White Shoes Near the White House

Screen shot 2012-07-07 at 9.26.03 AM.png

Screen shot 2012-07-07 at 9.24.28 AM.png

Click photos to enlarge

It’s funny how a random comment can lead you down a rabbit hole. Case in point: Phil and I were recently attending a Mets game, and he started rattling off the teams that had worn white shoes — the A’s (duh), the ’75 Phillies, the early-’70s Angels, and so on. And then Phil said, “And the Senators, for one season, right?”

This really threw me, for two reasons. First, I was pretty sure the Senators had never worn white shoes. But just two days earlier, reader Bruce Margulies had sent me the two photos of Frank Howard that you see above. Bruce didn’t have dates for them, but I had narrowed them down to 1970 or ’71. And in one of them, it looked like the third base coach might have been white-shod as well, so I was intrigued.

I explained all of this to Phil, who said, “I’m positive Ricko has photos showing the Senators in white. I think you’ve even linked to one of them before.” After we both got home from the ballgame, he sent me a note: “Found it. You covered this in this entry.” Sure enough, that entry includes the following graf:

• Some great Washington Senators images here: Gil Hodges exhibiting some serious stripeage and Hondo Howard wearing the white spikes the Sens wore in 1971 (not shown in Dressed to the Nines, but they wore ’em, as confirmed in this Denny McLain shot).

I had completely forgotten about this, so it felt like a new discovery, even though it was something I had posted on the site four years ago. Phil, Ricko, Bruce Margulies, and I all started hunting for more pics of the ’71 Sens with white footwear, and it turns out there are many more of those images floating around the web now — including a team portrait showing the entire squad in white going ivory-footed! — than there were four years ago. Here’s what we’ve found so far (if the slideshow doesn’t work for you, or if you just prefer to see the images in a non-slideshow format, click here):

But if the Sens wore white in ’71, why did Dressed to the Nines show them wearing black? And why do some photos from that season show them in black? The answer apparently lies in this Sports Illustrated article from April 19, 1971, which Ricko turned up. It states:

In baseball’s first week of 1971 the Orioles and the Cardinals zipped about in vivid new zipperless stretch suits. The Astros showed up in orange hats, socks, sweatshirts, belts and lettering and with their names on their backs. The Senators wore stiff new white shoes with red and blue stripes in pre-game practice (trying to break them in enough so that they could be worn in games). The Orioles wore traditional black shoes with renewed appreciation after trying orange shoes and hating them. (Emphasis mine.)

So it’s not clear exactly when the Sens switched from black to white, but it was presumably at some point in April or May. Either way, I believe this makes them the earliest non-A’s example of an MLB team wearing white shoes.

All of which is particularly ironic given that the Senators had previously been so opposed to the A’s wearing white shoes, leading to the short-lived but very entertaining White War of 1967. (If you’re not familiar with this chapter in uni history, take a few minutes to read that entry ”” good stuff.) When viewed in the context of that episode, the 1971 footwear feels like a case of “If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.”

In any case, it’s a safe bet that I won’t repeat the mistake of forgetting about the Sens wearing white. It’s gonna be pretty well lodged in my brain from now on — plus I showed all the photos to Baseball Hall of Fame curator Tom Shieber, who has now updated the Sens’ 1971 Dressed to the Nines entry accordingly, so the white shoes are now part of the historical database.

(Major, major thanks to Phil, Ricko, and Bruce Margulies for their contributions to this piece.)

+ + + + +


More DC news: As noted earlier this week, the Nationals wore their red batting helmets on the road last weekend, instead of their usual blue road helmets. That prompted the following discussion between Nats broadcasters Bob Carpenter and F.P. Santangelo during last night’s game (major thanks to Frank Manganello for the transcription):

Carpenter: By the way, I don’t know if anyone asked you this, I hope I wasn’t imagining this… On the road, this weekend, the Nationals had the all-red helmets.

Santangelo: They did!

Carpenter: So what’s the story?

Santangelo: Just seeing how it looked with their gray unis.

Carpenter: I liked it.

Santangelo: I thought it was great.

Carpenter: When I tuned in with my family from points unknown, never to be revealed, on Friday night…

Santangelo: (Laughing)

Carpenter: I was like ‘Wait a minute…where’s the blue bill on the ball caps?” Or it was, umm, the blue helmet with the RED bill, and the Nats were all red, and I’m like ‘Wow, I haven’t seen that.’

Santangelo: At first I thought it might’ve been a mistake, coming out of the All-Star break, that they packed the wrong helmets. But upon further research we found out that they were just seeing how they looked with the gray unis.

Carpenter: Okay.

Santangelo: I thought it looked great.

Carpenter: Well, it got them a .500 series on the road, two and two. One ball and two strikes. I just knew, that either you or Kristina [Akra, the Nats’ sideline reporter], being the bulldog reporters that you are, would find out the real story on that.

Santangelo: You can’t get anything by the fashion police. We were on it the first inning.

Carpenter: On a breaking ball, on his hands, Michael Morse fouls it.

Santangelo: It did take me a second to figure out what looked different though. Because we didn’t get any word of it, we didn’t have any idea it was going to happen until the top of the first. Something looks different tonight. And then you looked at the helmets, and it was red all over the place, going for the firefighter road unis. I like it.

Hmmm, “firefighter road unis” — will that term catch on?

+ + + + +

Membership reminder: The Uni Watch Membership Program will soon have a price increase, but there’s still time for you to get in at the current price. Details here.

Raffle reminder: I’m currently raffling off five copies of the newest edition of Bill Henderson’s doubleknit-era baseball jersey guide. To enter, sendi an e-mail with your name and shipping address to the giveaway address by 8pm Eastern tomorrow. One entry per reader. I’ll announce the five winners on Friday.

Vacation reminder: My annual one-month summer break from the site begins this weekend. Phil will be handling the weekdays, Johnny Ek the weekends. I’ll still be doing ESPN work, which Phil will inform you about as it becomes available.

+ + + + +

Uni Watch News Ticker: New football uniforms for Weber State. Can’t believe they’re using something so Comic Sans-ish for the chest wordmark (from Karson Kalian). … Here’s something you don’t often see on eBay: a vintage 1970s McDonald’s uniform (thanks, Kirsten). … New kit for Spartak FC (from Leo Thornton). … Joe Hilseberg spotted Ray Rice wearing a new brand of compression gear. “Did some digging and found this,” he says. “Not sure what they actually do, but Rice apparently likes them! They seem to be popular with rugby teams, too.” … New logo for some crappy restaurant chain (from Todd Herzog). … Another great idea that never caught on: eyeglass “bumpers” for basketball players. That’s from the April 1941 issue of Popular Science (nice find by Brian Codagnone). … Check this out: Players from Chelsea FC and the Seattle Seahawks wearing each others’ jerseys (from Graham Bakay). … Good story on the new high-tech Olympic swimsuits (from Tom Mulgrew). … This is pretty funny: a football that looks like R2-D2 (from Jarrod Leder). … Alan Poff reports that the Quad Cities River Bandits are letting fans pay to put little photos of themselves on the team’s jerseys. That story says this is the first time this has been done for a U.S. team, but is that accurate? I know some European soccer teams have done this; not sure about American soccer teams or other American sports. Anyone..? … I was out for my daily bike ride in Prospect Park yesterday and listening to All Things Considered on the radio (yes, my bike has a radio) when they ran this really interesting report on how pole vaulters get their poles onto airplanes. … Denis Hurley has created a new site devoted to Cork City FC’s kits. “It features every single strip worn by Cork City FC since the club’s formation in 1984, and in time other articles on various soccer kit subjects will be added,” he says. … Trademark bullying + the Olympix = this clever billboard (big thanks to Mark Coale). … America’s most prominent uniformed youth organization has once again disgraced its uniform. … Here’s more about those UMass BFBS uniforms (from Mark Sullivan). … Nebraska’s equipment manager has posted several pics of white shoes on Twitter. “This would be their first time wearing white shoes since 1989,” says David Westfall. “I’ve tried to get a definitive answer via Twitter, but to no avail.” … If you skip ahead to the 3:20 mark of this video clip, you’ll see Toronto FC’s latest player talking about his choice of uni number (from Marty Thompson). … “I noticed on Monday night that Carlos Gonzalez was wearing one of Troy Tulowitzki’s wristbands,” says Brian Skokowski. “Didn’t think much of it — figured it was either a quick mistake or that maybe it was a 5 and just upside-down. Tonight, however, I got a good look at it with him on base and it was clearly right-side-up with a #2 on it.” ”¦ “One of our writers at the Ball State Daily News found this pic floating on Twitter,” writes Mat Mikesell. “It very much suggests that Ball State football will be getting a black jersey for this upcoming season. Can’t tell if that’s replacing the usual home red. My guess is it’s an alternate home jersey. Since I’m the beat writer for the football team, I asked coach Pete Lembo if there will be a black jersey this upcoming season. He replied with ‘You’ll just have to see’ and laughed. So my gut tells me they’re real, just haven’t been officially unveiled yet.” ”¦ In the recent USA/Brazil women’s basketball game, Brazil’s women’s team went FiNOB — their usual format — except for Damiris Dantas, who had her last name on her jersey. “Here’s a clear pic of Clarissa dos Santos with ‘Clarissa’ and Dantas with ‘Dantas,'” says Kevin Brown. ”¦ It’s not every day that you see the words “Olympics” and “humiliating shambles” in the same headline. Wait, check that, it pretty much is every day, but yesterday’s installment was particularly entertaining.

222 comments to White Shoes Near the White House

  • Jeff Katz | July 18, 2012 at 8:11 am |

    Victor Cruz talked about football pants with and without zippers on The Daily SHow last night.

    • Brendan Burke | July 18, 2012 at 2:47 pm |

      I wonder what Cruz thinks about the new UMass uniforms?

  • Tank | July 18, 2012 at 8:18 am |

    The numbers on the Ball State uniforms are very reminiscent of Rutgers old number font. http://mbriggs-rurahrah.blogspot.com/2007/11/scarlet-spotlight-eric-foster.html Especially the ‘5’

    • Dumb Guy | July 18, 2012 at 8:24 am |

      RIP Capt.

    • JamesP. | July 18, 2012 at 12:19 pm |

      Most interesting part of the story of KangaROOS is that he was turned down so many times by shoe manufacturers. Crazy What If had NIKE had picked them up.

    • [name redacted] | July 18, 2012 at 1:45 pm |

      In the early 90s, ROOS was a sponsor of Ted Turner’s WCW. They had their name on the turnbuckles.

    • LarryB | July 18, 2012 at 8:48 pm |

      I had a pair or so of Kangaroos. I kept a dime or quarter in the pocket for a long time.

  • Dumb Guy | July 18, 2012 at 8:23 am |

    Weber State should have used Bleeding Cowboys as their font. It’s just as overused and/or lame as the one they chose.

    “Really, it will look SO cool!”

  • Pierre | July 18, 2012 at 8:25 am |

    Let me give you my guess why the Nationals were wearing their red home batting helmets on the road…their two-tone road helmets were being painted.

    The basis for this speculation is that last Friday night while watching the Yankees on TV in their first post All-Star break game it seemed pretty obvious to me that their batting helmets had been painted during the break. They were in pristine condition, but the finish looked like a re-paint rather than a brand new helmet. I was tempted to get a screen grab and send it in but I was just too damn lazy.

    My guess would be that a two-tone helmet would take a little longer to repaint, considering that you have to allow the primary color coat to dry before taping the helmet and applying another color to the bill.

    I’d bet that if someone checked with the Nationals you would find that their road helmets are being re-painted.

    Anyway, I thought the red helmets looked pretty good with the road unis.

    • Winter | July 18, 2012 at 8:38 am |

      Eh…this would have all been obviated had they not switched from the all navy caps, which were my favorite part of the Nats uni’s (although I will admit the home uniforms look pretty good these days).

      • teenchy | July 18, 2012 at 8:42 am |

        Just think, if the Nats had never changed from the all-navy road caps and batting helmets, it would’ve made it easier for them to swap out decals on TBTC Night week before last.

      • Pierre | July 18, 2012 at 8:48 am |

        Yep..I’m also a fan of the all-navy cap, but I can’t find one locally in my size. They’re still floating around but I’m reluctant to order one because the sizes vary so much from cap to cap. I’d prefer to try it on first.

        Anybody else find the same size variations in New Era MNLB caps?

        • Geeman | July 18, 2012 at 8:59 am |

          I liked the navy hats too, but I think they added the red bill to them because they went away from mostly navy trim on the road uniform to mostly red. They probably should just stick with red hats full time now.

        • teenchy | July 18, 2012 at 9:00 am |

          Yes, I’ve found those size variations. I bought an all-navy road cap just before Opening Day 2005, which I wore to the first game @ Philadelphia. I held off on buying a home cap (just wearing my very old expansion Nats cap, figuring hey, who’d know the diff?) until I heard that New Era was switching from wool to CoolBase, when I snapped up one of the last wool models.

          I have last year’s TBTC cap that they wore @ San Diego but not this year’s yet. Haven’t worn it because I haven’t figured out if I can break in a CoolBase 5950 the way I broke in my wool 5950s.

        • Tony C. | July 18, 2012 at 9:00 am |


        • Pierre | July 18, 2012 at 9:06 am |

          MLB, not MNLB…oops.

        • Le Cracquere | July 18, 2012 at 9:16 am |

          Wish they’d stick with the navy caps for home AND away. It was only the last few years in D.C. that the Senators went with all-red … far too short and incidental a uni change to be treated as traditional or worthy of continuation. And between the Reds, Nats, Phillies, and Cardinals, the NL is starting to look a tad monotonous.

          I grant that the Sens’ traditional monochrome unis were dull as dirt, but if the Nationals have to be inspired by one of the previous team’s get-ups, I’d prefer the 1967 duds–that blue cap with red soutaches was fantastic.

        • Connie | July 18, 2012 at 9:57 am |

          I’m partial to the blue-top red-visor model myself.

        • Arr Scott | July 18, 2012 at 9:57 am |

          Darn tootin’ about the Sens soutache chapeaus. Best cap any DC baseball club has ever worn.

          Which speaks to a gripe I have with MLB and its various merch-makers. The league seems to enforce the crappiest possible version of the original curly W for Cooperstown Collection merchandise. It’s as if MLB had a photocopy of a mimeograph of a wire-service printout to work from. One virtue of the current red cap is that it is almost identical to the actual final Senators cap, so it functions as a decent throwbacky cap. But all actual Cooperstown Collection caps with the curly W are embarrassments.

          Nats desperately need a quality repro of the original blue-with-red-soutache Senators cap. And I would kill for a quality reproduction of the White War cap!

        • Tony C. | July 18, 2012 at 10:33 am |

          at one point(not sure of this is still true or not) 5950s were hand sewn, so that would account for the size variations

        • alex35332 | July 18, 2012 at 11:36 am |

          I always thought they should change what color cap they wear depending on which political party is in power. Just would make it unique.

          And if a 3rd party finally wins… white cap!

        • Arr Scott | July 18, 2012 at 12:37 pm |

          Alex, my thought back in the day was that the Nats should wear red at home, blue on the road when Republicans held the White House, and blue at home, red on the road when Democrats held the White House.

          And, most importantly, say nothing about it and never, ever acknowledge that to be the team policy. Just do it, and make it the sort of low-profile team tradition that creates “in” knowledge for the fans.

          Even though I hate the artificial ossification of red-for-Republicans and blue-for-Democrats, and I don’t really like radically different home and road unis, and I also don’t like the way political partisanship already bleeds into too much of our culture, I think that tradition could have been fun.

        • Mark in Shiga | July 18, 2012 at 1:41 pm |

          Arr Scott, historically, on election maps, wasn’t blue the color of the incumbent and red the color of the challenger?

          I think it’s a bad idea to assign permanent colors to the parties. It reinforces partisanship and also implies that there can only ever be two (or three, if white is a color) political parties.

        • Arr Scott | July 18, 2012 at 2:38 pm |

          Mark, that’s exactly right. Some of the networks assigned the colors randomly, and I believe CBS in particular used the blue-incumbent red-challenger scheme consistently from year to year. On top of which, for more than a century, in the English-speaking world, blue has denoted the political right and red the political left.

          But the damage has been done; the current red/blue labels will be with us for at least another generation. And as a practical matter, there really can be only two parties. That’s an unintended but fundamental result of our constitutional structure. Witness, you know, the entire history of the American republic, when we’ve had two-party governance in fact if not name for all but a few brief years of transition. (Personally, I don’t mind the two-party system; I just wish the Whigs were still the second party. Tippecanoe and Tyler too, baby!)

    • IowaAnt | July 18, 2012 at 10:47 am |

      “the NL is starting to look a tad monotonous”…Did you notice the AL lately?… Yankees, Tigers, Twins, Red Sox, Mariners, Indians & Rays all wear Navy Blue, Orioles & White Sox wear Black. Rangers, Blue Jays & Royals wear a lighter Blue (maybe a royal blue). Only the Angels are in Red and A’s are in green. It’s a very dark shaded league in terms of hats. The NL actually has some color.

      • Le Cracquere | July 18, 2012 at 11:07 am |

        Born, raised, and live in NL-only territory. The Junior Circuit’s style choices seldom crop up on my radar.

        Still, navy has always been a kind of neutral, “default” color for MLB uniforms, one that doesn’t necessarily call attention to itself. Four teams all wearing red from head to foot seems less defensible, somehow.

      • Winter | July 18, 2012 at 2:04 pm |

        Ah, but the Rangers wear red, too.

        Question for me, is will the Astros be wearing red by the time they’re in the AL?

  • Ted Machnik | July 18, 2012 at 8:29 am |

    Senators wore those white shoes in 1971. The color photo was taken at Comiskey Park. It appears to have been Sox helmet day and the helmets are red. The Sox wore red beginning in 1971. The catcher in the second photo is Detroit’s Bill Freehan. On the road, the Tigers wore the TV numbers on their right sleeves.

    • Connie | July 18, 2012 at 10:00 am |

      Note how Frank Howard signed himself A.L. HR “King.” Love the quotation marks.

    • Mike Edgerly | July 18, 2012 at 1:29 pm |

      OK This is bugging me, why were the Senators playing the Tigers(or just Howard batting with Freehan behind the plate) at Comiskey Park? I can’t find anything on Baseball Reference…

      • Mike Edgerly | July 18, 2012 at 1:40 pm |

        Duh, it’s RFK< was fooled by the background between the 1st and 2nd decks…

  • WFY | July 18, 2012 at 8:35 am |

    Wow. I have seen the Dick Bosman “Short Stinks” photo countless times and never noticed the white shoes until you pointed it out. If I ever meet Frank Howard again, I’ll ask him about the white shoes.

    As for the present day, I miss the solid blue Nats caps they used to wear on the road. If they aren’t going to wear them, they might as well wear the solid red. I’m still annoyed they went to the “Braves caps” for the road last year.

  • teenchy | July 18, 2012 at 8:40 am |

    IIRC the Nats (they were never called the Sens, never) touted those white adidas cleats in their ’71 program. I’ll check mine and send you a scan later today if you’re interested.

    • Paul Lukas | July 18, 2012 at 8:44 am |

      Yes, please.

      • teenchy | July 18, 2012 at 9:00 am |

        I’ll do that for you, Paul. They’re in my home office and I’ll search for it once I’m back there.

        • teenchy | July 19, 2012 at 9:47 am |

          Just sent it to you via e-mail.

    • Geeman | July 18, 2012 at 9:00 am |

      Love the red, white, and blue stripes on those Adidas shoes, just like in the ABA.

      • Arr Scott | July 18, 2012 at 9:22 am |

        Agreed. The red-blue-red stripes pretty much redeem the white shoes for me. I’m not normally a fan of white cleats in baseball – I mean, for the A’s, I enjoy the quirkiness of it as a quirk, but I don’t actually think it looks good – but if the Nats adopted white cleats with that kind of uniform striping pattern today, I’d dig it. Or red cleats with a navy-and-white pattern.

        • Geeman | July 18, 2012 at 9:32 am |

          I am a black-shoe guy too, but I love the A’s in white cleats.

          I think the old ABA shoes were blue-red-blue stripes.

  • J.B. | July 18, 2012 at 8:46 am |

    Hard to believe anyone would question the Boy Scouts ban on gays after the Sandusky scandal. Yeah, I know gays aren’t necessarily pedophiles. But, it’s certainly their prerogative to insist on a more Christian environment for children.

    • Tony C. | July 18, 2012 at 8:54 am |

      and the most bigoted comment of the day goes to.

      • Lose Rem | July 18, 2012 at 9:07 am |

        Wow indeed.

        Talk about Being Prepared, I hope JB is prepared for some education

        • Maggie | July 18, 2012 at 10:58 am |

          Let us rail against the administration at Penn State for not having any morals, but criticize an organization (the Boy Scouts) for showing some morals. You guys can’t have it both ways without looking a tad hypocritical.

        • The Jeff | July 18, 2012 at 11:08 am |

          Let us rail against the administration at Penn State for not having any morals, but criticize an organization (the Boy Scouts) for showing some morals.

          Openly discriminating against people in what’s supposed to be an equal society is “showing some morals”? Really?

          Jesus Fucking Christ.

      • Bbqicecream | July 18, 2012 at 3:07 pm |

        So it’s bigoted to have a particular faith, which happens to set rather rigid guidelines? Honestly, as a Christian, it is becoming more and more difficult to visit this website. I enjoy learning all of the most current uniform related news in one area, but but there is a very anti-Christian and anti-conservative vibe here that has become more prominent recently. If the trend continues, I hate to say but I will no longer feel comfortable here and will have to find an alternative blog. Please guys, can we keep this about sports uniforms and not turn it into a political and religious forum?

        • diz | July 18, 2012 at 3:30 pm |

          Yes, it is bigoted. As (technically) a Christian, I’d welcome you getting tae fuck asap

          also: what do you mean by “conservative”, specifically? It can cover a *load* of areas

        • J.B. | July 19, 2012 at 9:23 am |

          Gee…didn’t you know that it’s only appropriate for “politically-correct” opinions to be shared on open forums? Dumb old conservatives aren’t allowed to speak out. Tell you what – you “enlightened” people can send your sons to Boy Scouts if/when they allow homosexuals to participate. I’ll pass.

        • Maggie | July 19, 2012 at 12:36 pm |

          I couldn’t agree with you more – well said!!!

    • KWChris | July 18, 2012 at 8:56 am |

      They should run background checks and watch what is happening during interactions between scouts and leaders – something that should be done for all leaders, gay or not. But to rule out an entire segment of society just because they are gay, that is sheer lunacy.

    • The Jeff | July 18, 2012 at 8:57 am |

      Hard to believe anyone would question the Boy Scouts ban on gays after the Sandusky scandal. Yeah, I know gays aren’t necessarily pedophiles. But, it’s certainly their prerogative to insist on a more Christian environment for children.

      It’s really good to know that bigotry and intolerance are “Christian” values.

      To the guy who posted the other day asking why an Atheist group would need to raise funds – This is why.

      • Ricko | July 18, 2012 at 9:32 am |

        “To the guy who posted the other day asking why an Atheist group would need to raise funds — This is why.”

        Because only atheists fight against prejudice and bigotry? Without atheists prejudice and bigotry would run rampant?

        You may have overstated that just a tad.

        • Paul Lukas | July 18, 2012 at 10:13 am |

          That’s not what he said, or even implied.

          He’s following up on the notion — expressed last week — that there’s a tremendous cultural bias toward the notion that Christianity = virtue, and that the implicit (or sometimes explicit) subtext of that is that atheism = lack of virtue, and that atheists therefore need resources (financial and otherwise) to push back against that, to promote their own virtues, etc.

        • Ricko | July 18, 2012 at 10:38 am |

          No, he made it sound as if that’s the atheists prime function. And that’s not true.

    • Mike V. | July 18, 2012 at 9:04 am |

      *Gays are not pedophiles.


      • Mike V. | July 18, 2012 at 9:04 am |

        *Homosexuals are not pedophiles.

        …fixed again

    • Boxcarvibe | July 18, 2012 at 9:06 am |

      That aside, the BSA is a private organization. They can do whatever they want to within the law. Organizations, both public and private, can choose to associate or disassociate with them. They’re catering to a base, and if their base decides they’re in favor with their position…so be it…whether you like it or not.

      • Lose Rem | July 18, 2012 at 9:10 am |

        Then they can’t use my Public Schools as a place to recruit students and host meetings.

        • Boxcarvibe | July 18, 2012 at 9:11 am |

          They’ve been booted from several schools andM/i> churches already.

        • Boxcarvibe | July 18, 2012 at 9:13 am |

          Mulligan on last post:

          They’ve been booted from several schools and churches already.

        • Lose Rem | July 18, 2012 at 9:15 am |

          Several is a start.

      • diz | July 18, 2012 at 3:32 pm |

        they and any supporters however, do *NOT* have the right to immunity from criticism for their behaviour, especially from other individuals or organisations

    • Paul Lukas | July 18, 2012 at 9:16 am |

      Those of you who follow the comments may have noticed that if I take issue with a post, it’s not necessarily because I disagree with the point being expressed but because I have a low tolerance for faulty logic, false premises, straw man arguments, and apples/oranges comparisons.

      This particular comment is loaded with all of the above. One at a time:

      1) Jerry Sandusky is an adult who molested children. How does that have any relevance to the Boy Scouts admitting gay children? Do you think the gay boys will molest the straight boys?

      2) Jerry Sandusky presents to the world as a heterosexual. He is married. In other words, he is precisely the sort of guy who could end up being a Scout leader. (In fact, it’s sort of surprising he didn’t go that route.)

      3) Jerry Sandusky was a regular churchgoer.

      4) If you know anything about the Catholic pedophile scandals, you know that “a Christian environment” isn’t necessarily a safe haven from child molestation.

      5) Most gays are not pedophiles; most pedophiles are not gay.

      To be clear: I completely agree that the Scouts should be able to set their own admission policies, and I fully support the Supreme Court decision that ruled that the Scouts — like any private group — have every right to be as bigoted, closed-minded and prejudiced as they want.

      And boy do they want. That’s the disgrace of it. And that’s what makes their uniform a uniform of shame.

      • JTH | July 18, 2012 at 9:57 am |

        How does that have any relevance to the Boy Scouts admitting gay children?

        As I understand it, there is no policy against admitting gay children because the official stance of BSA is that there is no such thing as a gay child — or a hetero child for that matter. Their exclusion policies have to do with the leaders and scouts of legal adult age.

        • Paul Lukas | July 18, 2012 at 10:02 am |

          The BSA’s position — stated in a 1993 position paper and repeated in Supreme Court filings — is as follows:

          “We do not allow for the registration of avowed homosexuals as members or as leaders of the BSA.”

          As recently as six weeks ago — June 7 — BSA issued the following statement:

          The BSA policy is: “While the BSA does not proactively inquire about the sexual orientation of employees, volunteers, or members, we do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals or who engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the BSA.”

        • JTH | July 18, 2012 at 10:18 am |


          Here’s the pertintent part.

          avowed homosexuals or who engage in behavior that would become a distraction

          Since they insist that children have no sexual orientation, supposedly any sexual activity by an underage scout falls into this category.

          Although I have a hard time believing that a Boy Scout who got caught kissing a girl would be treated the same way as one who got caught kissing a boy.

        • Paul Lukas | July 18, 2012 at 10:21 am |

          But being an “avowed homosexual” is enough. So if I’m 14 and out (and there are a lot of out 14-year-olds these days), I can’t join — even if I’m a virgin, even if I’ve never kissed anyone, etc. Simply being out means I’m banned.

        • Dan-O | July 18, 2012 at 10:30 am |

          Boy likes girl = He can be a scout.
          Boy doesn’t say what he likes = He can be a scout
          Boy likes boy = Not a scout

          Talk about taking a personality away from somebody! I would think that the scouts would push for self esteem growth. Wow what a tragedy!

        • Paul Lukas | July 18, 2012 at 10:44 am |

          It’s basically a youth version of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” And every bit as hurtful.

        • Bando | July 18, 2012 at 11:16 am |

          Paul, you are incorrect about your point on gay youth. I’m an Eagle Scout and an current adult volunteer with the organization. I agree with your strong viewpoint on this. I realize you want to take a stand on this, Paul, but if you’re truly interested in promoting change in the BSA, it would be helpful if opposition to the current policy was articulated in such a way as to correctly identify what the policy actually is.

          The BSA does not recognize youth as having any sexual orientation whatsoever. It’s not a part of our program, and sexual activity (gay or straight or whatever) has no place in the youth program. Youth cannot be removed for sexual orientation under national policy. Period. That’s the way the program is implemented. In my experience, this has been consistently followed.

          The differentiation is in adult leadership. And this is where it gets a bit distressing. Adults who even as much as interview for a position with the BSA are required to sign a statement saying they will enforce the membership policy as it pertains to adult leaders. Adult leaders are not required to sign anything or prove their sexuality, but the policy is an adult “avowed homosexual” can be removed from their leadership position and barred from the organization. Again, it’s an adult issue, not a youth issue.

          There are good people in the BSA. Across America, Scouting is doing great things for kids, giving them great opportunities to serve their communities and grow as young adults. The common adage is “Adults ruin Scouting.” In this case, it’s true. This is a black mark on our organization, but it’s not the entire picture. And if you look at what AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson (the next president of the BSA) had to say about this issue in the past few weeks, there’s room for optimism that the policy will change in the near future.

        • Paul Lukas | July 18, 2012 at 11:21 am |

          if you look at what AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson (the next president of the BSA) had to say about this issue in the past few weeks, there’s room for optimism that the policy will change in the near future.

          Yes, he seems to have a lot of potential. I hope he’ll also lift the ban on atheists and agnostics — which, as you know, definitely applies to youth, not just to adult leadership, and is just as shameful as the anti-gay policy.

          Thanks for clarifying the point on youth membership. Just to be clear: You’re saying if there’s an “avowed” out 14-year-old, he can be a member in good standing? If so, that’s great, and I apologize for misrepresenting the policy, although it doesn’t change all the other nonsense. (And of course the notion that a 14-year-old can’t have a sexual orientation — or an eight-year-old, for that matter — is hooey and a cop-out.)

        • Bando | July 18, 2012 at 11:40 am |

          It’s kind of an awkwardly worded idea, and it’s not a cop-out as much as a recognition that the goals of our program have nothing to do with sexual activity or education. The program leaves issues like sex and the “birds and the bees” (for lack of better terminology) to the parents, their value system, etc. It’s really the best way to go about it for all involved, parents, kids, volunteers. We just leave it out, and let kids be kids and grow on their own terms within their family environment, and focus on other things.

          The ban on atheists is a bit trickier, and while I don’t necessarily agree with it, it’s a bit more defensible. Scouting, as originally conceived by Lord Baden Powell in England and as spread throughout the world, has always had a spiritual dimension. Yet this isn’t necessarily a strict or draconian idea. The BSA asks that a young man merely acknowledge some form of higher power, with extremely minimal standards of what that means. He may go to church, he may not. He may have doubts (yes, agnostics are acceptable), or he may be a youth group leader. These are kids, and kids have questions and doubts when it comes to faith. All that matters is that there is some form of “duty to God” (which brings up a whole new can of worms with kids from polytheistic traditions, but I digress).

          For my money, the sexuality issue is far more egregious, because it really has zero bearing or relevance to spirit of the program. It’s entirely manufactured and maintained to curry favor with the most conservative corners of the organization (Mormons, Evangelicals), who are feared to leave en masse if the policy changes. I’d rather they take their ball and create their version of the American Heritage Girls (Google it) and have a smaller BSA be on the right side of a serious public issue, but that’s a serious risk for all involved.

        • Paul Lukas | July 18, 2012 at 11:46 am |

          But the Girls Scouts have no similar anti-gay policy, right? And they seem to manage just fine, the cookies still taste good, etc. Did the Mormons and Evangelicals desert them?

        • Bando | July 18, 2012 at 12:05 pm |

          They don’t. And haven’t for decades, though some would argue their membership isn’t what it used to be, either. But GSUSA is a different kind of program with a different relationship between the local units and the national organization. The BSA charters units to local chartering organizations, who have a lot of autonomy to determine their own program within the broader parameters of national policy, a big part of which is determining adult leadership. For example, there are some BSA units who do not allow women to be registered leaders. Mormon troops ordinarily have their adult leadership determined by “calls” from the church. Some units even require membership in their chartering org (church, temple, etc.) for membership. In Girl Scouting, the national organization owns the troops, and all local policies are national policies. It’s largely the same organization across the board. And their position on these issues are why they still exist in public schools, while the BSA increasingly does not.

          Basically, this difference is why, when the policy changes in the BSA, it will likely be implemented as a “local option,” where chartering org’s who want to continue to maintain the current policy within their units may do so. It’s not perfect, but it’s a start. And I think it would do enough to appease most involved.

          It should be pointed out that GSUSA has had a mixed relationship with the BSA since the whole gay controversy came about. In fact, the BSA has had more to do with the American Heritage Girls of late than it has with GSUSA, and it’s a serious point of contention within Scouting right now. AHG is making inroads in Evangelical communities as a “values” alternative to GSUSA, and their “feminist” and “liberal” program, and the BSA is quietly supporting it. It’s shocking stuff.

          Also keep in mind the United States is one of only a handful of countries worldwide where the Scouting isn’t entirely coed in a single program. When you look at how Scouting operates in Europe, even in Canada, America comes off looking downright puritanical.

        • Paul Lukas | July 18, 2012 at 12:12 pm |

          According to Wikipedia (I know, I know…), AHG has only 19,000 members — which is, like, nothing, right? Do they really have any clout to speak of?

        • Bando | July 18, 2012 at 12:19 pm |

          Sort of. They’ve really ballooned in the last five years or so. Honestly, I’ve been around Scouting for almost twenty years, and I had never heard of them until I stumbled across their booth at the 2010 BSA National Jamboree. And since then, they’ve only gotten more prominent as their cooperation with the BSA grows. Locally, a lot of BSA units are forming AHG sister units instead of GSUSA. They’ve even been embraced by some Catholic dioceses. It’s something to keep an eye out for. There are a lot of folks in the BSA who are extremely wary of associating with a group like this. It doesn’t look like scouting to us as much as a para-church Evangelical movement pretending to be scouting.

        • Arr Scott | July 18, 2012 at 2:49 pm |

          I have a hard time believing that American Heritage Girls is not a prank directed at gullible Evangelicals. I mean, just look at the logo, as seen on this page detailing AHG’s uniforms:


          It’s a red crescent with a star! Turkey’s scouts have a less overtly Islamic logo than the American Heritage Girls:


    • Roger | July 18, 2012 at 1:11 pm |

      By this logic, you could argue that the BSA should also ban straight Den Mothers and the GSUSA should ban straight male Troop Leaders. ‘Cause, ya know … sexual impropriety of the hetero kind exists, as well.

  • Jeff | July 18, 2012 at 8:56 am |

    Reminded by today’s photos that Frank Howard has one of the most legible autographs around. When I got an autograph from him five or so years ago, he added the inscription I most wanted without my asking: “Frank Howard, the Capitol Punisher.”

    • Boxcarvibe | July 18, 2012 at 9:10 am |

      Back in 2001, I met Frank Howard at a spring training game. I told him that I saw him hit two home runs off the facade in LF at Tiger Stadium. His reply: “Did that several times!” Dude still had tree trunks for arms. Amazing.

    • Arr Scott | July 18, 2012 at 9:30 am |

      Back in 2006 or 2007, when Frank was still doing brand events for Makers Mark, I was at a shindig where I got to double-dip a bottle in red and navy, and Frank signed the bottle “For the Nats Next Pennant”.

      Thought I might never get to open that bottle, but this might be the year. I’m trying to uphold the standard that winning the division counts, but a wild-card entry doesn’t unless they go on to win the NLCS.

      • Paul Lukas | July 18, 2012 at 9:37 am |

        Scott, can you send a photo of that bottle? Love the team-colored wax!

        • Arr Scott | July 18, 2012 at 9:51 am |


          Now if only I had Maker’s bottle in Twins team colors. Oh, wait …

      • WFY | July 18, 2012 at 10:18 am |

        The one I went to was in 2007. I opened it. Can’t let that fine bourbon go to waste.

        • Arr Scott | July 18, 2012 at 11:37 am |

          I hear you, but Hondo signed it, and correction here from my previous note,

          For the “Nats” Next Pennant

          Have you seen Frank Howard’s arms? The man says not to open it, I’m not opening it!

        • WFY | July 18, 2012 at 1:57 pm |

          He made no such demand of me, so bottoms up. I’ve still got some though…

  • Jason M (DC) | July 18, 2012 at 9:02 am |

    I don’t really understand the purpose of having a road hat. Obviously, there isn’t a rule saying that you can’t wear red on the road. The Reds wear red on the road.

    And I agree. The Nats blue road hats are more annoying now because they match the Braves. Pure silliness. I wish they would just wear the red cap.

    (So great to be at the game and watch them beat the Mets last night!)

    • Chris Holder | July 18, 2012 at 9:09 am |

      And I agree. The Nats blue road hats are more annoying now because they match the Braves.

      Ugh. The all-blue Braves road cap is awful. I’d gladly let the Nats keep that look. I’m someone else who doesn’t understand the need for a “road” cap. Well, I get WHY it’s done – merchandise sales, natch. But with as many fashion caps out there, I don’t see why it’s really that necessary.

      • Jason M (DC) | July 18, 2012 at 9:29 am |

        Yeah, I think the Braves wanted to do some sort of throw-back to the all blue cap they had in the 80s, but of course, they kept it Navy blue. I agree that the royal blue wouldn’t work with their current uniform. But an all Navy blue cap just feels like there is something missing.

        I loved the Braves’ uniforms in the 80s. But maybe that was just due to me growing up in the 80s as a Braves fan.

        • Chris Holder | July 18, 2012 at 9:41 am |

          That makes me wonder… has a team ever went with a slightly different color scheme for its road unis? I mean, if they are going to do something different, might as well go all out. What if the Braves went with a royal blue on the road, and kept navy at home?

          Just a thought, and probably not a very good one. Oh well.

        • Bouj | July 18, 2012 at 9:42 am |

          The all-navy cap harkens back to the late 60’s. They wore the same hat in 1969.

        • boxcarvibe | July 18, 2012 at 9:45 am |

          It’s actually a throwback to the navy cap of the 60’s. It would look GREAT if the road uni didn’t have red in it.

        • JTH | July 18, 2012 at 9:59 am |

          has a team ever went (sic) with a slightly different color scheme for its road unis?

          Perhaps you’re familiar with the Detroit Tigers?

        • Chris Holder | July 18, 2012 at 10:29 am |

          I suppose you mean the addition of the orange trim?

          I guess that technically qualifies per my original post, but that’s not really what I meant. To my knowledge, the Tigers don’t use a different color blue on the road – do they? I confess that I’m an NL fan that can count the number of times I’ve seen the Tigers on TV on one hand.

          I’m looking for teams that have actually used a different color scheme on different uniforms. It’s generally accepted that the Tigers’ colors are orange and blue, correct? Even if the home unis don’t sport any orange.

        • Le Cracquere | July 18, 2012 at 11:15 am |

          I grew up a Braves fan in the ’70s and ’80s, and even though I still loved them, those aren’t eras the team should particularly WANT to remind people of.

          Season by season after the ’57 Series win, and even after the move to Atlanta, the Braves kept losing bits of ornament from their unis, an element at a time. The aesthetic retreat almost seemed to parallel the team’s gradual reconciliation to being NL also-rans. By the turn of the ’70s, their look was more vanilla than you’d think humanly possible. That’s what I keep thinking of when I look at the Braves’ current road cap.

        • Joseph Gerard | July 18, 2012 at 11:34 am |

          Now the Braves won the NL West in 1982, so they had some success. Granted, they were otherwise bad, about as bad as the Pirates have been since I was in second grade (ironically enough, coming against the Braves), but you still had some success in the early 80’s.

          As far as promotions by bad teams go, NOTHING tops what the Cleveland Indians did back in 1974. It worked a little TOO well for them, I’d say…

    • Arr Scott | July 18, 2012 at 9:38 am |

      Road caps serve two purposes.

      1. They create an additional regular on-field item that the team can sell at retail.

      2. They expand the uni designer’s canvass a bit and allow for a team to emphasize different aspects of their identity home and road.

      Now, I’m quite certain that for today’s Nats, it’s all about #1, and I sincerely hope that the red-on-the-road experiment is a step toward deciding that the merchandising benefit isn’t worth the aesthetic cost. But I also trust that the 2005 Nats, like the Tigers, created the road cap for perfectly valid design reasons (in addition to the obvious retailing reasons).

      The original Nats uni was about balancing red and blue as coequal team colors, sort of like what the Rangers have usually tried (though most often failed) to do. For the Nats, I think it worked, and it was a fun quirk. Much better execution in my book than the Cardinals, for example, who just change caps. The Nats flipped red and blue almost completely from home to road unis.

      Now that the Nats have settled on being a red team, not a red-and-blue team, there’s no longer an aesthetic justification for wearing a road cap. The red cap is the only one that fits their identity anymore.

  • Pierre | July 18, 2012 at 9:04 am |

    Yea, we don’t want a Jew environment for Scouts…or a Muslim environment; or some goofy Buddhist environment; we want a Christian environment, where we can teach children the earth is six thousand years old. That’s American…!


    • Chris Holder | July 18, 2012 at 9:13 am |

      Is it necessary to bash all Christians?

      FWIW, I disagree with the Scouts and their positions, and think the earth is a little older than 6k. Stupid people exist in all forms.

      • walter | July 18, 2012 at 9:26 am |

        It’s necessary to bash all Christians who can’t shut their yap about their Christianity. To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, “When a person needs to constantly point out that he is religious, chances are that he is not.”

        • walter | July 18, 2012 at 12:10 pm |

          To be clear, it’s also necessary to bash all Jews who can’t shut up about Judaism, all Muslims who can’t shut up about Islam, Buddhists, Shinto, you get the picture. Religion is a private issue.

    • Jason M (DC) | July 18, 2012 at 9:25 am |

      I know you’re being sarcastic, but just to be clear, it’s not a Christian thing considering there are religious awards for Hindus, Muslims, Jews, etc.


      • Cort McMurray | July 18, 2012 at 3:54 pm |

        Some of the biggest, best-funded, and most organized troops in Houston are sponsored by Islamic groups.

        It’s not about Christianity. It’s about fundamentalism.

  • Rich A. | July 18, 2012 at 9:11 am |

    wow. good to see Adidas reuse those Northwestern jerseys they wore against Penn State last season.

    NW (http://bit.ly/SGzQ0B)
    Weber (http://bit.ly/Nyv41H)

    and what is with the Big Sky Conference and those Adidas Tech Fit uniforms? look slike they’re wearing compression gear. also,is Montana wearing gradient pants?

  • Tape | July 18, 2012 at 9:28 am |

    Those (UMass) Amherst BFBS unis are hideous. Only someone at the big, dumb UMass campus would come up with that.

    Lowell forever!

    • scott | July 18, 2012 at 11:04 am |

      This Division I thing is going to be a disaster for UMass. Who ever heard of a team playing all of its home football games more than 90 minutes from campus?

      • TA | July 18, 2012 at 12:11 pm |

        It’s just a temporary 1-year thing playing away from campus, right? Arkansas used to play half its home games, and still plays twice a season, 3 hours away in Little Rock.

        • Joseph Gerard | July 18, 2012 at 12:32 pm |

          They will play their entire home schedule in Foxborough for 2012 and 2013, then play at least four home games per season there through 2016. After that, it’ll be up to the school to continue games there.


        • Connie | July 18, 2012 at 1:20 pm |

          Awful, awful, awful. The school is in Amherst. The students are in Amherst. It takes two hours to drive to Foxboro, and that’s if you’re lead-footed and lucky. One game a year? OK, maybe. But to play most or all of your home games in a place remote from the undergraduates… yikes.

        • Brendan Burke | July 18, 2012 at 2:54 pm |

          Let’s compare driving times to Foxboro (Gilette) and Hadley (McGuirk).

          Foxboro is 2 hours from Amherst on I-90.
          Hadley is 5 minutes from Amherst on Route 9.

          Now let’s compare distances from northwestern Massachusetts just to make a point.

          Foxboro is 2 hours from Deerfield on I-90.
          Hadley is 25 minutes from Deerfield on I-91.

          In other words, a lot of people that could make it to Hadley can’t make it to Foxboro.

  • Bouj | July 18, 2012 at 9:40 am |

    RE: The Nats’ Switch-up – Houston did the same thing last season with the brick hats on the road. They always wore the black hat with the road uniforms and th ebrick was exclusive to the home white alt. On a trip last season, they wore the brick hat with the grey tops (and brick sleeves), and they’ve gone to that permanently. So the brick hat goes with the greys for road night games (usually unless in case of clash) and the black hat goes with the brick alt for road day games (usually unless in case of clash).

    Too bad they don’t have brick helmets. Not like it will matter much longer, since they’re changing the colors in 2013.

    • Arr Scott | July 18, 2012 at 10:01 am |

      OK, so there’s another potential justification for a “road” cap: Avoiding clash. I didn’t know that any baseball team had ever made that a consideration in deciding what cap to wear. I could get behind this: When the Nats play in Philly or Cincy, they wear the blue caps for contrast. As long as the Phillies and Reds would return the favor in DC, of course, with their royal and black caps, respectively.

      • Ricko | July 18, 2012 at 10:08 am |

        There ya go. Except teams can’t seem to figure out that when the opponent is wearing a navy jersey it might not be the best day to wear your black one. Grrrr…

      • JTH | July 18, 2012 at 10:14 am |

        The Reds don’t wear black caps, unless you’re referring to those godawful red-crowned/black-brimmed jobs that they always wear on the road anyway.

  • Tom V. | July 18, 2012 at 10:14 am |

    Chick-fil-A yesterday, the Boy Scouts of America today, Paul you should have saved the buffalo wild wings logo for tomorrow, I’m sure they’ll be some takers on that one too.

    • Ryan L | July 18, 2012 at 11:01 am |

      Paul must have had a real bad chicken experience as a child.

      • Geeman | July 18, 2012 at 11:15 am |

        I feel like Jeff Goldbloom in “Jurassic Park,” where he said something like, “You are going to have dinosaurs here, right?”

        Uniforms please! Not gay chicken sandwiches on Sundays or whatever.

        • JTH | July 18, 2012 at 11:37 am |

          Yeah, when’s Paul gonna get back to talking about athletics aesthetics?

          I mean, other than the main entry today and pretty much every single ticker item…

        • Geeman | July 18, 2012 at 11:44 am |

          Sure, but when you drop a Baby Ruth in the pool, no one is going to focus on the tons of chlorinated water around it.

        • JTH | July 18, 2012 at 11:50 am |

          So you’re saying that nobody is focusing on anything else today? How many of the 121 comments (so far) have you bothered to read?

        • boxcarvibe | July 18, 2012 at 12:44 pm |

          I have it on good authority that Frank Howard was a Boy Scout, and once wore white shoes into a Chick-Fil-A! Hoo boy!

  • Connie | July 18, 2012 at 10:16 am |

    “… Trademark bullying + the Olympix = this clever billboard (big thanks to Mark Coale)…”


  • Ronnie Poore | July 18, 2012 at 10:21 am |
  • Jason | July 18, 2012 at 10:29 am |

    I can’t think of other US teams with photos, but Colorado Rapids are putting fans names on jerseys. http://www.coloradorapids.com/news/2012/02/rapids-offer-fans-opportunity-be-part-fabric-team

  • Matt K | July 18, 2012 at 10:30 am |

    It’s not a fundraiser, as far as I know, but the Minnesota Stars (NASL soccer) touted themselves as the first US team to do the fan-photos-in-numbers thing; that features on their road jerseys this year.

  • Ray Barrington | July 18, 2012 at 10:37 am |

    Actually, I think the font on that Weber State jersey is Mistral.

    • walter | July 18, 2012 at 10:51 am |

      Like Comic Sans, a Mac freebie.

  • Joseph Gerard | July 18, 2012 at 10:37 am |

    Ahh…good ol’ BW3’s. Used to go to the one in Downtown Youngstown all the time when I was a student at YSU. Too bad they just closed the one in downtown because of the upcoming remodels. And yes, they are as good as they are advertised.

    • Craig D | July 18, 2012 at 10:56 am |

      Outside of Ohio, I doubt many people even know Buffalo Wild Wings was once known as BW3 (or B-Dubs for the regulars). That stood for Buffalo Wild Wings and Weck. What’s a weck? As far as I can remember it was the name of the bun they used for their sandwiches. The first BW3 was located on Ohio State’s campus. Once they branched out and became more national than regional, they rebranded as Buffalo Wild Wings. I’m guessing they feel most Americans can’t be bothered with things that aren’t obvious and in your face. So the Weck was dropped. And the original restaurant was closed a few years ago for a new fangled one across the street. Ah progress.

      • Paul Lukas | July 18, 2012 at 11:02 am |

        Beef on weck (which is short for kummelweck, which is a salt- and caraway-encrusted roll) is a popular sandwich in the Buffalo region:

        Buffalo Wild Wings and Weck originally featured beef on weck as a menu item, but it didn’t catch on outside of the Buffalo region, so they scrapped it and focused on the wings.

        My favorite venue for beef on weck is Schwabl’s in West Seneca, just outside of Buffalo:

        Schwabl’s is a really wonderful Mom+Pop operation. Pretty much the exact opposite of Buffalo Wild Wings’ frat boy scene.

        • Ryan M. | July 18, 2012 at 12:35 pm |

          Ooooh… Schwabl’s… That just made my mouth water.

          There are decent Beef on Weck sandwiches to be found all over Western New York, but that’s the gold standard.

          When I lived in Cleveland, during the time the crappy restaurant was still known as BW3’s, I had a hell of a time explaining to people what “weck” was or why I would want to eat it. If I recall correctly, they didn’t even have the requisite horseradish available. Shame.

        • Joseph Gerard | July 18, 2012 at 1:21 pm |

          Seeing that spelling, I think of the bread Schwebels, another Youngstown original, just like Arby’s and Good Humor. I’m a Pittsburgher at heart, but a part of me will always be in the Mahoning Valley.

      • Joseph Gerard | July 18, 2012 at 11:02 am |

        Youngstown still has three other BW3’s, and Pittsburgh’s starting to get a decent presence of them too. At least the one in Downtown Youngstown was sold off to local owners, so people who didn’t transfer to other BW3 locations in Youngstown at least didn’t lose their jobs. Now that we’re talking about BW3’s, I’m hungry for them again.

      • Tony C. | July 18, 2012 at 12:46 pm |

        i use to say let’s go to Bdubs all the times to my friends and they would look at me like i had 3 heads. ..

      • [name redacted] | July 18, 2012 at 2:01 pm |

        I just had a discussion about BW3 vs BWW when I was eating at one the other day in Delaware (there are at least 3 here now).

        I used to eat there all the time when I was an undergrad in Blommington (used to be only place to see hockey in early 90s thanks to Sportschannel) and in grad shool at Bowling Green.

        I went like 6 years without eating at one until they opened restaurants in VA in the mid 2000s.

        I do miss the curry wings.

    • JTH | July 18, 2012 at 11:34 am |

      I actually know a lot of people who still refer to it as BW3.

      I never do because its current incarnation as Buffalo Wild Wings resembles the old BW3 in very few ways.

      • Joseph Gerard | July 18, 2012 at 11:40 am |

        It’s definitely more of an Ohio thing, though. Go to Morgantown, West Virginia, and they call it Buffalo Wild Wings. Pittsburgh, they call it Buffalo Wild Wings. The BW3 term is about as Ohio as Paul Brown, buckeyes, and Marc’s.

        • JTH | July 18, 2012 at 11:48 am |

          I live in Chicago and I have spent almost no time in Ohio since the name change.

          I wasn’t saying that people here don’t call it by the current name. They do. My point was that the old name is still used outside of Ohio.

        • Joseph Gerard | July 18, 2012 at 12:14 pm |

          It’s been about eight years since I’ve been in Chicago. There’s at least one place in Chicago I’d like to check out the next time I’m out that way. I’d like to catch a baseball game out there too when I have the chance…at U.S. Cellular Field. Something about White Sox fans that seem to care more about their team than Cubs fans. At least I got to eat at ESPNZONE before they closed.

          As for Ohio, I was just there…yesterday, actually. I live about ten minutes from the PA-Ohio border, giving business to this place. But in all fairness, I’m in Ohio all the time.

        • Tony C. | July 18, 2012 at 12:49 pm |

          if you’re a Buckeye fan and not in Ohio, the best place to go is to a BWW/Bdubs/BW3. on most Saturdays, they are packed with a sea of Scarlet and Grey. at least that was the case in Fayetteville NC and all the locations in Orlando FL

        • Bernard | July 18, 2012 at 1:09 pm |

          In Morgantown, West Virginia, they USED to call it BW3. At least, they did up through the late 90s.

        • Joseph Gerard | July 18, 2012 at 1:17 pm |

          Tony C., when I was at YSU, about 90% of the people there–students, professors, faculty, etc…–were Buckeyes fans. They weren’t even upset that Jim Tressel left YSU for OSU, mainly because they were OSU fans anyways and he probably would’ve left for a major FBS program down the road anyways because of his success of winning four FCS national championships with YSU in the 90’s. I graduated just before the scandal–a scandal that now, compared to Pedophile State makes OSU look like a monastery–and none of my professors at YSU that knew the man had anything bad to say about him.

          Bernard, I was Morgantown last summer due to work, and I did not hear it called BW3 down there once.

        • Bernard | July 18, 2012 at 1:22 pm |

          I’m sure that’s because the restaurant has since rebranded. But in the mid-to-late 90s when I was in school there, it was still “Buffalo Wild Wings and Weck,” and I (and everyone I knew, and everyone who went there to watch South Park in its infancy) called it BW3. And I still do. And No Mas should make me a shirt.

        • Joseph Gerard | July 18, 2012 at 1:29 pm |

          By the time I started going to YSU in the fall of 2003, I know the one in Downtown Youngstown that just closed was officially called Buffalo Wild Wings. But everyone still called it BW3’s. IDK, I was in Morgantown for four months last summer, and I didn’t really get to find what the popular hangouts were. Youngstown, where I’ve spent a LOT more time at, is a different story.

        • Cort McMurray | July 18, 2012 at 1:46 pm |

          I grew up in Buffalo, a city that’s been in a long, slow decline since McKinley was assassinated. We we proud of four things: our St. Jude-like loyalty to our sports teams; the most miserable winters of any major American city; Dyngus Day (if you have to ask, you probably don’t want to know); and insanely good, mom and pop fast food, like wings, subs, pizza and beef on weck. A self-respecting Buffalonian wouldn’t be caught dead eating pineapple barbeque wings in some crappy chain.

          We were in Buffalo last month, for vacation. There is an enormous Buffalo Wild Wings on Niagara Falls Boulevard. It was 3:00 on a Wednesday afternoon, and the parking lot was packed.

          I died a little that day.

        • Joseph Gerard | July 18, 2012 at 2:21 pm |

          I’ve been to Buffalo a few times, mostly just driving on through to Niagara Falls. A couple years ago I did decide to take the long way home and take U.S. 62 from its northern/eastern terminus right by the Falls all the way to about 20 minutes from my house, just to save myself toll money on the NY Thruway. (And when I mean the long way, I mean the LONG way: it took me an extra two hours to get home just by taking U.S. 62. I’ve now been on every inch of U.S. 62 from Niagara Falls, NY to Canton, Ohio.) Anyways, taking U.S. 62 home afforded me the opportunity of driving through downtown Buffalo. There really isn’t a lot going on, though you do have First Niagara Bank going on. (We have those in Pittsburgh now too, thanks to a certain shotgun marriage.) But, to your credit, downtown isn’t as cluttered traffic-wise as Cleveland and Pittsburgh are.

        • Coleman | July 18, 2012 at 3:25 pm |

          Joseph, I have a feeling that the reason you didn’t hear anyone in Motown calling it B-Dubs is because you were there in the summer. It’s absolutely void of people when school’s out. Go in October and see if its a little different.

          Morgantown practically dies 3 months out of the year.

        • Cort McMurray | July 18, 2012 at 4:16 pm |

          Joseph, the next time you take US 62, when you hit Sheridan Drive, turn right, go down a couple of miles, and look for a place called Duff’s. Those are some tasty wings.

          Paul, Schwabl’s is great. And so is Charlie the Butcher’s.

          The reason there’s little traffic congestion in Buffalo is that all the Buffalonians moved to Charlotte.

          I read someplace that if all the people who came from Buffalo, had stayed in Buffalo, it would be the 4th biggest city in the country. I don’t know if that’s true, but it feels true.

        • stlmarty | July 18, 2012 at 5:17 pm |

          I dated a girl that managed one of the early B-Dubs in Columbus. She said that it got pretty crazy in there some nights. If I recall, she took a shot glass to the forehead.

  • BrianC | July 18, 2012 at 10:49 am |

    Hart, Schaffner & Marx made uniforms for McDonald’s? Where was that, Monaco? ;)

  • pushbutton | July 18, 2012 at 10:56 am |

    Here’s an odd thing….Frank Howard wore black spikes in the 1971 All Star game. The 1st instance of differently-colored shoes in ASG history?

    • walter | July 18, 2012 at 11:01 am |

      I was always wishing an Oakland All-Star would put on black cleats.

    • Cort McMurray | July 18, 2012 at 1:50 pm |

      A behemoth like Frank Howard probably felt a little silly, a little self-conscious, cramming his Size 18s into white shoes. I’m guessing he wore the black because he could. Big people don’t like to draw attention to themselves.

      Interesting, isn’t it, that the current Washington slugger chose to wear golden slippers to the All-Star game? It’s a different, much worse world.

      • quiet seattle | July 18, 2012 at 2:50 pm |

        “Big people don’t like to draw attention to themselves.”

        There are exceptions, of course, but yeah, I think you’re right. I’m big, and even as a kid I felt a little embarrassed for Frank Howard in those white shoes.

  • walter | July 18, 2012 at 11:00 am |

    Another thing that depresses me about the Boy Scouts is that if one were inclined to start up his own benevolent club for the purpose of embracing BSA’s virtues but discarding its restrictive aspects, it would lack BSA’s august standing. It would be seen merely as a reaction against the Boy Scouts (which it kind of is) and not a stand-alone association. Worse, it could be pegged as a shill for “the homosexual agenda.” These are obstacles for anyone who thinks they can improve on the BSA.

    • Paul Lukas | July 18, 2012 at 11:05 am |

      it would lack BSA’s august standing

      Which is exactly why it’s necessary to counter the notion of said standing. The BSA is shameful, not august.

      • Cort McMurray | July 18, 2012 at 1:40 pm |

        Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business,
        and eventually degenerates into a racket. –Eric Hoffer

        I have long experience with BSA. My elder son is an Eagle Scout; my younger son is a couple of merit badges and a service project shy of becoming an Eagle. Trust me, whatever its good intentions are, it is most certainly a racket these days.

        The Penn State parallels are apt, not because Scouts is a haven for pedophiles, or because it discriminates against homosexuals (the whole organization is strange and anachronistic, like Civil War reenactments, only you’re reenacting episodes of Leave It To Beaver), but because it is loaded with money (they have a $1.1 billion endowment, and top officials make more money that many Fortune 500 CEOs), dripping with public approbation, and thoroughly, achingly insensitive to what’s going on around it.

        I really don’t think many gay kids, or gay adults, have much interest in Scouting. But by making those few who are interested pariahs, the program attracts a disproportionate number of leaders and donors who think along fundamentalist lines, which means the organization tends to be politicized and conservative and very, very middle class, which means it’s generally unresponsive to the needs of poor kids, fatherless kids, minority kids of all stripe.

        My church is heavily involved in Scouting. I wish we weren’t: it seems to me that we would be much better able to “serve our fellow beings and our God” if we weren’t tied up in all of Scouting’s baggage.

        • stlmarty | July 18, 2012 at 5:22 pm |

          And don’t even get me started on the Order of the Arrow.

      • walter | July 18, 2012 at 1:53 pm |

        Funny, isn’t it (or tragic) how the American Heritage Girls, as mentioned above, have taken precisely this tack to make a troop of dystopian Girl Scouts. While this development encourages my idea of a utopian Boy Scouts, it reinforces my belief that we have two Americas.

        • scott | July 18, 2012 at 4:01 pm |

          There are most definitely two Americas, and no one is going to bridge that gap anytime soon.

  • Chris F | July 18, 2012 at 11:26 am |

    Is it me or is Ray Rice’s jersey Reebok? It’s kind of hard to tell but that doesn’t look like a Nike swoosh to me. Any more pics of other players from that day?

    • Paul Lukas | July 18, 2012 at 11:32 am |

      Good spot. Despite Nike’s protestations to the contrary, lots of teams are clearly wearing old Reebok stock for practices.

  • Paul Mordente | July 18, 2012 at 11:46 am |

    The Minnesota Stars of the NASL put pictures of their Supporters on the numbers on the back of their away jersey.


    • boxcarvibe | July 18, 2012 at 12:13 pm |

      …pictures of their supporters…

      Isn’t that a jock tag? No, wait…

  • Dante | July 18, 2012 at 12:14 pm |

    Yikes. Lovely douchebaggery on those Ray Rice tights.

  • Mike P | July 18, 2012 at 12:25 pm |

    I didn’t catch if anyone else noticed this, but the picture of Elliot Maddox in the slide show was taken at Tiger Stadium. Why was Elliot in a white uni on the road?

    • pushbutton | July 18, 2012 at 3:06 pm |

      ’71 All Star Game @ Tiger Stadium

      • DJ | July 18, 2012 at 4:01 pm |

        That was my first thought, but Maddox wasn’t on the AL All-Star team that year.

        • pushbutton | July 18, 2012 at 4:07 pm |

          A late replacement? Was he from Detroit? Was he the bat boy?

        • DJ | July 18, 2012 at 5:18 pm |

          A major league player serving as the bat boy in an All-Star Game??? Are you serious???

        • pushbutton | July 18, 2012 at 5:56 pm |

          Yes. Dead serious.

  • Sean Abruzzo | July 18, 2012 at 12:32 pm |

    Albuquerque Isotopes and Iowa Cubs to wear throwbacks Saturday night:


    • Keith | July 18, 2012 at 2:01 pm |

      Dang, I was hoping that the ‘Topes would go with this: http://simpsonspedia.net/images/0/01/Buck_Mitchell.png

      • scott | July 18, 2012 at 4:04 pm |

        Did the Dukes often wear mustard yellow home uniforms back in the day?

    • Pittsburgh Contrarian | July 18, 2012 at 6:23 pm |

      Before that game, Sid Bream is going to be inducted into the Albuquerque Baseball Hall of Fame. Wonder if he is going to slide into home?

      • timmy b | July 18, 2012 at 8:17 pm |

        Please don’t remind me. But then – hopefully the 2012 Pirates will help me to forget that almost 20 year old nightmare.

        • Gusto44 | July 18, 2012 at 9:26 pm |

          Hey, the Bucs will be tied for first tonight if Arizona holds on versus the Reds, they’re 11 games over .500

          The losing streak is bad, to be sure, but it pales in comparison to franchises which have never won it all.

        • BurghFan | July 18, 2012 at 10:41 pm |

          You’ll never forget ’92, any more than you’ll (or at least I’ll) ever forget ’72.

  • Arr Scott | July 18, 2012 at 1:06 pm |

    I love the transcriptions of announcers’ uni discussions. Moments like this:

    Well, it got them a .500 series on the road, two and two. One ball and two strikes. I just knew, that either you or Kristina, being the bulldog reporters that you are, would find out the real story on that.

    … Where the conversation weaves so naturally back and forth between calling the game and shooting the shit is probably a big part of why I fell in love with baseball as a kid to begin with. And it’s pure poetry when transcribed. Reads like Whitman or Studs Terkel.

    • JTH | July 18, 2012 at 2:18 pm |

      I think that’s what drew us all to the Fire Wayne Hagin Already blog.

    • Connie | July 18, 2012 at 2:42 pm |

      Well, of course, there’s the genius of Rizzuto… Neck-and-neck with Willam Carlos Williams.

      • Cort McMurray | July 18, 2012 at 2:52 pm |

        There’s a book, “O, Holy Cow”, where a poet transcribed some of the Scooter’s musings into verse.

        It is a work of Genius:

        They’re having more snow
        Out in Colorado.
        Which is not in Montana.
        But it is not far from Montana.

    • Beats | July 18, 2012 at 4:04 pm |

      Arr Scott I think you’d have to agree that Charlie and Dave broadcasting games on the radio is music to a Beltway driver’s ears. I don’t know how many times hearing them call a game has made me forget the traffic misery of Northern Virginia Metro expansion construction.

  • Roger | July 18, 2012 at 1:27 pm |

    IMO, “Hondo” is one of the coolest baseball nicknames, ever.

  • Dre | July 18, 2012 at 2:42 pm |

    this comment will prob be buried but…

    the Senators knickname wasn’t “Sens” but “Nats” alluding to their original/alternate name…

    • Paul Lukas | July 18, 2012 at 3:14 pm |

      Yeah, but I can still call them the Sens if I want. I’m not trying to recall an old nickname; I’m using my own nickname.

      I don’t like referring to the Senators as the Nats, because it causes confusion with the current team.

    • Christopher F. | July 18, 2012 at 4:21 pm |

      Nicknames are nicknames. Teams have more than one, often.

      Red Sox: Carmines, Sawx, probably others.

  • Coleman | July 18, 2012 at 2:52 pm |

    As a native West Virginian, and one who spent a lot of weekends there in the late 90’s, I can say most people I know who are anywhere near my generation (I’m 28) would call it “B-Dubs”, or “B-Dubya 3’s”. The signs, from what I can remember, say Buffalo Wild Wings, but only our parents called it that.

    • Neeko | July 18, 2012 at 2:58 pm |

      agreed (29)

  • Gill | July 18, 2012 at 3:26 pm |

    “25 Amazingly Bizarre Minor League Baseball Logos” from designshack.net. http://designshack.net/articles/inspiration/25-amazingly-bizarre-minor-league-baseball-logos/

  • James A | July 18, 2012 at 3:30 pm |

    I like the idea of the Quad City River Bandits jerseys. Do I think it looks good? Not really, but the same could be said about a lot of one-off jerseys in minor league baseball and hockey. If memory serves, the European soccer teams that have used the concept of putting fans’ pictures on the jerseys have been simply for generating money for the team. At least in this case, it is being done to raise money for charity. And it may end up raising more money than just wearing a special jersey and auctioning it off. The charity will get money from the pictures and the auction and the auction may generate more money as people may push the bidding up to get the specific jersey their picture appears on.

  • Tony Miller | July 18, 2012 at 3:40 pm |

    Interesting that Dick Dikeman of the basketball bumper photo appears to be shooting from some distance — that would suggest he was a guard rather than a forward.

    While this is quite possibly apocryphal, the majority of bespectacled basketball players that come to mind (Mikan, Rambis and Grant to name 3) have been post players. Any theories on why this is? I’d have expected glasses to be more common on guards, simply because there is less contact on the perimeter.

  • pushbutton | July 18, 2012 at 3:57 pm |

    My memory produces no bespectacled guards.

    And a name like Dick Dikeman just has to be bad for the Boy Scouts.

  • pushbutton | July 18, 2012 at 4:04 pm |

    That SI article from ’71….

    The Orioles wore orange spikes?!? Is there photographic evidence of this? Maybe it was a one-game thing, like red shoes on the Reds in the ’70 NLCS?

  • Coleman | July 18, 2012 at 4:08 pm |

    Put up a new photo on Flickr. Myself back in ’90 or so, rockin’ the ‘rups. Shitty quality, its a pic of a pic. Best I can do right now.

    Let me know if the link is crap…


  • Tom V. | July 18, 2012 at 4:15 pm |

    Paul, a few weeks ago your take on the Fighting Sioux vs. the NCAA was “if you don’t like the rules, don’t join.” You seem to have a very different take on the Boy Scouts of America though, one could argue that if you don’t like their rules, you don’t have to join. Just wondering.

    • Paul Lukas | July 18, 2012 at 4:53 pm |

      Oh, absolutely. Nobody has to join any group, nor is there any inherent right to join any private group.

      But your analogy is a poor one. In one case (NCAA), a group is denying entry to groups that it feels are engaging in bigoted and offensive behavior (i.e., schools that caricature Native Americans). In the other instance, we have a group (BSA) whose entrance policies are AN EXAMPLE of bigoted and offensive behavior.

      Furthermore, my position on the NCAA wans’t “If you don’t like the NCAA, don’t join”; it was “If you don’t like the NCAA, don’t stay in the NCAA.” Remember, we were talking about a school that’s already an NCAA member but doesn’t like the rules about Native American imagery (rules that they were presumably consulted on, had a chance to have input on, etc.). If they don’t like it, they’re free to leave. In the case of the BSA, gays and atheists can’t even get in the door to begin with.

      As I’ve already stated above, I fully support the BSA’s right to have as bigoted a policy as it wants. But if you’re going to behave in a bigoted manner, you’re also going to be called out for it. Or at least you should be.

  • pushbutton | July 18, 2012 at 4:21 pm |

    Looking at the slide show, the Senators must have switched to white shoes pretty quickly because Curt Flood only played in 13 games for them, leaving the team — and the country — and flying to Spain on April 25 to try and piece his life together (seriously, how cool was Curt Flood?).

  • Paul Lukas | July 18, 2012 at 4:43 pm |

    At the risk of reigniting yesterday’s discussions, someone has come up with the obvious solution to the Chick-fil-A conundrum: DIY.

  • Will Musto | July 18, 2012 at 8:23 pm |

    What helmet did Jason Bay wear tonight? It doesn’t look like he’s wearing a CoolFlo helmet…

  • Joe Raskin | July 18, 2012 at 9:55 pm |

    And the manager of the Senators that season was one Theodore Samuel Williams, the greatest hitter who ever lived. In the team picture that’s posted, Teddy Ballgame was wearing white shoes. Yipes.

    Then again, Joe DiMaggio was a coach with the Oakland Athletics at that point, and you remember the type of uniform he had to wear. Double yipes.

  • DJ | July 18, 2012 at 11:19 pm |

    Chelsea playing Seattle in a friendly tonight in Seattle. Their new kits are a slightly darker royal blue, which goes really well with the metallic gold trim and (non-BPL) numbers.

  • Sean B | July 19, 2012 at 12:10 am |

    Forgive me if this is already known. I thought there was a problem here…the Nellie Fox card is 1970, meaning that was a likely 1969 game shot, or possibly 1970 if it was a later series issue. I suspected it might be fake, as ‘coach’ cards were not issued at that time (manager cards were, but coaches were sometimes issued until the mid-60’s, and didn’t appear again until 1973, if memory serves, as small pictures on the manager card.) This link seems to bolster the interpretation that it is fake card: http://cardsthatneverwere.blogspot.com/2011/12/1970-topps-nellie-fox.html