Why Is This Man Smiling?

Screen shot 2012-06-12 at 10.49.48 PM.png

The player you see above is David DeJesus, shown during last night’s Cubs/Tigers game. Notice anything unusual about his jersey?

Give yourself a cigar if you saw that the circle-R trademark symbol, which normally appears on the Cubs’ chest logo, is missing from DeJesus’s logo patch. I made that screen shot after reader Josh Petty told me he’d noticed the missing symbol — a great spot on his part.

I did some very quick photo research and discovered that DeJesus’s home jersey has been ” ®”-free for a while now, as you can see in these photos from May 29, May 18, May 17, May 9, May 6, May 4, and April 25. He was was wearing the trademark symbol, however, on April 21, April 20, April 12, April 9, April 8, and April 5, and also in spring training. So they must have issued him a new jersey sometime between April 21 and 25.

Still, how does part of the logo design just disappear? Patch design and production are all computerized these days — you program a digital file into the embroidery machine and it creates the patch. So if DeJesus’s chest patch doesn’t have the trademark symbol, then the symbol must not have been included in the digital file used to create that patch. Which means it’s a different digital file than the one that’s been used for all the other Cubs’ patches. Hmmmmm.

It remains to be seen whether this change begins showing up on other Cubs jerseys. I hope so, of course, since the trademark symbol is a serious fly in the Cubbies’ uni ointment. But if it turns out to be just an isolated incident, I’d love to know how it happened. Did Majestic use a different patch supplier? Something else? Whatever the story turns out to be, it’s a clear case of addition by subtraction, so let’s hope DeJesus keeps using this jersey for a while.

+ + + + +


Black Sox scandal, 2012 edition: Got a note on Sunday from reader Michael Rich, who wrote:

The Braves have been having their Alumni Weekend, where they bring back former players for various events. Before Saturday’s game, they held an alumni softball game between the ’92 Braves (captained by John Smoltz) and Braves Alumni (captained by Dale Murphy). I was there at the ballpark, and nothing appeared unusual from my seats in the outfield. But while watching Sunday’s game on Fox Sports South, I caught an interesting exchange during the bottom of the 6th.

What follows is Michael’s (lengthy!) transcription of that exchange. Dig:

Tom Hart [after completing his interview with Otis Nixon]: Guys, funny story about the softball game, however. There was one guy on the field who wasn’t a former Brave. Joe, do you remember a guy by the name of Sullivan and the comment on his socks?”

Joe Simpson: Yeah, those were, those were some ugly socks.

Hart: Uh-huh. Well, good reason. He doesn’t know anything about baseball socks. Finally, halfway through the softball game, Bobby Cox looked over and said, “That’s not John Sullivan.” He has since been reported to authorities, but he did have an old uniform that he wore. He, uh, has been coming to the softball game for a couple of years, but he will not be back.

Chip Caray: Wow!

Dale Murphy: I wondered who, who that was!

Simpson [to Murphy]: You know, you were the manager of that team!

Murphy: Oh my word.

Simpson: An impostor. I mean, anybody, anybody that walks onto the field is supposed to be an ex-player or athlete and they’re wearing black socks, might have been a tip-off.

Murphy: Well, I thought he was with the Braves. Ya know, I thought he was a sponsor, or something like that. I didn’t, I, uh, I honestly did not think he was a ballplayer.

Caray: Wow.

Murphy: I did let him hit, though.

[Brief interruption for Martin Prado to ground out.]

Simpson: Ya know, before batting practice started, softball batting practice, there were some guys on the field in front of the third base dugout playing catch. And I saw that guy come out and I thought, “Oh mercy, where, ya know, who dressed you!” And then he started playing catch and I thought, “Oh, this poor soul. This guy’s shoulder is shot, I mean, he really ended his career on a bad note or something.” And now I know why he threw the way he threw, ’cause it was awful.

Murphy: I didn’t ask him, but I thought he was, honestly thought, that it was, uh, one of the sponsors, because I don’t, I don’t recognize the name Sullivan. When did he play here?

Simpson: Uh, might have been John L. Sullivan, I don’t know. That is, that’s a great story, Tom. Wow.

Murphy: Well, we won. I’m gonna find him and bring him back.

Caray: But see now, you’ve given Smoltz an excuse to play under protest.

Murphy [chuckling]: He’ll probably file a protest.

Caray [chuckling]: Right.

Murphy: I’m sure he will. Well, ya know, we were all wearing funny socks. Did you see mine?”

Simpson: Uh, kinda, yeah. I didn’t want to go there.


Unfortunately, photos of the softball game have proven to be elusive. But the Atlanta Journal-Constitution ran a big article about the imposter. No mention of the socks, though.

+ + + + +

Uni Watch News Ticker: The Earth (or at least the Twitterverse) briefly spun off its axis yesterday Justin Tuck’s new facemask was revealed. Yes, it’s real. “It’s titanium, so it’s light as a feather,” says Giants equipment director Joe Skiba. ”¦ Kudos to the voters of North Dakota, who voted yesterday to retire UND’s Fighting Sioux nickname. Slowly but surely, people. ”¦ Some rumblings about the Dolphins possibly getting some uniform tweaks in 2013. … MLB has a new double-flapper: Brian Roberts. Last night was his first game since suffering a concussion in May of 2011, so it makes sense that he’d want all the protection he can get (screen shot by Ken Levin). ”¦ Todd Radom has done some great research that shows how the Astros had no idea what they wanted their cap to look like just prior to the start of the 1965 season. … Remember Chili Davis’s “Chili” NOB from the 1986 All-Star Game? We were wondering if this was just an all-star thing, so David Traub did what I should have done: He asked the Giants. Here’s the response he got back: “Looks like in 1986 we had ‘C. Davis’ on the back of his jersey (Mark Davis was also on the team that year).” ”¦ Reed Doughty of the Redskins recently threw out the first pitch for a Potomac Nationals game, but the jersey they gave him had a misspelled NOB (from William Yurasko). … We’ve talked many times about the cross above Troy Polamalu’s NOB. I always thought it was just a stylized version of a standard Christian cross, but now Peter Simko tells me that it’s based on the symbol that appears on the skufia of Polamalu’s spiritual father, Elder Ephraim. … New change kit for Nottingham Forest — and check out those socks! (From Michael Orr.) … Although Nike insists that NFL teams aren’t using old Reebok practice jerseys, the Packers definitely are (good spot by Eric Pigo). … If you’re into those chrome-finish football helmets, you’ll enjoy seeing the prototypes shown here. Keep in mind that most of these were just done for display purposes, etc. (from Terry Duroncelet). … Also from Terry: Looks like Maryland will be doing the flag-based thing again. … Really interesting infographic on Heat and Thunder’s shooting tendencies. ”¦ Here’s a teaser video for the new Sheffield Wednesday FC home kits. “The club is being promoted to the Championship in England for the 2012-13 season,” explains Patrick Barnett. … Dock Ellis was one cool motherfucker (big thanks to Chris Howell). … The Brewers dressed up ’80s-style for their recent road trip. … Boston College’s new football field looks the same as the old field (from Dave Levy). … Just what the world needs: logo creep for Tony Romo’s baby (from David Teigland). … Lots of great old uni photos, graphics, artifacts, and other goodies in Dave Eskenazi’s latest article about Pacific Northwest baseball history. … The Royals have a prospect in AAA named Wil Myers who bats bare-handed. “Even better, he bends over a number of times every at-bat to rub dirt on his hands,” says Brian Hansen. “He’s one of the top prospects in baseball and should be in KC later this month or in July.” ”¦ Two things I didn’t know until Michael Todd told me: (1) A’s minor leaguers wear white shoes. Which makes it all the more inexplicable that (2) A’s mascot Stomper wears black shoes. What’s up with that? ”¦ “I’m a sock man!” Who said that? Poppy Bush, of all people (from Don Montgomery). ”¦ New logo for the Santa Cruz Warriors of the D-League (from Mike Rowinski). ”¦ The Phillies’ starting lineup all went high-cuffed last night, except for pitcher Kyle Kendrick (from Chris Clark). ”¦ Here’s a chart showing Euro 2012 goal broken down by footwear brand (from Rex Henry). ”¦ And here’s an even better Euro 2012 chart, ranking the teams by average NOB length (from Mike McLaughlin). ”¦ We had previously seen leaks of the new Arkansas football uniforms, but the official unveiling will take place this morning.

273 comments to Why Is This Man Smiling?

  • BurghFan | June 13, 2012 at 7:23 am |

    The link for the KM Pro piece gets me a “Four-Oh-Four!” within the strictlyfitteds site.

    • Paul Lukas | June 13, 2012 at 7:32 am |

      Weird — was definitely working last night but now appears to be a broken link. I’ll remove it from the Ticker.

  • Arr Scott | June 13, 2012 at 7:33 am |

    Bush the Elder’s good hosiery karma goes way back:


    Should think about naming him an honorary uni watcher and sending him a card based on those red/white/blue striped socks.

    • Hank-SJ | June 13, 2012 at 8:23 am |

      “I don’t know much about The Bieber.” Classic.

  • JimWa | June 13, 2012 at 7:35 am |

    With the DeJesus’ R … could it be as simply explained as a thread coming loose?

    • Paul Lukas | June 13, 2012 at 7:46 am |

      That’s a lot of stitches. I don’t think so.

    • Boxcarvibe | June 13, 2012 at 7:59 am |

      Those patches have a backing on them that would prevent a thread from coming loose. To me, that patch looks smaller than the “official” patch.

      • Paul Lukas | June 13, 2012 at 8:02 am |

        To me, that patch looks smaller than the “official” patch.

        If you compare the photo of DeJesus at the top of the page to the linked photo in the second graf, you’ll see that both patches (one of which has the trademark symbol and one of which does not) are six pinstripes wide.

        • Bas | June 13, 2012 at 9:06 am |

          I miss the old cubby bear patch. Never liked the walking cub one.

        • JenInChicago | June 13, 2012 at 11:10 am |

          I”m a HUGE fan of the walking Cub logo. I also think that the circular logo patch needs to be tweaked…it’s just to generic looking and large.

        • -DW | June 13, 2012 at 12:38 pm |

          I never liked the walking bear patch either.

    • BrianC | June 13, 2012 at 12:19 pm |

      White-out? I’d do that if I played for the Cubs.

      • Paul Lukas | June 13, 2012 at 1:40 pm |

        Yeah, or a seam-ripper.

        I’m doubt that’s the case, but it’s fun to imagine DeJesus doing it.

  • Todd | June 13, 2012 at 7:43 am |

    That Bush interview is pretty damn funny.

  • Kevin | June 13, 2012 at 7:46 am |

    I think it’s funny that Mike McCarthy is still wearing Reebok clothing for coaching. Is it that hard to grab a new shirt? You would think the Nike enforcers would crack down on something that simple.


    • MEANS | June 13, 2012 at 9:16 am |

      They are notorious for not supplying the teams well.

  • Chris | June 13, 2012 at 7:47 am |

    Awesome. If having the NCAA force you into seeing things their way is your cup of tea, then the UND thing is outstanding. Having people tell you the appropriate way to thinks is always consistent with a free society.

    • Paul Lukas | June 13, 2012 at 7:55 am |

      Yes, because all of those voters were physically coerced into voting the way they did, right?

      The NCAA has no authority to “force” anyone to do anything. They do have the authority to set the rules for their own organization, however. Don’t like the rules? Don’t be part of the NCAA — simple. A free society.

      • scott | June 13, 2012 at 8:01 am |

        The people of North Dakota had a gun put to their head by the NCAA. It was hardly a “choice” for them.

        • Paul Lukas | June 13, 2012 at 8:03 am |

          Oh, I see. Because it’s basically a requirement to be part of the NCAA, right? And because private organizations like the NCAA have no right to set their own rules, right?

        • scott | June 13, 2012 at 8:22 am |

          The NCAA can set its own rules, but it doesn’t make those rules right. I suppose you can give kudos to the voters, though their vote was essentially coerced by the NCAA. I think a lot of American Indians are saddened by yesterday’s vote, so there is hardly something to celebrate for them.

        • Paul Lukas | June 13, 2012 at 8:31 am |

          The NCAA can set its own rules, but it doesn’t make those rules right.

          Agreed. So if you don’t like the rules of an organization, you can leave that organization — problem solved. While you’re at it, you can encourage others to leave with you. It’s all part of the public debate. No coercion, no erosion of a free society. On the contrary, that’s exactly how a free society works.

          Or you can treat membership in an organization as some sort of birthright or entitlement, and bitch about it when you get the benefits of the organziation’s clout but don’t want the responsiblity of living up to its rules. There’s a very technical term for this: “selfish bullshit.”

        • Tom V. | June 13, 2012 at 10:48 am |

          Not agreeing with your argument Paul. Thats the same as saying “don’t like whats happening to your neighborhood Paul? Then move!”

        • Paul Lukas | June 13, 2012 at 11:07 am |

          “don’t like whats happening to your neighborhood Paul? Then move!”

          Um, that’s precisely what literally millions of people do every single day. Either way, it’s another poor analogy, since there are all sorts of *public* rules that govern housing and residency, while the NCAA is a private group.

          Voluntary associations are just that: voluntary. There’s no inherent “right” to be part of the NCAA, which is a private organization that’s free to set its own rules. Don’t like the rules? No problem — don’t be part of the NCAA. I fail to see why so many of you are having such a hard time grasping this concept.

          Of course, you can also work from within to change the NCAA’s rules — nothing wrong with that. But if you lose, don’t whine about “coercion” and “a gun to my head” and all this bullshit. If you lost, you lost, the end. Come back next time and fight harder for your position.

        • Tom V. | June 13, 2012 at 11:17 am |

          “…Of course, you can also work from within to change the NCAA’s rules – nothing wrong with that…”

          Paul, thats what I’m getting at.

          What if you’ve lived in your nieghborhood 50 years and established a nice little sewing shop or old timey bar? Don’t like whats going on in your neighborhood? Work with the powers that be to be a part of those changes and have a say. Or better yet become part of the powers that be, get on the community boards and city commissions that have the final say.

          But to tell someone if they don’t like the rules to leave is just as big a cop out as there is.

        • Tom V. | June 13, 2012 at 11:18 am |

          So if you’re not part of the NCAA which other collegiate athletic associations equal to the NCAA are there?

        • Paul Lukas | June 13, 2012 at 11:23 am |

          to tell someone if they don’t like the rules to leave is just as big a cop out as there is.

          Not nearly as big a cop-out as whining about “coercion” when you lose a vote.

          So if you’re not part of the NCAA which other collegiate athletic associations equal to the NCAA are there?

          Depends on what you mean by “equal to.” If you mean equal in terms of legitimacy and exposure, there are none. If you mean “equal to” — or better than! — in terms of rules requiring you not use Native American names, there may be many. Or not. I have no idea. But having a college football team (to say nothing of having a college football team with a Native American name) is not a right, or a necessity. Lots of schools don’t even have football teams. But if you want to have one, there are certain things you need to do. You need to have safe equipment, for example. And if you want to be part of the NCAA, you need to have a team name that isn’t Native American-based.

          Don’t like those things? Don’t join the NCAA, or don’t have a football team, or whatever. On the other hand, you can have a club team and call it whatever you want. Choices and consequences, people.

        • Tom V. | June 13, 2012 at 11:36 am |

          Don’t have a football team? You mean “don’t have sports.”

        • Tom V. | June 13, 2012 at 11:38 am |

          Paul that is a total sheep response, to blindly follow the rules the governing body makes. You said it right before, if you don’t like the rules work with the powers that be to help change them.

        • Paul Lukas | June 13, 2012 at 11:44 am |

          Fine, work to change them. But if you lose a vote, accept that you lost. Don’t whine about coercion.

        • Tom V. | June 13, 2012 at 11:54 am |

          I have no problem getting involved, trying to change things and if the public decides fairly for the opposition, no problem with that.

        • Fred | June 13, 2012 at 12:23 pm |

          I get where you’re going with this. You’re not forced in the NCAA so therefore you have no say in how they run things.

          By this same logic, you have no right to complain about advertisements on uniforms. Sports teams are hardly civic entities anymore. Don’t like the black on the Mets? Stop whining and don’t watch their games. It’s their choice to use black or not.

          I’m somewhat neutral about Native American names. Some names can be degradatory but there are some schools who use Native mascots as a symbol of pride. But I don’t think the NCAA should coerce them to change, it should come from the inside out.

        • Paul Lukas | June 13, 2012 at 12:31 pm |

          I used public discourse to create a discussion about the Mets’ use of black, in the hopes that that discussion would have an effect on the team’s policy.

          If you want to use public discourse to create a discussion about the NCAA rule, in the hopes that the ensuing discussion will have an effect on NCAA policies, then yes, do so, by all means. But make it an *honest* discussion, not one where people are whining about “coercion” or about the erosion of a “free society.”

          My point is not “the NCAA: love it or leave it.” My point is that if you can’t abide by an organization’s rules, then you have several options. One is to leave the organization; another is to change the rules. But once you’ve lost the battle on the rules, you do NOT have the option to cry about “coercion.” At least not if you want to be taken seriously.

        • Paul Lukas | June 13, 2012 at 12:35 pm |

          Don’t have a football team? You mean “don’t have sports.”

          And what would be so terrible about that? I’ve still never heard a good argument for how sports play into a school’s educational mission.

          I’m not saying school sports *should* be abolished, but I don’t think it would be such a terrible thing if that happened.

        • Fighting Sioux Forever | June 13, 2012 at 12:45 pm |

          Typical liberal NYC-er argument. You don’t understand the first thing about college sports and never will, no matter who trys to convince you otherwise. As a former college athlete I want to say that I am ashamed that you represent yourself as a sports fan.

        • Tom V. | June 13, 2012 at 2:01 pm |

          “…I’ve still never heard a good argument for how sports play into a school’s educational mission…”

          Sports equals donations.

        • Tom V. | June 13, 2012 at 2:09 pm |

          @FSF: “…You don’t understand the first thing about college sports and never will…”

          (I know that comment was directed at Paul)…I was born and lived in the northeast for 30 years, 10 of those years in NYC and I never understood or cared about college sports. I never understood the campus mentality or the connection the school has to its locality, college sports or anything. In the northeast, it really for the most part is 2nd drummer if that.

          Then I moved down south where college sports outweigh most professional sports. The connection graduates have to their schools down here is incredibly superior to anything I’ve seen up north. It’s a completely different animal and I understand it when folks who grew up in New York City don’t get college sports. It’s something you dn’t understand if you’ve never experienced it.

        • Chance Michaels | June 13, 2012 at 3:26 pm |

          If you resort to complaining about why your opponents hold the positions they do, then you’ve really lost the argument….

        • ScottyM | June 13, 2012 at 5:25 pm |

          A couple of interesting points were raised in this thread:

          1. The NCAA controls major college sports, even if it is a ‘choice’ for institutions to participate.

          –I think that’s why in our lifetimes we’re going to see something like the B1G drop out of the NCAA, along with some of the other major conferences. It will soon come to pass the lack of value the NCAA provides.

          2. The true value of sports to institutions of higher education. I’ve always believed that at the core they enable kids of low wealth (or borderline academic preparation) to attend a school they would otherwise be unable to attend. It sort of democratizes college, for good and bad. Kids can achieve greater things because of this.

          3. Similar to that, sports serve as a way to “connect” alums. It’s an emotional bond.

          –This is an interesting point to ponder. However, Paul has admitted he’s not a college sports buff. I wonder if it’s hard to identify with some of the readers’ points here, because of this?

          (e.g., I find it hard to identify with anything Mets-centric here, because I give the team no mindshare and could care less about the organization. That said, I did have a sort of fascination with the old Shea because of it’s architecture.)

          We’d all do better to avoid the name-calling and personal attacks … on an original topic about civil rights and social justice, no less!

    • ScottyM | June 13, 2012 at 8:41 am |

      This is most certainly an interesting line:

      “Many American Indians lobbied for the name and logo to be kept, arguing that they reflected a positive image for their tribes.”

      In the end, the voters spoke at the polls. However, it’s very likely they voted to eliminate the nickname with a heavy heart. Many alums have a strong emotional tie to their almas, and this was the lesser of all evils. The issue had become a nightmare of negativity, dividing their fanbase, and was a no-win for those in favor of fighting to keep the name.

      It’s sad, really. There are many areas of the country named specifically for Indian tribes (Chowan, North Carolina, for example). They also eliminated their nickname, because, as a very small university, they didn’t have the legal $$ to fight the NCAA mandate. What’s really sad is that the college is nearby/on sacred Indian land, attracts many with Indian heritage and purposely does good works with local high schools (the worst in the state) to help low-income kids of Indian descent get into college.

      So, if ever there was an example of how the nickname “Braves” fit a school, this was it. They changed in ’06 to the Hawks. Nobody wins in these cases. To some the name is an affront to social justice. To others, including some of the so-called offended population, the name is a tribute to their heritage.

      Every situation is unique. I can’t help but think that perhaps names like Braves, Indians, Cherokee, Sioux, and so forth are different than Redskins, Fighting XYZ, etc.

      I’m only something like 1/10th Indian by descent, though, so what do I know?

      Certainly Cowboys, Yankees and Fighting Irish fans take note. You might be next!

      • jrg | June 13, 2012 at 12:20 pm |

        What about Indiana?

      • Chance Michaels | June 13, 2012 at 3:30 pm |

        Certainly Cowboys, Yankees and Fighting Irish fans take note. You might be next!


        This one is even easier than most native nickname discussions; it’s not about the nickname itself but about intellectual property.

        The NCAA requires a simple license for universities to use tribal names. North Dakota was unable to secure such a license from the two tribes who control the name, and therefore can’t use it in competition. Just as I can’t produce a play about Spider-Man without a licensing agreement from Marvel Comics.

        So, no. Fans in Dallas, New York and South Bend have absolutely nothing to worry about.

        • ScottyM | June 13, 2012 at 5:06 pm |

          Your comment is off point. You’re talking about the economic impact to the affected party rather than the social justice impact (which is what the NCAA mandate is all about. You can’t have it both ways. Either the nickname is offensive, or it’s not. It can’t be “offensive,” but economically feasible, so therefore it’s not offensive.

          (PS – I’m not a supporter by the way. I was just kidding about Cowboys, et al … Fighting Irish … well, there’s no excuse for THAT nickname in this day and age.)

    • Jeff | June 13, 2012 at 9:10 am |

      Curious – that article about the UND nick stated that the school attempted to get approval from the two Native American groups needed, but one failed to reply while the other gave it’s approval for use. Should the other group give a thumbs up would 1) the school go back to the nickname and 2) would the NCAA/the state allow it?

      • Rob S | June 13, 2012 at 10:29 am |

        If I recall, the NCAA has gone on record stating that if both tribes approved the nickname, then they’d lift the sanctions.

        The big problem here is that the council of the Standing Rock tribe won’t allow a vote within their tribe; they’ve basically set an autonomous mandate without any input regarding the will of their constituents.

        If they were to allow a vote in the tribe, and the people said no, then that would be that; the school would move on from the nickname, and while supporters would be disappointed, there’d be no room for argument. But as long as the possibility exists that the people of Standing Rock would vote to back the name, and the council won’t let that vote go through, then the “Sioux”-backers will remain royally pissed off.

        I think the people of South Dakota voted to uphold the repeal of the law that tried to force the school to keep the “Sioux” name because they realized it’d be incredibly wasteful for their state to continue throwing more money at this problem.

        Personally, I’d like to see a Standing Rock vote, just so that the matter would be settled once and for all. However, barring a massive turnover in their council, I’d be shocked to actually see it happen.

        • Rob S | June 13, 2012 at 10:30 am |

          *North* Dakota… *sigh*

      • Tom V. | June 13, 2012 at 10:44 am |

        Jeff, asking the tribe their thoughts is not in line with the “I think it’s wrong so everyone should think it’s wrong” mantra that this issue warrants. Since we’ve already decided it’s wrong the tribes get no say.

        But to reiterate what some others have said, I think for a place like North Dakota, losing the Sioux nickname at UND will be more out of sight out of mind. I think losing the name will do more hurt for the tribe and it’s image than if it remained. Other universities with tribal names don’t seem as connected to their tribes as one would equate UND with Sioux.

        And to say if you don’t like what the NCAA does than you have every right not to participate is one of the worst arguments ever. Don’t like what Obama is doing to the USA? MOVE TO FRANCE!

        • Paul Lukas | June 13, 2012 at 10:49 am |

          And to say if you don’t like what the NCAA does than you have every right not to participate is one of the worst arguments ever. Don’t like what Obama is doing to the USA? MOVE TO FRANCE!

          Extremely faulty analogy. Citizenship is not optional; it’s a civic imperative. Joining the NCAA, however, is completely optional.

      • ChrisH | June 13, 2012 at 12:28 pm |

        Thing is, both tribes did approve…back in 1969.


        “…a 1969 pipe ceremony held on the UND campus with a delegation from Standing Rock and at least one representative from Spirit Lake made the use of the name completely permissible even under NCAA rules. However, (US district judge) Erickson said that ‘[w]hile the court respects the sanctity and solemnity that tribal traditions richly deserve, the 1969 pipe ceremony has no legal significance on the facts as pled by the committee.'”

    • Fighting Sioux Forever | June 13, 2012 at 11:05 am |

      If anyone thinks that NCAA membership is truly “optional” they are an idiot plain and simple. Sure you don’t have to be in the NCAA, but who would play you? The NAIA is a joke and that would be UND’s only choice.

      The NCAA has a monopoly, especially in the media. When’s the last time you’ve heard ESPN mention the NAIA?

      UND had this forced upon them by the NCAA, an infringement on their right to free choice. Before you start going off on the Native Americans and their rights 1) they weren’t citizens and 2) we treated them a whole lot better than almost any conquered peoples in history. Ever see any Aztecs or Mayans in Mexico? How about Incans in Peru? Nope, the Spanish eradicated them. We gave a conquered people land and rights. I don’t feel one bit of shame for something committed by my ancestors 150 years ago. This is just “white guilt” trying to be pushed upon us by the liberals.

      Now, what is going on now in reservations is an entirely different subject and deplorable. I don’t think that merits empty gestures like forcing a team to rename. Getting rid of the name just pushes Native Americans further back into the depths of being unnoticed by the American public. If you want to protest something, protest the conditions on the reservation.

      I bet I could make a killing selling “I’m still calling them the Sioux” t-shirts, this won’t sit well with their fans. They voted to change the name because if they didn’t they would have been banned from postseason play by the NCAA and possibly expelled from their conference, they had no choice.

      • Paul Lukas | June 13, 2012 at 11:11 am |

        If anyone thinks that NCAA membership is truly “optional” they are an idiot plain and simple. Sure you don’t have to be in the NCAA, but who would play you? The NAIA is a joke and that would be UND’s only choice.

        In other words, you want all the benefits of NCAA membership (clout, legitimacy, authority, exposure, etc.) without any of the responsibilities of living up to its guidelines. This is essentially an entitlement mentality, and it’s pathetic.

        The rest of your comment doesn’t deserve a response.

        • Jon | June 13, 2012 at 11:31 am |

          Actually, I’m still calling them the Sioux tshirt would be nice. Otherwise, that previous comment reeks of hatred.

        • Fighting Sioux Forever | June 13, 2012 at 11:50 am |

          I come to this site to get uniform information, not swept up in your liberal causes. Have some professionalism and keep them separate.

          If anyone wants to develop an uniform site without the liberal bias, I’d be interested in helping with the start-up funding.

          Just the facts about uniform, no politics, no bs. I’d ditch this site in a heartbeat if someone would develop a website like that.

        • Paul Lukas | June 13, 2012 at 12:23 pm |

          You’re always free to ditch this site in a heartbeat whenever you want.

          As for why you “come to this site,” that is, frankly, not relevant. What’s relevant is why *I* come to this site. You’re free to come along for the ride or not, as you choose.

        • Fighting Sioux Forever | June 13, 2012 at 12:46 pm |

          You are truly the most arrogant, self-centered, over-entitled person I have ever encountered. You think you know best and everyone else is just an idiot. You are unwilling to even entertain other viewpoints.

          I would ditch this site if there was ANY viable alternative. I’d be willing to solely foot the bill for an unbiased alternative, with no return expected.

        • Paul Lukas | June 13, 2012 at 12:50 pm |

          If I was truly “unwilling to even entertain other viewpoints,” your comments wouldn’t be showing up here.

          You can engage in as much name-calling as you like. At the end of the day, though, you haven’t come up with a very good argument in support of your position.

      • Winter | June 13, 2012 at 11:12 am |

        On the other hand, fielding a sports team is optional, too. The University of Chicago does just fine without a football team.

        • Paul Lukas | June 13, 2012 at 11:14 am |


          Choices, people. It’s all about choices. Frankly, I’d have a lot more respect for the pro-“Sioux” people if they’d just say, “Fuck the NCAA — we’ll have a club football team and call it the Fighting Sioux.” I’d still disagree with the team name, but at least I’d be able to respect them for sticking up for their principles instead of whining about NCAA “coercion.”

        • Tom V. | June 13, 2012 at 11:32 am |

          Because club hockey would still bring in the millions of dollars that NCAA hockey does, club hockey will draw top prospects and such. You made it to the frozen four? No but I play club hockey for UND.

          And secondly, Fighting Sioux should have been grandfathered in, nothing like changing the rules halfway through the game.

          The bottom line is this, change your name or forfeit the millions of dollars every year that you’d make from playing in the NCAA, with rules made by the NCAA.

          Tell me, why did the voters vote to get rid of the name? Because they were so outraged and insulted by the name, or because they wouldn’t be able to play in the NCAA anymore? Hint: most people couldn’t see the problem with the name but could see the problem with not playing in the NCAA.

        • Fighting Sioux Forever | June 13, 2012 at 11:41 am |

          Nice try, but U of Chicago fields a football team and has since the 70s. They dropped it from the 40s-70s and came back at the D3 level.

        • Paul Lukas | June 13, 2012 at 11:43 am |

          The bottom line is this, change your name or forfeit the millions of dollars every year that you’d make from playing in the NCAA, with rules made by the NCAA.

          I see. So the whole point of college sports is to make millions of dollars every year. And anything that infringes on that is “coercion.”

        • Tom V. | June 13, 2012 at 12:02 pm |

          Paul, do you tune into TV every Saturday during the fall to watch a tape of an NYU math class? Tune in every March and fill out brackets to see which campus has the best history department?

          Stop playing dumb of course its about sports and money. As backward as that may be. Lose the NCAA lose money.

          Wait, I forget, why does the University of Central Michigan decide to play LSU for their first football game of the season? Cause it’ll be a blowout for FSU and a few hundred grand for UCM. Otherwise it makes zero sense.

        • Winter | June 13, 2012 at 12:15 pm |

          Didn’t know that about that return of U of C football. Doesn’t change my point. Having a sports teams is not necessary for a school. It’s an indulgence, and an option. Even at the D3 level.

        • Paul Lukas | June 13, 2012 at 12:18 pm |

          Paul, do you tune into TV every Saturday during the fall to watch a tape of an NYU math class?

          Actually, I usually go do something more interesting with my Saturdays than watch teevee.

          Either way, though, your comment just reeks of more entitlement. So everything should stay exactly the way it is so you can watch your precious football on Saturdays, right? Give me a break.

          If you like being affiliated with the NCAA, that’s fine — then play by their rules (incuding the rule about not having a Native-based name) and move on. Or if the rules bug you, then leave the NCAA. Or get the rules changed. But stop whining about coercion, and stop treating college sports like some giant entitlement program or birthright.

        • Tom V. | June 13, 2012 at 1:56 pm |

          “…University of Chicago does just fine without a football team…”

          That’s probably why I never heard of them.

        • Paul Lukas | June 13, 2012 at 2:21 pm |

          If you’ve never heard of the University of Chicago — one of the best universities in the fucking world — that says a lot more about you than it does about them.

        • Tom V. | June 13, 2012 at 2:47 pm |

          Not a big deal, none of the top academic schools have any top rated sports programs. (Closest top ranked schools with sports programs is Michigan and Duke). If University of Chicago had a football team it would be similar to the massive powerhouse Harvard football team. Different animal compared to whats being discussed here. I went to a top ranked academic school as well, our sports were non-existant.

        • Winter | June 13, 2012 at 3:31 pm |

          You can have an academically elite school and a highly rated sports program. Stanford, for example.

          It’s just not necessary to have one to have the other.

          I guess I’m just old fashioned. I prefer the “you play ball to go to school” mentality over the “you go to school to play ball” train of thought. But that’s another discussion.

        • Bit | June 13, 2012 at 4:12 pm |

          Very nice – I am still going to call them the Fighting Sioux as well!!

        • El Scotto | June 13, 2012 at 6:29 pm |

          Like Tom V., I live in NoDak and I’ll back him on every point (name calling excluded.)

          The voters here are begrudgingly getting rid of the nickname for one reason – Because it’s not worth the drama that the NCAA is bringing to the table.

          Normally, I’m on board with racial sensitivity, but we’re not talking about a mascot that reeks of racism, ala Chief Wahoo. We’re talking about a logo and moniker that, to me, is on the same level as the Chicago Blackhawks. (A team that is Uni-versally beloved, no less.)

          It’s a nickname that thousands of people around the state don on a daily basis and one that is delivered with pride, not malice. We are hundreds of miles from the nearest pro sports team. NDSU and UND are the top dogs, athletically. Thus, in this state, there is no greater honor than being a Sioux.

          What the NCAA is doing is blatant bullying with its agenda. It’s easy to argue about the Sioux backers “reeking of entitlement”, but imagine the backlash if the NHL mandated that the Blackhawks change their name. They wouldn’t have it. It’s the same idea, even if there is a difference between a private and public entity.

          I’m not a North Dakota native, nor will I remain here forever. But knowing what I know about this state, there’s no reason the nickname should be retired.

      • Tom V. | June 13, 2012 at 11:35 am |

        “…I don’t think that merits empty gestures like forcing a team to rename…”

        The uni-community wants nothing to do with empty gestures like pink socks and camo jerseys and renaming teams…ooops.

      • Phil P | June 13, 2012 at 11:37 am |

        So you say Native Americans have it better than other indigenous American peoples because we gave them land, and at the same time you say the conditions on reservations is deplorable, and yet you’re not connecting the dots that US treatment and, essentially, segregation of these people basically led to what today are reservations, with rampant poverty, alcoholism, etc?

        The fact of the matter is this nation marginalized these people and now certain people continue making money exploiting their names and heritage, while many Native Americans continue living in what you admit are terrible conditions.

        In my view, if universities really wanted to use tribal names and imagery, they should be willing to let anyone from those peoples attend their schools free of charge. That’s the only way I can see possibly justifying this type of team naming.

      • Phil Hecken | June 13, 2012 at 1:42 pm |

        “we treated them a whole lot better than almost any conquered peoples in history.”


        well then, there you go

  • teenchy | June 13, 2012 at 8:03 am |

    Braves announcer Chip spells his last name the same was his father Skip and grandfather Harry did, Caray.

    • teenchy | June 13, 2012 at 8:04 am |

      *the same way

    • Paul Lukas | June 13, 2012 at 8:05 am |

      Thanks — will fix.

      • David Murphy | June 14, 2012 at 10:18 pm |

        I was also at the Sullivan imposter/black socks game. As a lifetime Braves fan, I couldn’t remember a short dumpy player named Sullivan, either. There were many players in attendance who barely had a cup of coffee in the majors, but I remembered most all of them.

        Nothing too uni-notable about the “alumni game” which no one referred to as an old-timers game. Phil Niekro was one lone player wearing baseball pants (and stirrups). The 92 Braves were being honored, so they wore white tomahawk jerseys. The others wore red (to contrast, I suppose). Since there were more non-92 Braves, a few non-92 Braves played for the 92 team. Interestingly, they were outfitted in the white jerseys with proper NOB.

  • Connie | June 13, 2012 at 8:11 am |

    Oh, that shot of Dock Ellis! The great Dock Ellis.

  • Rappaport | June 13, 2012 at 8:14 am |

    Couple of things. It always seemed to me that the circle ‘R’ was a cool quirk that was totally unique to the Cubs. Never looked at it as a fly in the ointment.

    Second, this site has gone on a bit of a futile quest to promote bringing an end to Native American team names in recent months. I would be curious to know how you all feel about municipalities who take their names from Indian tribes. Or states. Like Massachusetts.

    • Paul Lukas | June 13, 2012 at 8:17 am |

      But the Cubs have so many other cook quirks that are so much better than this one:

      “Futile quest”: Yes, it was very futile yesterday in North Dakota, wasn’t it?

      As for place names, you missed your chance to make a bigger point: “Dakota” itself is a Native American tribe name. Oh, the irony!

      I agree that place names are tricky, but at least they’re not just brand names used to sell stuff, which is what team names are. In any case, it’s pretty much a red herring — whatever one’s feelings about Native American place names, that doesn’t change the fundamental question we address here at Uni Watch, which is whether it’s appropriate to use Native American team names. My answer to that question is no. I won’t go through all the reasons why, since I’ve already articulated them here:

      • Rappaport | June 13, 2012 at 8:36 am |

        I was just curious on your thoughts on the topic, that’s all. I’ve read your thoughts on the team names many times over and can’t say I agree with it 100 percent, but I wasn’t sure how it translated in to place names etc…

        I grew up in an area where the Native American history was always glorified. “Oh this is Wahconah Falls where the legend has it…” and so on. It was always something that kind of bothered me considering how the land was probably acquired from these tribes.

      • quiet seattle | June 13, 2012 at 9:34 am |

        “But the Cubs have so many other cook quirks that are so much better than this one:
        http://sports.espn.g… .”

        Oh, man, I don’t remember that article. That’s great! It’s the baseball equivalent of the Cowboys piece you did.

      • Jim Vilk | June 13, 2012 at 11:58 am |

        But the Cubs have so many other cook quirks that are so much better

        Like that NL sleeve patch. Wish more teams did that…well, more NL teams, obviously.

        • Jim Vilk | June 13, 2012 at 12:17 pm |

          They have many other cool quirks, too…

  • Dumb Guy | June 13, 2012 at 8:16 am |

    The FIRST thing I noticed was the missing circle-r. YAY!!

    I HATE that damn thing on ANY logo.

    But I noticed it immediately cuz I’m a Cubs fan.

  • Connie | June 13, 2012 at 8:22 am |

    “… Lots of great old uni photos, graphics, artifacts, and other goodies in Dave Eskenazi’s latest article about Pacific Northwest baseball history …”

    Terrific stuff. Second only to the great Dock Ellis (see above).

    Particularly interesting was the stuff about Dutch Reuther. What a life!

    [Footnote: We’ve passed out of the era, but for more than a hundred years Americans with German surnames were called “Dutch,” the roots of which lie in the early 19th Century (+/-) Americanization of “deutsch.” Hence the Pennsylvania Dutch and the “Dutchies” of the Union Army, regiments of German speakers who were often regarded by their Anglo-Saxon and Irish brethren as prone to unauthorized withdrawals.]

  • Oakville Endive | June 13, 2012 at 8:24 am |

    Re: the possibility of the Miami Dolphins changing their uniforms for 2013.

    I suspect it’s yet another team about to enter into the uniform wilderness years, aka the Toronto Blue Jays, Detroit Pistons, New York Mets, Buffalo Bills.

    I suspect, unless marked by early team resurgence (i.e a Super Bowl appearance), it will be a 6 – 8 year foray into this dark space, leaving Dolphins fans desparately yearning for the early 70’s glory year look.

  • Simply Moono | June 13, 2012 at 8:36 am |

    “Kudos to the voters of North Dakota, who voted yesterday to retire UND’s Fighting Sioux nickname. Slowly but surely, people.”

    >INB4 “Duhhhh. get that Indian P.C. shit out of here! Uhhhhhhh!”

    >INB4 “OP can’t INB4!”

    I like the decision. The people voted on what they wanted (as they should), and decided the fate of the nickname for themselves. If you didn’t vote, then you can’t complain. Simple as that.

    • Paul Lukas | June 13, 2012 at 8:44 am |

      If you didn’t vote, then you can’t complain. Simple as that.

      This is one of those truism-sounding soundbites that get drummed into the minds of 12-year-olds (much like “A writer who uses profanity is lazy”) but aren’t really true.

      There’s a whole school of thought that says once you’ve voted, THEN you can’t complain, because you already had your say. And there are plenty of thoughtful political outsiders who specifically CHOOSE not to vote — not because of apathy or laziness, but as a statement of how they feel about the system. They believe their outsider status gives them MORE moral and intellectual authority to comment on public affairs.

      I’m not saying I completely agree with this point of view. Personally, I always vote. But simply saying, “If you don’t vote, you can’t complain” is a gross oversimplification of how political agency is exercised. It’s a handy way to encourage 12-year-old to be civically engaged, but we should all start thinking about things in a more nuanced way when we get older.

      • Simply Moono | June 13, 2012 at 9:02 am |

        That’s fair. I’ve always stood my ground on getting involved if you want change, but I can see where what I said is kinda fucked up. I completely forgot about the difference between those who don’t vote out of pure apathy (apathy being one of my major pet peeves), and those who don’t vote because of how they feel about the system.

      • Phil Hecken | June 13, 2012 at 7:26 pm |

        “A writer who uses profanity is lazy”


        that’s bullshit

        /i got nothin else

    • ChrisH | June 13, 2012 at 10:38 am |

      I’m OK with ND putting this to a vote and the result though it may seem trivial when compared to things like property tax issues and potential congressional representation. Even though the Spirit Lake Sioux were vocal supporters of retaining the Fighting Sioux representations (they viewed them as a honorable and respectful…the Standing Rock Sioux’s viewpoint was not voiced?), their voices(and coffers?) were not great enough to counter the vast number of North Dakotans'(non-Native decent?) views and ability to determine what’s acceptable and appropriate. Elections have outcomes.
      One of the problems I have is that while voters were given the option to vote yes or no on NDU’s use of Fighting Sioux, there was no choice as to what the new nickname would be or what the logo/mascot.wordmark, etc…would look like. Even the polls taken on Uni-Watch to rebrand the Indians and Redskins gave individuals a look at the alternatives!

      • Arr Scott | June 13, 2012 at 12:12 pm |

        See, this is why as a person of conservative temperament, I would have voted with the majority. The state legislature has no business dictating the name of varsity sports teams. Even if I supported the Fighting Sioux nickname, I’d have voted to overturn the legislature’s diktat. “Limited government” if it means anything means that decisions like a school’s athletic nickname are to be made by the school, not by meddling state legislators and not by the people via referendum.

  • Chris | June 13, 2012 at 8:39 am |

    I like how Paul selectively ignores the fact “Many American Indians lobbied for the name and logo to be kept, arguing that they reflected a positive image for their tribes”…kind of goes against everything he’s been saying…

    and that according to the same article that one tribe passed its vote approving the use and the other simply has not voted…

    Once again, Uni-Watch pushing for its own agenda…making a non-issue an issue…

    • Paul Lukas | June 13, 2012 at 8:50 am |

      “Many American Indians lobbied for the name and logo to be kept, arguing that they reflected a positive image for their tribes”…

      We both know it’s more nuanced than that — i.e., that there were plenty of Native American voice on BOTH sides of the issue.

      Once again, Uni-Watch pushing for its own agenda…

      I’m sorry, whose agenda was I supposed to be pushing — yours? I think that’s your job, on your own web site. Here, yes, I push my agenda, because it’s my web site. See how that works?

      making a non-issue an issue…

      Yup, the state of North Dakota voted on a non-issue yesterday. I sure put one over on them, huh? Me and my agenda, taking over state balloting!

  • ScottyM | June 13, 2012 at 8:43 am |

    I was thinking the DeJesus uniform quirk was the all-white “pit stain patch” in the underarm area minus the pinstripes.

    • Paul Lukas | June 13, 2012 at 8:46 am |

      That’s just the Cool Base ventilation panel — standard on every Cool Base jersey (unfortunately).

  • John In Athens | June 13, 2012 at 8:54 am |

    Pardon if this has been posted before, but check out this “Dodgers Announcer” sweater vest worn by Tex Rickards in 1955:


  • -Vince | June 13, 2012 at 8:57 am |

    Just because embroidery is all digital doesn’t mean that the (R) is missing from the digital file. If the thread breaks during the sew-out, the machines usually stop. If the break went undetected, the machine will continue the action of sewing without any thread. Another option is that the machine missed the automated color change.

    • Paul Lukas | June 13, 2012 at 9:00 am |

      Ah, interesting — thanks for that info!

  • Terry Proctor | June 13, 2012 at 9:10 am |

    Pretty wierd story about ex-Braves and Blue Jays coach John Sullivan. I know Sully. He used to help out the Dansville, NY high school baseball team by working with their pitchers and catchers. I also used to see him at volleyball games that his granddaughter played in.

    He and a bunch of his buddies from Dansville would play an early morning round of golf and thena have breakfast at a restaurant that I hung out at near Conesus Lake. Just a super guy and one who is pretty spry for his age despite a recent knee replacement.

  • Danya | June 13, 2012 at 9:13 am |

    I just tweeted at Stomper to ask about the black shoes deal. I really need to know about this. I hope he responds. How does he even tweet, I wonder if he has a specially modified console allowing him to type with his trunk?

  • Shawn S. | June 13, 2012 at 9:29 am |

    maybe its just time to drop all team names and have the name of the city/state, the sport, and add club to the end. to further avoid offending anyone at all, no team colors. White for home and gray for road. nice sterile society.

    • Paul Lukas | June 13, 2012 at 9:36 am |

      Yes, let’s reduce all intellectual arguments to a five-year-old’s level, because that’s easier than actually engaging with the ideas at hand.

    • Danya | June 13, 2012 at 9:38 am |

      What a ridiculous straw man. Teams named after indigenous people are the only names which have been questioned and replaced because of political sensitivity, along with names about gun violence (Colt .45s and Bullets). These are very specific issues, don’t act like there is some epidemic of overzealous political correctness affecting everything else too.

      • Faronicus | June 13, 2012 at 10:54 am |

        Funny how the two schools with interlocking “ND”s – North Dakota and Notre Dame – are also both “Fighting” ethnic-named teams. However, the “Fighting Sioux” is deemed offensive while the “Fighting Irish” is not. Discuss.

        • Paul Lukas | June 13, 2012 at 10:59 am |

          We’ve already discussed it a jillion times. The Irish didn’t have a continent stolen from them by a genocidal campaign of ethnic cleansing, and they weren’t then herded into glorified concentration camps. So the analogy you’re trying to make sort of falls flat at that point.

        • ChrisH | June 13, 2012 at 11:39 am |

          Selective outrage?

        • rhdii | June 13, 2012 at 12:06 pm |

          I usually agree with you Paul and absolutely think Chief Wahoo and the Redskins names should be retired. But on this I think you’re wrong. Irish were severely discriminated against in the early part of the 20th century and even the “Fighting” portion of Notre Dame’s nickname feeds into the stereotype of Irish men being drunken, brawling louts.

          I don’t think it’s a reach at all to conclude, if “Fighting Sioux” is wrong, “Fighting Irish” is too. If it’s not, then would that mean North Dakota could change their name to the “Fighting Canadians” or maybe the “Fighting Mexicans” and that would be OK?

        • Arr Scott | June 13, 2012 at 12:27 pm |

          rhdii, as a proud American son of Erin, a couple of points. First off, the whole “No Irish Need Apply” thing is a myth. Irish immigrants faced typically less discrimination in America than other non-English immigrant groups. Germans, Italians, Slavic peoples, and Asians all had it much worse across roughly the same span of time. And first-generation Irish-Americans were assimilated pretty much from the get-go, skipping a generation compared to most immigrant communities. Where the Irish faced systematic discrimination in America was as Catholics, back in an era when anti-Catholic bigotry was not only accepted but the chief organizing principle of a major political party.

          And even then, the brief period of discrimination Irish people suffered (by dint of being immigrants and Catholics, not by dint of being Irish) bears no resemblance to the oppression faced by American Indians in the same period. Note that Indians didn’t effectively take control of America’s great city governments and the national Democratic Party as the Irish did at precisely the same time that we Irish-Americans like to pretend that our ancestors were being oppressed. And note that Irish-Americans were not stripped of their property, their stolen land turned over to non-Irish squatters, and themselves bodily herded into dismal, isolated concentration camps, as American Indians were in the same decades.

          Second, to the extent that the Irish have grounds to complain about the exploitation of their culture by historical oppressors, it’s the English, not Americans, to whom that objection would apply. The day an Oxford college rowing or cricket team calls itself the Fighting Irish, I’ll get in line to complain.

          As the cases are not alike, so then the outcomes need not be alike.

        • Paul Lukas | June 13, 2012 at 12:27 pm |

          I don’t want to set up a set of dueling stereotypes. But if you honestly want to compare the plight of the Irish *in this country* with the plight of the Indians, I think you’re gonna lose that argument.

        • The Jeff | June 13, 2012 at 2:00 pm |

          Why should “in this country” matter? So, don’t name a team after something that references a dark era in *our* history, but it’s ok to reference dark times in some other country’s past?

          The Washington Redskins are bad, but apparently the Tokyo Redskins would be fine.

        • Paul Lukas | June 13, 2012 at 2:11 pm |

          Jesus fuck, Jeff, stop being so daft — you’re supposed to be smarter than this. Just read Scott’s comment and move on.

        • rhdii | June 13, 2012 at 2:24 pm |

          I wasn’t suggesting the plight of the Irish and Indians were the same. I was suggesting if the issue is offensive or derogatory nicknames, there are more than just Indian ones to consider. If I’m reading this correctly, the issue isn’t offensive or derogatory–it’s also tied to some level of oppression (meaning the Irish didn’t suffer a signficant amount of it to qualify). That would explain why Fighting Irish is OK but Fighting Sioux isn’t. It also explains why San Diego State gets to keep using Aztecs.

          Not sure why FSU gets to keep using Seminoles in that case, although I’d be remiss if I didn’t note they are on TV each week whereas North Dakota is not (which is my way of saying the NCAA isn’t protecting anything but their bottom line).

        • DJ | June 13, 2012 at 2:39 pm |

          Not sure why FSU gets to keep using Seminoles in that case

          Because FSU has the permission of the Seminole nation to do so. At this point, UND has the permission of only one of the two relevant nations. They all have to agree in order to allow UND to use “Fighting Sioux” as a nickname.

        • ScottyM | June 13, 2012 at 5:32 pm |

          Meh, I don’t buy the “Fighting Irish is not offensive” argument. It has nothing to do with a comparison to the plight of Indians in this country. No comparison necessary.

          Gladly get rid of all the Indian names … does that leave “Fighting Irish” less offensive?

          Once the elimination of offensive Indian names is complete … will all the other offensive names be eliminated?

          Long live the Indianapolis Clowns!

      • rhdii | June 13, 2012 at 3:14 pm |

        …FSU has the permission of the Seminole nation to do so. At this point, UND has the permission of only one of the two relevant nations. They all have to agree in order to allow UND to use “Fighting Sioux” as a nickname.

        I’m going to go back to uniforms. This is making my hair hurt.

        • Chance Michaels | June 13, 2012 at 3:41 pm |

          Seems pretty simple to me – in this case, it’s about intellectual property.

          The Seminole tribe agreed to license their name to Florida State, but North Dakota couldn’t get such a license from both Sioux tribes. So they can’t use it.

        • ChrisH | June 13, 2012 at 5:09 pm |

          It is my understanding that both Sioux factions did give NDU their blessing in 1969.
          It’s the NCAA who challenged that agreement and a district court judge who determined that the tribe had no legal standing to argue for the continued use of the Fighting Sioux branding.

  • Al Gruwell | June 13, 2012 at 9:37 am |

    All A’s minor leaguers required to wear white shoes, though they can wear white with red or blue accents if their club has those colors in their uniforms. That is, since Stockton is mostly red, they wear those. A quick check of Burlington shows most everyone has white with green, though the Bees colors are blue and gold. Also, have the Cubs gone away from the embroidered batting helmet decal?

    • Paul Lukas | June 13, 2012 at 9:38 am |

      have the Cubs gone away from the embroidered batting helmet decal?

      Nope — you can even see it in the photo at the top of today’s blog entry.

    • Boxcarvibe | June 13, 2012 at 10:51 am |

      Also, pretty sure all Phillies affiliates wear red cleats with their uniforms.

  • Boonie | June 13, 2012 at 9:38 am |

    Although growing up a Dolphins fan in the 70’s and usually a traditionalist, I could live with this:


    or even some tweaked version of this:


  • Kyle Allebach | June 13, 2012 at 9:59 am |

    I wonder how much fun it’s going to be to remove the 1,000+ Fighting Sioux logos stashed away in Ralph Engelstad Arena.

    Thank God, because that logo is butt ugly. Out of all the Native American logos, that one is the second-worst.

    • Teebz | June 13, 2012 at 11:08 am |

      They don’t have to remove them, Kyle. The agreement that UND signed with Englestad Arena stated explicitly that if UND changed its name, the agreement to allow UND hockey to play rent-free ends and the team would not be welcome in the arena. Ralph Englestad was fiercely proud of the school’s heritage and name.

      So UND hockey will have to find a new home if Englestad Arena wants to follow through on its terms of the agreement. And the logos can stay.

      • Phil Hecken | June 13, 2012 at 9:14 pm |

        boo fuckin hoo

        • Teebz | June 13, 2012 at 11:21 pm |

          Seriously? That’s the best response you have to a factual statement about a hockey program that was literally gifted a state-of-the-art arena?

          C’mon, Phil. You’re better than that statement. Way better. At least make an argument as to why walking away from Englestad Arena is good for the UND hockey program.

        • Phil Hecken | June 13, 2012 at 11:36 pm |

          you’re right teebz, i am better than that

          something…something…something about “entitlement” that paul talked about above should cover that

          hamilton hockey (granted, clearly not the powerhouse that is UND) has played in the same rickety old barn for damn near a century…two of our biggest benefactors gave a dorm in which i lived (carnegie, named for andrew) and burke (whose grandson was in my fraternity) gave a library

          shocking how they didn’t impose any “conditions” on the living or use of either — lets just say either had said, “well, you can have the library, but you can’t let any black kids use it”

          well, i guess we couldn’t look a gift horse in the mouth, right? of course not, no decent person would stand for that type of shit

          let UND either build another facility or use/convert another building

          if t. boone pickens said, “im gonna build a new football stadium for OSU, but i don’t want any jews in there” you wouldn’t and couldn’t deny him that right, but i bet you wouldn’t stand for it either

          extreme examples? sure, but the points are still valid

          if englestad is going to build something and place his conditions on it, that’s absolutely his right

          but it’s NOT the right of any student/athlete to play hockey in a “state of the art” arena

          the sad thing is — it’s the kids who lose, not englestad…and that sucks

          but either englestad comes around to NCAA rules or he sticks by his own misguided principles

          walking away from the englestad arena just may be the BEST thing for the UND hockey program — only time will tell

        • Teebz | June 14, 2012 at 12:06 am |

          Why is UND entitled to anything? They accepted the terms at the time the arena was built, the NCAA imposed its sanctions, they are following the rules. Who said anything about entitlement?

          I fail to see how UND is entitled when they aren’t complaining about possibly having no home arena next season. They didn’t demand it be built with thousands of logos. They didn’t tell Englestad to build it for them. They simply took what was GIFTED to them based on the condition of the gift.

          How is that even remotely close to entitlement?

    • ChrisH | June 13, 2012 at 11:18 am |

      UND’s “ugly” logo was designed by Bennett Brien, a UND graduate of Ojibwa(aka Native American)ethnicity.

      • stlmarty | June 13, 2012 at 12:28 pm |

        I wonder how many Ojibwa were named Bennett 200 years ago.

    • DJ | June 13, 2012 at 12:03 pm |

      “Butt ugly”? Hardly.

    • Lee | June 13, 2012 at 12:30 pm |

      I actually like the logo very much.


      • Ben Fortney | June 13, 2012 at 1:17 pm |

        I think it kind of has a manga/Japanimation look to it.

        • DJ | June 13, 2012 at 2:41 pm |

          Not quite manga. More like a contemporary American superhero.

    • Paul Lukas | June 13, 2012 at 11:03 am |

      I don’t care for them. But they’re not particularly relevant to this discussion.

      Trying to set little “Oh yeah, well what about THIS?” traps, presumably as some alleged measure of intellectual consistency, is a pointless exercise that only distracts from the question at hand, which is this: Is it appropriate for sports teams to have Native American-based names? I think the answer is no; you may differ. Either way, that’s the question. All the other stuff is just noise.

      • Kek | June 13, 2012 at 11:31 am |

        I don’t know, products that contain salt, sugar and tobacco might be a more pressing issue than sports team nicknames.

        Also, the imagery is the imagery and in the case of Red Man, the name is the name.

        Why is this fight relegated to JUST sports? I don’t see the consistency in fighting against the Washington Redskins and using a blog to run a rename/redesign contest, yet look the other way on a product like RED MAN! This is the very nickname that St. Johns had to stop using because it was deemed insensitive.

        This would be like in the days of segregation saying “well, I think blacks should be able to play baseball with whites but I still think they should have their own restaurants, bathrooms, water fountains….”

        …oh, never mind

        • Paul Lukas | June 13, 2012 at 11:40 am |

          Why is this fight relegated to JUST sports?

          Answering only for this site:

          1) This site is about sports, so that’s the context in which we discuss the issue.

          2) As we’ve discussed here many times, sports teams aren’t just business entities — they’re also civic entities. So I think (although others may disagree) that a sports team has a higher responsibility to do the right thing from a civic perspective than, say, a maker of pouch tobacco.

          Personally, though, yeah, I’d like to see all those products use different names and imagery.

        • Kek | June 13, 2012 at 11:48 am |

          1) This site is about sports, so that’s the context in which we discuss the issue.

          I WILL remember this the next time you make a political or some other off-topic comment and readers get mad and you and/or those that agree with you come back with the start-your-own-blog-if-you-wanna-just-talk-uniforms line of debate!!!!

        • Paul Lukas | June 13, 2012 at 11:54 am |


          But you know what I mean, Dougie — it’s like asking why I’m not curing cancer. Like, I’d love to, but one thing at a time.

    • LarryB | June 13, 2012 at 5:31 pm |

      I posted Cherikee Red pop the other day. We get it in NE Ohio

  • The Jeff | June 13, 2012 at 10:14 am |

    A blanket ban of all Native American imagery is not the correct answer. The Native people have plenty of real problems that deserve attention, and removing their images from sports only pushes them even further outside of the public eye. Ever hear the phrase “out of sight, out of mind”?

    Teams that use Native names and imagery should be made to help the people, not legislated out of existence because they’re “insensitive”.

    • Paul Lukas | June 13, 2012 at 10:28 am |

      Yes, team names like the Indians and the Fighting Sioux do so much to highlight all the social ills that afflict the Native American community. Why, just yesterday I bought Chief Wahoo cap and thought to myself, “I’d never really thought about the high rates of alcoholism on Indian reservations until just now.” Good thing I bought that cap — there are literally no other ways to draw attention to such issues.

      Please. By this “logic,” our teams should be named the Poor, the Battered Women, and the Unemployed (all of which would be controversial on this site because they don’t end in “s”).

      • Rob S | June 13, 2012 at 10:37 am |

        Not to mention naming teams after types of cancer.

      • The Jeff | June 13, 2012 at 11:21 am |

        Are there other ways? Of course. Do they work? It doesn’t seem like it, does it? Yeah, fine, no one buys a Chief Wahoo cap *now* and thinks about those problems – but surely the teams could work towards changing that. Buy a ticket – the team donates a percentage of that income. You get to your seat at an Indians game and there’s a booklet drawing attention to the aforementioned alcohol issues and other problems and information on how to help in various ways.

        But I guess it’s just too much to ask for those teams to use their controversial status to do some good, so screw it, just ban them all instead.

        • Arr Scott | June 13, 2012 at 12:33 pm |

          But The, this isn’t a theoretical discussion. UND and the Indians and whatnot have already had more than a century to demonstrate an interest in doing as you propose. With rare exceptions – Florida State, for example – they have demonstrated quite clearly that they have no interest in doing as you propose. Which is to say, we’ve already tried it your way, and the teams in question have failed. The experiment having been tried and failed, then yes, “Screw it, just change your name already” becomes a perfectly sensible response.

    • Faronicus | June 13, 2012 at 11:00 am |

      Bring back the Atlanta Crackers, so us white people are reminded of good ol’ Dixie racism!

      • Tony C. | June 14, 2012 at 10:15 am |

        The term “cracker” was in use during the Elizabethan era to describe braggarts. The original root of this is the Middle English word crack meaning “entertaining conversation” (One may be said to “crack” a joke); this term and the Gaelicized spelling “craic” are still in use in Northern England, Ireland and Scotland. It is documented in William Shakespeare’s King John (1595): “What cracker is this … that deafes our ears / With this abundance of superfluous breath?”
        By the 1760s the English, both at home and in the American colonies, applied the term “cracker” to Scots-Irish and English American settlers of the remote southern back country, as noted in a passage from a letter to the Earl of Dartmouth: “I should explain to your Lordship what is meant by Crackers; a name they have got from being great boasters; they are a lawless set of rascalls on the frontiers of Virginia, Maryland, the Carolinas, and Georgia, who often change their places of abode.” The word was later associated with the cowboys of Georgia and Florida, many of them descendants of those early frontiersmen.
        The term “cracker” in Florida usage relates to the whip that cowboys used to “crack” cattle out of the swamps and scrub.


        not really a racist term if you know the origin of it.

  • Ryan | June 13, 2012 at 10:17 am |

    “(Wil Myers is) one of the top prospects in baseball and should be in KC later this month or in July.”

    … then traded to the Yankees or Red Sox in the next couple of years…

    • DJ | June 13, 2012 at 10:41 am |

      Trade? They’ll just wait until he becomes a free agent, then buy him.

  • Rob H | June 13, 2012 at 10:29 am |

    This doesn’t apply to colleges and the current discussion about UND Fighting Sioux, but for pro teams, if they do decide to eventually get rid of a nickname like the Redskins, if they just do a name change but keep the same colors or slightly tweak them, isn’t always going to remind people of the Redskins name?

    I think you’d have to contract the team and disperse the players and start a new expansion team with a whole new organization and team history, etc. Otherwise people are always going to think of the team as “the team that used to be the Redskins” and hence continue to offend. At least if they are the “team that replaced the Redskins” then they aren’t “them” but somebody else.

    • Rob S | June 13, 2012 at 10:44 am |

      So you’re suggesting penalizing a franchise that wants a name change by blowing it up and forcing them to start over from scratch? That’s just way too much. That would piss fans off far more than just changing their team’s name.

      Franchises have changed names in the past; it’s just been extremely rare in the last 50 years to see a name change that didn’t include a relocation in the process. And people are going to refer to the old nickname as long as it’s in recent memory, and it’ll remain a part of the team’s history, but barring the replacement being completely unpopular, the old name will get used less and less over time.

      • Rob H | June 13, 2012 at 2:19 pm |

        I’m not saying that they have too, if they just want to do a name change, fine. I’m not even saying they have to change the name, I’m just saying if they only change the name but keep the same, or slightly modified, colors and what-not it could still remind people of the offensive nickname.

        It depends how much the name offends them. If the name was the “n*gg**s” or the “Nazis” complete with swastikas and stuff, you can bet they’d totally blow up the whole franchise. (I use hyperbole there, obviously no name as offensive as those would would be a team nickname for 70+ years and then all of a suddenly magically be too offensive to exist.) But if they were the Nazis you wouldn’t just slap a cardinal logo over the Swastika and merely change the name, but keep the organization intact.

        So are we so horribly offended by the concept of using Native American imagery as a team nickname that the very organization that would employ it’s use as such shouldn’t even exist anymore, or are we just kinda sorta mildly offended by it enough to the point where, “well, as long as you change the name, you’re still okay in our book”

        I don’t know, maybe there is a gray are there, but to me is seems like something is either offensive or not.

        • Phil Hecken | June 13, 2012 at 4:57 pm |

          “something is either offensive or not”


          right, so if it doesn’t offend you, then it’s not offensive

          no gray area there

    • DJ | June 13, 2012 at 10:46 am |

      Please. Time is the best disinfectant. Within a generation, the old name would be a distant memory; your kids would say “they used to be called what? No way!”

      • J.M. | June 13, 2012 at 7:25 pm |

        Agreed. For example, I don’t think of the Washington Wizards as the Bullets, because I was five years old when the name change happened. To me, they’ve always been the Wizards. So yeah, evocations of the “Redskins” namesake would certainly start to fade away after the name change, because eventually you’ll have a whole generation who never knew them as the Redskins.

  • Eric | June 13, 2012 at 10:39 am |

    A misspelling on a jersey from Washington??! I find that hard to believe. :P

  • Rob S | June 13, 2012 at 10:59 am |

    Wow, Dock, those were really high pants, dude!

  • Rob S | June 13, 2012 at 11:09 am |

    Something else… I realized last night that those of us who are rooting to see the Miami Heat fail are now pulling for the team with the worst logo in the NBA. Oh, and ESPN/ABC’s 3D render only makes that turd look even worse.

    • Kek | June 13, 2012 at 11:24 am |

      My brother and I commented on this while watching the game last night… however, how do you really visualize “thunder”???

        • Kek | June 13, 2012 at 11:39 am |

          what? the cloud? you’re still accentuating a lightning bolt…that’s a little abstract of a concept no? So, your name is “thunder”? here’s your logo, it’s of something that’s associated with thunder.

          It is an interesting discussion point. A nickname based on sound and not something musical like Jazz that can be denoted with musical imagery.

          I quipped would it be a big sandaled foot to represent God stomping on a cloud, causing said thunder, in Monty Python style?

        • The Jeff | June 13, 2012 at 11:48 am |

          I don’t know, that was just the first thing that came to mind. The NFL-Europe Thunder used what was supposed to be Thor’s Hammer, Thor being god of thunder and all that.

          It is a tough name to come up with a good logo for.

        • Jim Vilk | June 13, 2012 at 12:12 pm |

          Put some shock waves emanating from the lightning bolt and that’s sort of visualizing thunder.

        • Rob S | June 13, 2012 at 12:27 pm |

          That cloud looks even more clip-artish.

          It is a tough name to visualize, to be sure. Though if they went with something like O’Brien’s bison concept (the team does have a bison mascot, after all), it’d be an improvement.

      • ChrisH | June 13, 2012 at 1:53 pm |

        Rankin and Bass did a decent job, although thay had to rely on the German translation:


      • stlmarty | June 13, 2012 at 2:36 pm |

        It doesn’t matter. Just be damn sure that there is a basketball.

      • pflava | June 13, 2012 at 3:19 pm |

        “how do you really visualize “thunder”???

        First off, avoid team names better suited to 9 year old girls soccer.

        But really, just because Thunder is the (shitty) nickname doesn’t mean that’s the part they should emphasize. Why not focus on the OKC part instead? No need for everything to be literal.

      • Winter | June 13, 2012 at 8:13 pm |

        I remember seeing a proposed logo that had stampeding bison on it…

      • walter | June 13, 2012 at 10:13 pm |

        My idea was to paint a block-letter “T” on a sheet of glass, and then to fracture the glass.

    • Attila Szendrodi | June 14, 2012 at 3:12 am |
  • Chris R | June 13, 2012 at 11:15 am |
  • Mike Engle | June 13, 2012 at 11:16 am |

    Courtesy of Andy Gray, @si_vault
    When did the last zippered shorts disappear from the NBA?

    • Paul Lukas | June 13, 2012 at 11:26 am |

      Wow. If you had asked me, I would’ve said no way were zippered shorts still be used in 1976…

  • pushbutton | June 13, 2012 at 11:32 am |

    I like the ‘windswept H’ Astros cap. Real space-age and sputnik-y.

    • Ryan M. | June 13, 2012 at 12:19 pm |

      When I saw that, I wanted to call it the “shooting H.” I really like it paired with the shooting star jerseys.

    • Arr Scott | June 13, 2012 at 12:35 pm |

      Agreed! I hope that design was in the mix informing the team’s rebranding for 2013.

  • JimWa | June 13, 2012 at 11:42 am |

    The following album cover just popped up on my phone for Pandora Radio. It caught my eye, because didn’t know what the old-new Detroit Pistons logo had to do with the Steve Miller band:


  • rhdii | June 13, 2012 at 11:54 am |

    Great, black and gray added to Arkansas. And a white helmet, which wouldn’t look too bad if the hog on it were red with white trim instead of the other way around. And there’s way too much extra color…on the sleeves, the pants. All the way around–blech.

    • Chris Holder | June 13, 2012 at 12:20 pm |

      From the smallish pictures I’ve seen on my phone (via Twitter), I actually thought they looked better than expected. Not necessarily “good” – just better than I expected them to be. Well, except for the color-fading numerals. That’s stupid in any application.

  • Carlos M | June 13, 2012 at 12:11 pm |

    Madison Bumgarner is another one batting glove guy, he hit his 1st M.L. career HR last night with only one batting glove on.

  • JTH | June 13, 2012 at 12:34 pm |

    Please. By this “logic,” our teams should be named the Poor, the Battered Women, and the Unemployed (all of which would be controversial on this site because they don’t end in “s”).

    This is the funniest comment I’ve read here in a long time.

  • -DW | June 13, 2012 at 12:46 pm |

    Justin Tuck’s facemask is hideous.

    Just another example of the “look-at-me” generation of football players pushing things “just that much further”.

    I am surprised that he doesn’t have an eye problem, that it seems that scores of NFL players have now, to wear a shield also.

    • The Jeff | June 13, 2012 at 1:02 pm |

      With a facemask like that, he might as well just wear a motorcycle helmet. Actually, I sorta wonder how well those compare on a safety level.

      • -DW | June 13, 2012 at 2:26 pm |


        But I am surprised that some professional athletes and their “look-at-me-at-all costs!” attitudes, that they don’t take the facemasks OFF the helmets so they can get more media exposure.

    • stlmarty | June 13, 2012 at 2:39 pm |

      it’s no more hideous than the helmet model in which it is attached.
      Paul was spot on with his original comparison to Optimus Prime.

  • Fighting Sioux Forever | June 13, 2012 at 12:48 pm |

    I posted this higher up, but I’ll put this at the end as well.

    I’m interested in forming a uniform site without Paul’s liberal bias, without any bias at all, just the facts about uniforms. Right now everyone is forced to read this site if they want uni-related information, it has a monopoly on that segment of the population. Agree or disagree with Paul, if you want uniform information, you have to come here.

    I know next to nothing about website design, but I would be more than willing to use some venture capital on this project. Honestly, I’d be willing to foot the entire bill with no return expected just to have a free market alternative to Uni Watch.

    This site would be done with the utmost professionalism, no personal “good or bad”, just the facts. Profanity would not be tolerated. No treatises and tirades about Chic-fil-a or Nike or Native American nicknames. Just “Voters in the state of North Dakota have decided to retire the Fighting Sioux nickname at the University of North Dakota” not “Kudos to the voters of North Dakota, who voted yesterday to retire UND’s Fighting Sioux nickname. Slowly but surely, people.”

    What do you say readers? Do you want an unbiased alternative to this place? If you do, I’ll foot the bill. I’ll pay for everything, all I need are readers willing to make the leap to an unbiased site.

    • Paul Lukas | June 13, 2012 at 12:53 pm |

      Where can I donate?

    • JimWa | June 13, 2012 at 12:58 pm |

      I appreciate what you’re trying to suggest, but in my opinion (and I apologize for including it) sports coverage of any kind without opinions would be really, really boring. There are color commentators in the booth for a reason – people like opinions. Sportscenter without commentary? It’d take about 10 minutes. Your local TV station’s sports segment without opinion or spin? It’d be about 30 seconds. I’d be curious to see what the site would provide, but even though I very often don’t agree with Paul’s political rants, the good fluff often outweighs the bad.

      • Paul Lukas | June 13, 2012 at 1:04 pm |

        It’s worth noting that the “rant” that so offended the person who wants to set up the new site (and who, of course, is hiding behind a pseudonym) consisted of one portion of one sentence in the Ticker.

      • Chris Holder | June 13, 2012 at 1:15 pm |

        Agree completely, Jim. I often find myself disagreeing, internally, with either Paul, or various readers, or whatever. You know what I usually do? Skip right on to the next comment and ignore what I don’t like. Seriously, people. See a comment you don’t like? Move on to the next one until something strikes your fancy. It really isn’t that difficult.

        Sometimes I wonder if people who get bent out of shape over a contrasting opinion on an internet blog have anger management issues, or something. Jeez. It’s a whole lot easier to ignore stuff you don’t like on the internet than in real life.

        • -DW | June 13, 2012 at 3:29 pm |

          I, too, disagree with many of Paul’s liberal views. But on the other hand, I am sure that he would disagree with many of my conservative views.

          But we can “agree to disagree” and coexist….if we so choose.

          I don’t mind the Sioux, the Seminoles, purple or Chic-Fil-A. I don’t like football “motorcycle helmets”, pajama pants, dreads or biceps bands.

          But that is just me….

        • Arr Scott | June 13, 2012 at 4:03 pm |

          Personally, I find many of Paul’s supposedly “liberal” views to be deeply conservative. Not right-wing radical Rush Limbaugh phony “conservative” but based on deeply traditionalist, Burkean understanding of society and human nature.

      • Tom V. | June 13, 2012 at 1:45 pm |

        “…sports coverage of any kind without opinions would be really, really boring…”

        100% disagree. Case in point: Not sure if you watch NASCAR, but every once in a while the reporters shut up for 5 laps and don’t say a word and all there is is the sounds of the cars going by. Nobody talking about how big of a jerk Kurt Busch is or about the battle for 24th position. There’s already 100 camera angles to catch all the action and a ticker running across the top of the screen with the running positions. There’s no reason the rest of sports can’t follow the same idea.

        There should be a volume control on the TV to turn the announcers voice off but not the sounds of the game. Take a guess at how many folks would rather just listen to the sounds of the game rather than the announcers. Especially when the announcers are announcing the same exact thing you are seeing on TV.

        • Skycat | June 13, 2012 at 2:25 pm |

          While it is true some analysts provide valuable insights in their commentary (e.g., Jeff Van Gundy), I often find games more enjoyable with the volume turned off. I only wish there were a way to stop the persistent and distracting crawl at the bottom of the screen.

        • JimWa | June 13, 2012 at 5:22 pm |

          So, if sports broadcasts without broadcasters are better, and networks could save bunches of money by not using booth talent, we don’t we see it done regularly? From what I hear you saying, it’d be a win-win for everyone!

      • Jim Vilk | June 13, 2012 at 2:50 pm |

        Sportscenter without commentary? It’d take about 10 minutes. Your local TV station’s sports segment without opinion or spin? It’d be about 30 seconds.

        You say that like it’s a bad thing…

        Less commentary = more coverage of more sports. Instead of yapping about the same stuff you just showed, include more highlights, more sports from other leagues. Not saying get rid of all the commentary – you can’t stop it…you can only hope to contain it.

        • Tom V. | June 13, 2012 at 3:08 pm |

          I’m not a big Kurt Busch fan but what he did last week is kind of excusable. He threatened a reporter for asking a dumb question and got suspended. But other race car drivers stood up for him and put the question out there…How many different questions can you ask a racecar driver before we get irratated at the same ones over and over?

          Same thing happened to Lebron in game 6 against the Celts, between periods some lady reporter asked him how he was dealing with the pressure. Just a stupid question on so many levels. Thats what we’d be missing if there was no sound.

    • The Jeff | June 13, 2012 at 1:00 pm |

      No profanity? Fuck that.

      If you’re really looking for an alternative, there is a blog/news/forum on at sportslogos.net

      • Wheels | June 13, 2012 at 2:50 pm |

        Or Fox News.

      • Faronicus | June 13, 2012 at 4:18 pm |

        Is the public so polarized that there must be a liberal AND a conservative uniform-watching forum?

        • Ryan M. | June 13, 2012 at 4:40 pm |

          This is absolutely my thought… on just about everything. Do we need to label EVERYTHING using American political buzzwords?

          Why can’t a guy have a blog where he mostly talks about uniform watching but occasionally gives his views about topics related to or not related to uniform watching without us forcing his opinions to one end of the “political spectrum” or the other? Or the comment writers, for that matter? We all know better than to go putting people in to boxes like that.

          Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go put in my fiscally conservative earbuds and turn on my traditional family music player and listen to some pro choice music with the “democrat” bass and tea party treble.

    • rhdii | June 13, 2012 at 2:35 pm |

      This isn’t a news site. It’s a uniform site run by a guy who gets to say what he wants since it’s his site. If you’re ready to bolt over a civil debate about sport nicknames, then yeah, I can see how that would be “liberal bias” in your book. After all, who should be forced to listen to civil debate with someone they don’t agree with? This is AMERICA, where opposing viewpoints should never be heard!

    • stlmarty | June 13, 2012 at 2:49 pm |

      There is a line from Field of Dreams that seems appropriate right about now. I cant stand that movie, however, so I won’t quote it.

      • DJ | June 13, 2012 at 3:02 pm |

        Honestly, I’d be willing to foot the entire bill with no return expected just to have a free market alternative to Uni Watch.

        There’s your basic mistake. A website like this isn’t about a market, or commerce. It’s not hidden behind a pay wall, and you don’t have to click through ads. It’s about communication, or speech.

        As Clint Eastwood said “freedom of speech is the American way.” Funny how you value commerce over communication of ideas. Then again, considering how poorly you’ve advocated your beliefs, it’s not so surprising.

        • Tom V. | June 13, 2012 at 3:20 pm |

          He’s not saying he can make a site thats more profitable, etc. He’s saying he’d pay the start up and carrying costs for the site if someone could do it, most likely this fella doesn’t have enough free time to do something like it. Maybe he could fund a uniform website based on communication and speech without ads, you know, advertising where it doesn’t belong.

          That said, Paul could have a site that 1000’s of people think is fantastic, unfortunately he’s gotta throw his political BS and personal biases in here every once in a while and a website that we all know could be a great website sits at it’s mediocre status because the guy who runs the site is closed to constructive criticism and improvements. It’s a damn shame.

          I myself would welcome an alternative, it could even be profitable for Mr. FSF someday.

        • Paul Lukas | June 13, 2012 at 3:27 pm |

          You really don’t get it.

          Uni Watch is an extension of me. It’s my creative project, my place where I get to do what I want. Saying you don’t like 100% of it is like saying you don’t like 100% of me — and that’s fine, because I don’t know you and don’t really care what percentage of me you like (and besides, how many people do you 100% like anyway?).

          What shows up on this site is what makes sense to me when I write it. If it doesn’t make sense to you, or if you think it’s “mediocre,” that’s a pity, but it’s not particularly relevant, because it’s not written for you. It’s written for me. You can enjoy it or not, as you choose, but that’s a side issue, a byproduct.

          As for a competing site, I’m all for it. More uni coverage is good for everyone, good for the uni-verse, etc. Do it!

        • Tom V. | June 13, 2012 at 3:40 pm |

          Thats fine Paul, many times I’ve done things for myself and it’s perfect. Then someone comes along and says hey…did you think about doing this or changing this little piece, and I do and it’s even better that what I thought was perfect.

        • Paul Lukas | June 13, 2012 at 3:42 pm |

          Yes, and sometimes people make suggestions regarding the site, and I incorporate them into the site when I think they’re good suggestions.

          When I think they’re bad suggestions, I don’t incorporate them into the site.

          So far, I haven’t heard any good suggestions today.

      • Paul Lukas | June 13, 2012 at 3:22 pm |

        There is a line from Field of Dreams that seems appropriate right about now. I cant stand that movie, however, so I won’t quote it.

        My favorite comment of the week so far….

        • JimWa | June 13, 2012 at 5:27 pm |

          There goes Lukas imposing his opinion on us again …


    • Frank from Bmore | June 13, 2012 at 4:05 pm |

      Will there be membership cards, because I already have one for a site I have been visiting for over 6 years. I don’t always agree with the statements of the proprietor or guests, but I read it and move on. Good luck.

      • The Slammer | June 13, 2012 at 11:06 pm |

        You actually paid to belong this website and it’s garbage spewing idiot?!?!

    • Faronicus | June 13, 2012 at 4:26 pm |

      I think there’s a conservative uniform forum at http://www.taliban.gov.af/burqaFAQ

    • Winter | June 13, 2012 at 4:44 pm |

      I think it’s interesting that people are acting like this isn’t Paul’s place. This is HIS site. HIS editorial viewpoint and control. If you don’t want to be here, it’s very simple not to come here.

      I will admit, I tire not of Paul’s positions, but of the constant re-iterating of the same tired arguments by people who don’t take time to read the entire posts or follow the links to read past posts to educate themselves of the history of these discussions. How many times when the Native American issue is discussed do we see someone say, “what about the Fighting Irish, the Kansas City Chiefs…?” etc., etc. Paul, or whoever is posting, usually provides links within the context of the discussion so that they can see where these have been discussed before. I’m tired of this “TLDR” treatment (which I’m sure will be one of the first replies to this post…)

      My point is, if you’ve taken anytime at all to read through this site and the comments, you know where you’re at. You know who Paul and his editorial cohorts are, what their views are, and their logic behind why they hold them. Nothing I’ve seen posted today from Paul is out of keeping with his already established positions, so I don’t get where the virulence is coming from. It’s like going into a Target and being surprised there are people wearing red shirts and khakis.

      If you want to start another site, no one’s stopping you.

      • JimWa | June 13, 2012 at 5:30 pm |

        Come on … think about it … you have your favorite restaurant … you go there for years … you bring your friends there … then one day, you walk in to the management office and tell the manager they do more wrong than right, and you don’t want to eat their food. Why would that bother anyone?

  • Douglas King | June 13, 2012 at 12:52 pm |

    I don’t quite understand why Native American Tribes are working towards building relationships with the schools that wish to use their nicknames and vice versa?

    I mean I only know about the Sioux people because of UND’s usage of their name. Same goes for the Chippewas and the Illini. I’m fairly certain I would know who the Seminole people were even if FSU didn’t take the name, given their proximity to my location, but I’m sure there are people in other parts of the country who wouldn’t.

    I mean on a national level most Native tribes are irrelevant, unless they played a huge role in one of the wars you are limited to learning only about the tribes in your area.

    • ChrisH | June 13, 2012 at 1:20 pm |

      It’s kind of difficult for the University of Illinois to work with the “Illini” Indians since they were all but massacred out of existence around 1800…at the hands of the allied Iroquois, Kickapoo, Ojibwa, Ottawa, Potawatomi, and Sac and Fox tribes.

      • The Jeff | June 13, 2012 at 1:41 pm |

        Well heck, that name should be acceptable then, if the US didn’t do the killing. That little difference works for the NCAA with Aztecs, right?

      • Douglas King | June 13, 2012 at 1:57 pm |

        But there is still a small population left over, and a connection with the university could help carry on their name. Granted Illinois still go by the fighting Illini, but there is now a disconnect between who the Illini exactly are now because the name isn’t officially associated with the people.

        Schools using the names can provide an opportunity for educating the masses. You have fans becoming very defensive about their teams’ names being changed, they feel they are honoring the Native Americans. Take advantage of that and educate them on the actual customs, it will give the fans greater pride in their team, and will help with the legacy of the tribe/people.

        • DJ | June 13, 2012 at 2:52 pm |

          You proceed from a false premise. The “Fighting Illini” nickname was approved by the NCAA because the University of Illinois demonstrated that historically, it was NOT a reference to the Illinois American Indians, but a reference to all of the people of Illinois. What got rejected by the NCAA was the use of an American Indian (“Chief Illiniwek”) as a symbol or logo (it never was a mascot) representing the name.

        • Douglas King | June 13, 2012 at 10:00 pm |

          Regardless of the semantics, the argument is still valid, Illinois used to be at least loosely associated with the Illiniwek, now they are not. That posed an opportunity to help educate the masses about the people. Now there is no stage for that, had the Illiniwek given their permission for the imagery to remain they would still be using the logos and such.

          Same goes for the Sioux people and North Dakota, there’s a chance to give life to the legacy of the Sioux people, by educating the general public. At the moment it doesn’t matter what happens with the Fighting Sioux nickname, the people will be forgotten either way. If the two tribes and their people made an effort to educate the fans, so there is more than just a sentimental connection to it, it would ensure the people live on. None of the fans in favor of keeping it think its an insult, in fact they see it as honoring the people. I’m sure if they got a feel for the traditions and customs of the Sioux people they would have even more fondness for the name. And they could replace stereotypical chants etc. with things actually relevant to the Sioux people (i.e. if they do a tomahawk chop or some kind of equivalent, they could replace that with an actual chant, bringing authenticity to the game atmosphere as opposed to assuming all Native Americans are the same).

        • Phil Hecken | June 13, 2012 at 10:49 pm |

          so…the only possible way to honor the name and give life to the legacy of the sioux is to have the sports teams use the name “fighting sioux”?

        • Douglas King | June 14, 2012 at 2:58 am |

          No, I’m saying working with the school, making the nickname mean something to people outside of the tribes and using it as a way to educate people about the customs of the Sioux is better than eliminating the name altogether.

          Hell drop the Fighting, and just make it the Sioux, but it just blows my mind how the tribes and the schools aren’t seeing the opportunities for good and instead are fighting over whether using the name is offensive/inoffensive. In this particular scenario one tribe has okayed the use, the other refuses to vote on the matter.

          Like I said earlier, I wouldn’t know anything about the Sioux people if not for the Fighting Sioux nickname. As it goes we only learn about the Native American tribes that played major roles in the formation of the USA, in addition to the ones that live or lived in the surrounding areas. So most people knowledgeable about the Sioux more than likely live in the surrounding region. This offers them a platform for sharing their culture. The Seminole people are known throughout the US in large part due to their connection with FSU.

          Right now I assume (I could be wrong) but most chants, cheers, and the like at UND games are largely generic Native American chants. A partnership between the university and the Sioux people could eliminate stereotypical chants/practices that may have absolutely nothing to do with the actual people and replace them with actual Sioux related ones. To the fans who approve of the nickname they have always felt it honored the Sioux people, for those against the nickname it has been because they feel it is an empty gesture or the gross re-appropriating of Native American imagery. A partnership between schools and the tribes would eliminate the emptiness, and make it an honor not only in those who were pro-nickname, but those who once stood against it.

  • JerryB | June 13, 2012 at 1:06 pm |

    C’mon Paul. You were wrong. Dock Ellis wasn’t cool. It was the 70s!
    Dock Ellis was a BAD motherfucker

  • Paul Lukas | June 13, 2012 at 1:21 pm |
    • stlmarty | June 13, 2012 at 2:46 pm |

      I’ll take that sleeve treatment over the Chargers fiasco any day.

    • Phil Hecken | June 13, 2012 at 3:59 pm |


      was that two-lane blacktop background shot against a green screen and added later?

      • Wheels | June 13, 2012 at 5:06 pm |

        They’re on the road to nowhere.

    • coogrfan | June 13, 2012 at 4:48 pm |

      Someone want to explain to me why these jerseys have lightning bolts on the sleeves?


      Arkansas Electric Hogs? Power Pigs?

      • Marcus from Baltimore | June 13, 2012 at 5:01 pm |

        Is the intent more so for the red sleeve to represent the razorback with a gray shadow?? iDunno

  • Rob S | June 13, 2012 at 1:24 pm |

    One of today’s SportsNation polls asks, “Is it ever OK to unretire a jersey?” My feeling is yes, under certain circumstances:

    A) Obviously, if a retired player makes a comeback, e.g. Mario Lemieux or Michael Jordan (although the latter initially chose not to unretire his number, and I felt it was a major faux-pas for him to switch back in the middle of the Orlando series).

    B) If the retired player volunteers on his/her own accord to make it available – preferably for a relative.

    C) New management decides to undo a superfluous retirement – namely, any legitimate uniform number retired for anyone who did not actually wear that uniform number as a player (or, in baseball, as a manager). This would include (but not be limited to:)
    * Carl Barger’s 5 (which the Miami Marlins have done)
    * Gene Autry’s 26 (he may have been the Angel’s “26th Man”, but there are better ways to honor him)
    * Chuck Daly’s 2 (I loved Chuck and the “Bad Boys”, but given that they’ve honored Jack McCloskey and Bill Davidson without any uni numbers…)
    * Any team that retires a legit uni number “for the fans”. The most egregious, in my opinion, is the Minnesota Wild, who retired 1 for the “Number One Fans” – despite fan apathy being one of the driving factors that ultimately led to the departure of the North Stars.

    • pushbutton | June 13, 2012 at 2:23 pm |

      Re: the Barger thing, etc……

      Any team that takes back the honor of a retired number should be forbidden to retire any more. They decided it was a meaningless gesture by unretiring one, so they shouldn’t beef about my ‘retirement ban’.

      • scott | June 13, 2012 at 3:52 pm |

        Unretiring a number damages the whole credibility of giving the honor in the first place. Once the precedent is set, who’s to say that more numbers won’t soon be brought out of retirement? I’d say the only exception to this should be if a player whose number is already retired returns as a manager or player, i.e. Frank Robinson goes back to managing in Baltimore.

        It’s why teams should be extremely careful in giving the honor.

    • stlmarty | June 13, 2012 at 2:47 pm |

      Hang them/celebrate them… yes.
      Retire them… no.
      Wide receivers and tight ends are screwed.

  • JDrive | June 13, 2012 at 1:26 pm |

    Michigan Football is putting three of its five retired jerseys back on the field.


    • Rob S | June 13, 2012 at 1:43 pm |

      So Michigan football is basically switching their retired numbers to Maple Leafs-style honored numbers.

      Though, I suppose that given that their roster is in excess of 100 players, this would be a better solution going forward; but unretiring numbers? I guess so, if the families are okay with it (the two that are staying retired are because Michigan hasn’t been able to get their okays yet).

  • Clarence Slaby | June 13, 2012 at 2:09 pm |

    Full time reader, part time commenter here. Just want to say I thoroughly enjoy the site, and what everybody brings to the table. It seems like recently that we as community have been voicing a lot of discontent with big corporations and entities, even going so far as calling to disband them. Maybe we should take a deep breath and remember that behind a lot of these compainies and organizations are hardworking people.

    TLDR: Feel free to shut down the athletic department. Please just help me and my assistants find a new way to support our families ;)

    • Paul Lukas | June 13, 2012 at 2:12 pm |

      Ah, yes. Corporate America: the job creators.

      Except when they’re, you know, outsourcing everything to dirt-cheap labor markets….

      • Skycat | June 13, 2012 at 2:30 pm |

        Exactly! And here’s some fuel to the fire:


      • Clarence Slaby | June 13, 2012 at 2:47 pm |

        Or the Athletic Corporations that run intercollegiate athletics at your local university? Not every corporation has its jobs outsourced to a different locale. I know you’re too intellegent to believe that there’s no companies with local ties.

        I guess what I’m getting at is that many people think the NCAA, NAIA, CCAA, and the programs that operate under their direction are nothing but bureacratic monsters. That’s far from the truth. It still comes down to the people.

        • Paul Lukas | June 13, 2012 at 3:35 pm |

          Gotcha. Point well made.

  • asroma | June 13, 2012 at 2:41 pm |

    So Sokratis Papastathopoulos wore a FNOB for the Euro becuase his last name didn’t fit?

    • DJ | June 13, 2012 at 2:56 pm |

      Pretty much. The Greeks don’t have the tradition of “playing names” like Brazil, Portugal, or Spain.

  • Coleman | June 13, 2012 at 3:04 pm |

    I’m loving the subtle uni-quirks on both the Netherlands and Germany kits. The Germany kit has a “sash” that’s not too bold(or noticeable), and the Netherlands kit has the slightly different shaded boxes on the front of the jersey.

    Sorry if these have been mentioned previously.

    Not loving the match-specific flags, though. Yes, I know that topic was discussed just yesterday.

  • 1vox | June 13, 2012 at 3:19 pm |

    i opened the image of the nottingham forest socks to save it in my computer, and i noticed something very weird…

    the link doesn’t say “nottingham”…it says “NOTHINGham”…



  • Justin | June 13, 2012 at 3:49 pm |

    I love that picture of Randall Cobb (http://farm8.static.flickr.com/7091/7365680964_1dc7bbdbf8_o.jpg). Almost looks like the Packers have full sleeve jerseys.

  • JRod37 | June 13, 2012 at 4:17 pm |

    That Astros initial hat with the H had the serif going to the left. Usually serifs go to the right to aid the reader’s eye in movement across the page. Are there any other left-serif logos out there? I’m too swamped at work to look for myself.

  • JTH | June 13, 2012 at 4:23 pm |

    Has Uncle Drew been posted here yet?

    (“uni-notable” for the selective nature of its digital logo removal)

  • The Ghost of Ross Gload | June 13, 2012 at 6:14 pm |

    Huh. I figure DeJesus is smiling because he no longer has to work behind that abomination the Royals call a “Starting Rotation”.

    • Ricko | June 13, 2012 at 8:40 pm |

      And, as near as I can tell, the Twins have a pitching staph.

  • Ricko | June 13, 2012 at 8:36 pm |

    I notice the logo on the Phillies socks is a bit higher now, positioned better for the shorter pants style these days.

    Wonder if we’ll ever hear…

    “I’m a Phillies fan. Y’know, the team with bells on their socks.”

  • walter | June 13, 2012 at 10:35 pm |

    Part of my concern about teams retiring their Indian-derived iconography stems from fear they will replace it with something horrible. I’ve spoken my piece about recurring mascots and copycat athletic programs, now I’d like to take an informal survey: What do you think is the best *unused* nickname?

    • Phil Hecken | June 13, 2012 at 10:53 pm |

      “Part of my concern about teams retiring their Indian-derived iconography stems from fear they will replace it with something horrible.”


      that’s the best argument yet for keeping the native peoples iconography!

  • odessasteps | June 14, 2012 at 12:17 am |

    Regarding announcerless games …

    – the bbc has an alternate channel for it for footy

    – the mlb.tv pavkage has it as an option this year.

    The tech certainly exists for it.

    • Too Tall Paul | June 14, 2012 at 2:56 am |

      From Wikipedia: NBC made history in the 1980s with an announcerless telecast (a one-shot experiment credited to Don Ohlmeyer, between the Jets and Dolphins in Miami on December 20, 1980 known as the “silent game”)

      ESPN OTL Article: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/otl/news/story?id=5906858

      Alas, I am striking out trying to find actual video of the telecast…

  • Douglas King | June 14, 2012 at 12:49 am |

    Mets are appealing the call in the first inning, if it is ruled an error R.A. Dickey will have the teams first actual no-hitter.

    They would have a solid case if BJ Upton wasn’t the runner they were trying to throw out. If it had been just about anybody else then he definitely would have gotten the out had he handled the ball and made a good throw. But the speed of BJ Upton hurts the case for it being a “routine play”.

  • Douglas King | June 14, 2012 at 12:52 am |

    Perfect Game in San Fran!

  • Andrew | June 14, 2012 at 10:51 am |

    The Packers are simply using the same cut as last year, something we know from the unveiling. It’s the same cut, as are the practice jerseys.