proceeds went to charity) to sell 30 single-day naming rights packages. Fark’s creator won/bought a day, and conducted a poll on the site to choose their name for the day. “ UFIA Center” was their initial choice, but that was rejected (if you want to know why, search ‘UFIA’ on, so they settled on the simple name “Boston Garden.”

  • Ben Fortney | April 10, 2012 at 5:28 pm |

    Speaking of corporate douchery, it appears Nike and Reebok have settled their Tebow NFL kerfuffle – Reebok buying back all unsold merch.

  • Greg B. | April 10, 2012 at 5:49 pm |

    Wow, 235 comments and not a one about the Blue Jays unis? Let me be the first.

    I thought I would like them. As it turns out, I don’t. While I think they are probably better than the Black Jays of the last few years (what were they thinking?) these new-but-sorta-old ones just leave me cold now that I’ve seen them again. The differences from their 1980s unis are subtle, perhaps too much so. I find the number font the most offensive part, as it is pure ’70s, and not in a good way.

    I could handle the rest a bit easier but they already look past their prime to me, partly because every person in Canada had the Blue Jays logo and uni drilled into their consciousness incessantly in the late 80s and early 90s. Part of that resulted in resentment from other parts of the country who observe how our national media, almost all based in Toronto, treated the Jays of that era as the center of the universe, the greatest thing since sliced bread, etc, etc (insert your favorite hackneyed phrase here). For Expos fan like me that caused deep dislike, if not outright hate, for that entire image, which has all come back now with these new unis. I wish they had been a bit more ambitious with their design.

    • concealed78 | April 10, 2012 at 6:32 pm |

      I think the Blue Jays went up and beyond ambitious with their last look. Royal blue was the most logical color choice, and they could have gone for a traditional baseball look with a realistic blue jay bird (which does not fit that franchise & too Orioles-ish), something completely radical again or they could have gone back to their most popular look. Basically a tweak just different enough to appease the Blue Jays fans & force people to buy new gear.

    • Phil Hecken | April 10, 2012 at 8:12 pm |

      “Wow, 235 comments and not a one about the Blue Jays unis?”


      what the fuck kind of blog do you think this is?

    • mike 2 | April 10, 2012 at 8:36 pm |

      You should have been here on opening day and the weekend.

      I like them. I liked the original 1980s-1990s set and I think that this look is a good update.

      I don’t see going back to what works, going back to the brand and colours most closely identified with your team, as “appeasing” anyone.

      I certainly get your resentment of the Jays. As soon as I dig myself out of Maple Leafs coverage I’ll see if I can figure out who actually made the playoffs this year.

  • Ryan | April 10, 2012 at 5:52 pm |

    Two thoughts on the soccer-related content today:

    1) I’ve seen players dry the ball in their shirt before, but it never occurred to me that they’d sew a towel in. Probably helps quite a bit, because I imagine most of those shirts don’t do a great job of absorbing the moisture.

    2) Is it possible that the youth soccer game in question was at a larger soccer club, one which might have boys and girls youth teams from the age depicted all the way through high school, and that Allstate (or, perhaps more likely, a local branch) gives them money to display their logo on all the nets at the complex? I’m not saying that makes it right or wrong…

  • Dirty H | April 10, 2012 at 7:17 pm |

    The guy sporting the Bowling Green hockey sweater was my H.S. choir director! Would’ve loved to have been in Tampa…

  • J.I. Escribens | April 10, 2012 at 8:37 pm |
  • Johnny O | April 10, 2012 at 8:45 pm |

    I have watched the Brewers for many years, and have never seen what they are doing tonight. Many players are wearing head/neck warmers while batting and in the field. It is 35 with the wind chill in he Windy City, and is only going to get colder. I understand why they are doing it, just makes for an interesting look.

    Here is a small example:

    • concealed78 | April 10, 2012 at 8:58 pm |

      I love how it was in the 70s & 80s in March but now it’s the 40s & 50s in April. That’s Chicago Spring for ya.

    • wayne | April 10, 2012 at 10:09 pm |

      I saw Rickie Weeks’ hair flapping out the back of his…does he have a special hole cut out or does his go over his mane?

  • interlockingtc | April 10, 2012 at 8:53 pm |

    1930’s, Johnstown, PA. Kids just playing baseball

    Today, Santa Clara, Cuba…Kids just playing baseball

    Today, somewhere in Japan. Kids just playing baseball

    And some unidentified location…kids playing ball

    Not a corporate sponsorship in sight. Let us remember how simple and fun the game is. Adults, whose intentions may be good, often just mess things up. It’s just a game. In the end, it’s about having fun, not uniforms or grand fields or even caps. Rich or poor, 18 uniformed players or just throwing a ball against the wall in the back yard and imagining you’re every guy in the field. (Insert any sport here…imagination goes a long with kids.)

    All this talk of corporations makes me dizzy.

    • Neeko | April 10, 2012 at 10:17 pm |

      Not according to Lukas – “The best experience is one without corporate advertising”

      For me it was about playing with your friends and winning, and then later in life you really appreciated your coaches. Guess I didn’t realize how lucky I was not to have a corporate sponser – must of been having too much fun.

      • DJ | April 11, 2012 at 12:42 am |

        So much fun, you never learned to write properly. It’s “must have been having too much fun.”

  • Phil Hecken | April 10, 2012 at 9:49 pm |

    if anyone is interested…MLB channel 7 (and we all should have the free preview)…has the stros in the fuckin sweet .45s unis

    • Phil Hecken | April 10, 2012 at 9:53 pm |

      i think i just came a little

      if ONLY they wore them at the proper height

      • traxel | April 10, 2012 at 10:33 pm |

        Who in their right mind Phil would touch that link the way it is written??? Ewwww.

        No MLB channel on our stupid city government cable system.

        • Phil Hecken | April 10, 2012 at 10:43 pm |

          should i have said “camelot”?

        • Phil Hecken | April 10, 2012 at 10:43 pm |

          and didn’t you have that problem with the olympics?

    • Wheels | April 10, 2012 at 10:35 pm |

      And the Braves aren’t wearing their softball tops. It’s a Festivus miracle.

      • Ricko | April 10, 2012 at 10:53 pm |

        Now if their hats only had red visors and squatchees.

        • Wheels | April 10, 2012 at 11:08 pm |


  • kyle f | April 10, 2012 at 10:38 pm |

    #9 on the Orioles wearing wrong batting helmet at home

    • Casey | April 10, 2012 at 10:53 pm |

      I believe that is Endy Chavez. I got a screengrab, but I am not sure if it is ticker-worthy.

  • Patrick_in_MI | April 11, 2012 at 12:10 am |

    I doubt the kids playing on the soccer field even notice the sponsorship. To me, they look like a bunch of electric football players spinning around willy-nilly. And would it have made a difference if the ad was “John Doe, local Allstate agent” rather than just “Allstate”?

  • Yeeg | April 11, 2012 at 11:41 am |

    Re: the women’s sports column.

    1) The Women’s United Soccer Association had sponsors on their uniforms before LifeLock came along. It’s just that they were small patches on the front and sleeves like a tennis player.

    2) Australia got the “unitard” idea from netball, a game where players still wear kilts to this day. During the mid-90s, during the “baby doll dress” phase, someone came up with the idea of wearing a unitard, then draping a baby-doll dress-shaped uniform over it. The result was ugliness:

    3) There is one women’s sports combination that does strike fear into the hearts of opponents: the red and white of the Raybestos Brakettes softball team.