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

What I Did on My Summer Vacation


Paul here. Technically speaking, I’m still on vacation from the blog until Thursday, but that doesn’t mean I’ve been idling about. On the contrary, I’ve been working my ass off on the Uni Watch Power Rankings, my comprehensive uni-based evaluation of all 122 MLB, NFL, NHL, and NBA teams, which is launching today.

It’s been a huge project, and it’ll unfold over the course of this week, one installment per day. Today is Day One, so we’ll be starting at the bottom of the chart — the teams that rank from 101 through 122. Can you guess which team clocked in at rock-bottom?

The Power Rankings project has been interesting, in large part because it’s forced me to think hard about each team and re-examine a few things I’d long taken for granted. For example, for a long time I had mentally slotted the Edmonton Oilers somewhere in the middle of the pack — not an awesome-looking team, but certainly not a bad-looking one. But once I actually spent some time on the project, it hit me that the Oilers’ logo is dreadfully outdated. It looks soooooo 1970s, which is not an era you want to remind people of. I ended up ranking them near the bottom of the chart.

You may disagree, of course, and that’s fine. We’re inviting everyone to give feedback in the Power Rankings’ comments (you can also comment here on the blog, natch), and we’ve also encouraging people to participate on Twitter with the hashtag #UniRank. I believe the plan is for me to do a live web chat on Friday — the day we’ll crown the best-looking team — so you can get in on that as well.

The Power Rankings kick off a particularly busy period for Uni Watch, incidentally. My annual college football season-preview column will run on ESPN next week (it’s shaping up as the biggest one ever, so we may split it up over two days), my NFL season preview will appear the week after that (I’ll try to cover all the Nike elements that have appeared during the preseason), and I’ll reclaim the blog from Phil this Thursday.

Speaking of Phil, he’s done one seriously kick-ass job over the past four weeks, so please join me in giving him a standing O. My thanks also go to Ricko, Morris Levin, John Ekdahl, and all the other contributors who’ve kept the blog going during my hiatus. There’s no way I could have done the Power Rankings without this break from the blog, so I’m grateful to all of you.

I also want to give a shout-out to several people who’ve helped me with the Power Rankings project. Readers Michael Barreras, Jared Hartung, Mark Meeks, and Zack Tanner generously volunteered to assist with photo research; Kevin Ota in ESPN’s PR department conducted an interview with me to help promote the project; and my longtime editor and friend Thomas Neumann gets my biggest thanks of all, because the Power Rankings were his idea to begin with, and he’s worked as hard on the project as I have. Thanks, buddy.

Okay, that’s it for me for today — here’s Phil with the rest of today’s content.


Collector's Corner 2Collector’s Corner
By Brinke Guthrie

• The kickoff to the regular NFL season is getting closer! Let’s start off with this terrific set of 1969 NFL helmets, shall we? You get two oak cases filled with the Pocket Pro double-bar facemask style helmet. And let’s stay with the ’69 season, for this rather strange Chiefs decanter, and this box set of NFL Films music–on vinyl no less.

• This seller has a lot of individual NFL Gatorade caps for sale, right here.

• Before he was “Yogi,” he was Larry.

• Packer fans, you’ll want this vintage Dave Boss poster!

Wake up to the Broncos, or save your money with them!

• Talkin’ retro football here with this mid 1970s WFL ashtray. Got a WFL sticker here, too.

• Stickers–did I say–stickers? Had this exact Cowboys sticker on our Ford Station Wagon back in the day. Then, we moved to Cincinnati. Off came the Cowboys, on went the Bengals. We’ve also got stickers here for the Browns, Patriots, Giants, Chiefs, Niners, and Expos.

• The title of this book takes on an entirely different meaning these days, unfortunately. You hear me, Cabrera?

• Ah, this game program takes me back. I was there for sure! Red Sox and Reds in the 1975 Series.


Screen Shot 2012-06-24 at 10.32.36 PM

“Benchies” first appeared at U-W in 2008, and has been a Saturday & Sunday feature here for the past two years.

. . . . .

Now there’s that optimistic attitude that made America great…

8-20-12 d-friday

Click to enlarge


NUA_Logo_5#NoUniAds Campaign…Day 32

This will be a regular feature on Uni Watch until the NBA rescinds its incredibly offensive and stupid proposal to place corporate advertising on uniforms.

And now, a personal note from Paul:

It’s important that we keep making our voices heard: Call the NBA’s publicly listed phone number (212-407-8000), ask for Adam Silver’s and/or David Stern’s office), e-mail deputy commissioner Adam Silver at his his publicly listed address (, and tweet to @NBA with the hashtag #NoUniAds. Do it now.


Now, more of your letters to the NBA:

Cort McMurray:

I understand that the NBA is considering placing ads on player uniforms. I further understand that one of the stated rationales for doing so is that English Premier League clubs feature uniform advertising, with “jersey commercialization” generating $178 million in revenues for EPL clubs.

Fair enough. Nearly every one of the twenty stadia in the Premier League is a privately built, privately owned and maintained facility, with little or no public dollars behind it. Based on figures compiled by Drs. Charles A. Santo and Gerard C.S. Midner, about $4.5 billion in public monies has funded the arenas in which your teams compete.

My modest proposal is that you repay, in full, every penny of every public dollar that was applied to the construction of your arenas. Once that money has been repaid, feel free to turn your players into walking billboards.

Jim Walaitis:

I appreciate your recent announcement that you feel you have found your niche among American professional sports leagues. When I think of the NBA, I have traditionally aligned your network of teams with the likes of the NFL, of Major League Baseball, and – to a much lesser extent – the NHL.

It appears, however, that you don’t see it this way. You seem to have decided that the NBA and it’s players perform at a level more consistent with organizations like – and athletes from – the NBADL, the WNBA, PGA, MLS, and NASCAR. This shocks me, to be honest with you. I thought that NBA players would be likely to hold your league to a higher level than the other “major” professional sports. Instead, you are telling your fans that the NBA is – at best – a second tier league, and soon the players will begin to look like those athletes from those other second- (or third-?) tier teams.

I know that many others have asked – some have probably begged you to reconsider uniform ads in the NBA. I’m not going to do that. All I’m going to ask is that you consider very strongly who you would rather align yourself with as a league – NFL/MLB/NHL, or NBADL/WNBA/PGA/MLS/NASCAR? Do what you feel is right to represent your league, your players, your fans, and yourselves.

Thanks for keeping the faith readers! We can stop the NBA if we can keep up the pressure.


Thanks to Tim E. O’Brien and Chris Giorgio for the image in the upper right of this section!


ticker 2Uni Watch News Ticker: Cricket anyone? asks Leo Thornton, as Nike unveils innovative T20 cricket kit for Team India. … Pete Simko notes, “Haven’t seen this before: Emmanuel Stephens gets his pant leg pulled down far enough to cover ones set of sock stripes on a play Thursday.” … Great spot by Ryan Connelly, who asks, “have we ever seen this logo before? The bear hugging the Twins guys? Anyway, lots to love in the team pic! Glasses, ‘rrups, outdoor MN baseball, etc.” Ricko? … Tom Konecny knows Paul’s on vaction, but says he’ll dig the 4th paragraph of this article about an Olympian from my area who was on Letterman Thursday night. … We broke this on Friday, but Jim Weber shares this article on the new Oregon lids. … Mark Weinstein says, “Forget for a moment that this piece-of-shit grey alternate doesn’t exist. The better question is who is Curz?.” … Um…ewwww? “Chiefs fan with team logo on his glass eye” (thanks to Don Schauf). … On Friday, Joe Palmucci sent in this: Bridgeport Bluefish will be wearing these uni’s tonight for Hawaiian Night and giving 50% off field tickets if you wear a hawaiian shirt to the game. “Not the worst theme jersey I suppose” (also submitted by David Hirx). Uh huh. … Not uni related, but cool anyway: The objective of this project is to develop one or more graphic designs for NYC parkway route signs legally meeting the requirements of a “facility signs” for parkways in NYC. (thanks to William F. Yurasko). … Richard Osgood asks, “why the extra plastic thing on the shoulders?” … Steve (no last name given) says, “I’m a diehard Redskins fan but come on. Preseason game??. $35? Geez.” … More from Jim Weber, “Meet Tinker Hatfield, The Man Who Started CFB’s College Uniform Craze.” … New logo for Bradley University, notes Joe Ringham. From this to this. More on Bradley from David Nelson, who informs us “my alma mater Bradley just unveiled their new logo and wordmarks a couple days ago. Nothing special, but wayyyy better than what we had before in my opinion, at least it’ll be a consistent look now. Here’s the link with the article about it, and here is the official style guide.” … … “In Friday’s edition of the ticker you linked to possible AFC throwback jerserys including the Bills and Patriots,” writes Brian Belcher. “Here are the NFC jerseys. This is the first time I’ve seen the Redskins alternate and the Seashawks grey jersey.” … “JRod3737” saw this “on my Facebook wall and thought of UW. Waupaca is my alma mater. Check out the striping on the sleeves and collar. And those girls are wearing red stirrups, but the tops are above the bottom of the pants. Nice pinstripes on the pants too.” … Chris Cruz says, “JR Hildebrand, who drives for Panther Racing, will sport a 49ers livery during the upcoming Sonoma race in honor of Panther Racing founding partner Jim Harbaugh.” … Here’s a Gatorade Ad that seems to be poking fun at all of the ridiculous sponsoring moves at the Olympics (good spot by Archie Troxel). … More on they Olympics from James Ashby: One of the Olympic rules on advertising that was mentioned previously on Uni Watch is coming into play. … “This sucks,” says Ryan DeFilppi. “Newly acquired Mets catcher has black side panels on his new catchers gear.” … Gregory Koch writes, “Saw the attached plaque in the mark Edward freitas ice forum where I am currently stuck during a lightning delay at the adjacent soccer stadium. How many different uniforms are there?” More from Gregory: This is the 1973-74 UConn hockey team. “Cool facial hair.” … Chet Miller notes, “I’m sure you got this already but in case you didn’t here are Kentucky’s 18 (yep 18) uniform combinations for this year’s football team.” This was also noted by Drew Roberts, who said “Kentucky had a soft announcement for their new uniforms for the 2012 season.” … More from Leo Thornton: “My high school (Arcadia, CA) has copied my college’s (University of Arizona) logo. I approve of this thievery.” What are the odds. … Thanks to Brinke we know that the San Francisco 49ers’ Ted Ginn Jr. is thrilled with NFL’s new jersey rule. … “Beautiful, classic kit. My Peru,” (gracias to Kenny Loo). … This is James McClean of Sunderland. His name is spelled wrong (good spot by Blair — no last name given). … My buddy, and Wisconsinophile Johnny Okray writes, “Who doesn’t love a good time lapse? Here is one showing the construction, so far, of the new Lambeau Field South End Zone seating.” … And our Yinzer buddy Douggie Keklak “thought of Paul when I saw this little graphic on my most recent issue of SI!” … “Tyler Brule’s distaste of purple” notes Marc Malfara. … “This is the new University of North Dakota alternate uniform,” says Dan Ullsperger. I wouldn’t call it BFBS because black is sort of an unofficial alternate color for all UND athletics. The team picture was taken in kelly green jerseys and white pants (traditional home uniform) so I think this is definitely an alternate to be worn for a special game(s).” … Kevin Clark writes, “This is Barnegat(NJ) High School Bengals baseball uniform. Gotta love the stirrups and the orange sanitaries. Note the swoosh on sanitaries however.” … Timothy O’Malley notes, “Manchester City puts up a ‘tunnel cam’ for each home game, here is someone with vip access or works for the club wearing this years home kit without the sponsor on it.” … Sigh. This explains a lot. Mike Vick writes right (thanks to Adam Brodsky for that.) … More bats that probably don’t belong to their user: Will Edge was watching Yankees Red Sox last night, and noticed Eric Chavez (number 12) had a 22 on the knob of his bat. … These are the stirrups that the American legion team I coached this summer wore, seen in a charity game with the local special Olympics softball players. We wore them all season (coaches as well), with thanks to Chris Batzinger. … Reprinted from yesterday’s comments: Shorpy strikes again (boy, that would make for a fine colorization). … Rob Leavell, writes, “Sorry for the quality, had to pause my cable box. Fox Soccer channel was showing ’94 FA cup Man Utd v. Wimbledon Sunday night. Man Utd away jerseys look like they were sponsored by sprite. The laces on the front of the ManU jersey. And, Cantona with the popped collar–classic!” … “The prime candidates include the Chargers and, remarkably, the Rams and Raiders. Jacksonville…” — Prime candidates for what? Read the article (thanks for the tip to MoVi). … Some interesting thoughts on the Nikefication of the NFL, by my “SMUW” buddy Terry Duroncelet: “Even the Houston Texans have been assimilated into the herd (no pun intended). Here’s the source of the second “Texans” logo. Speaking of Houston, I noticed that the Steelers have the same collar that the Texans have: Elite 51 collar base without the Flywire. Also, I have a theory as to why Iowa has all of their sleeve stripes (and those are Nike Pro Combat 2.0 jersey tops), but the Steelers don’t. Iowa’s sleeve stripes take up the entire “sleeve” section on their uniforms, but the Steelers have about 1.5-2 inches of space above the top stripe, where the maker’s mark would go. You would think that Pittsburgh and *maybe* Nike would have a better plan sorted out by now, like shrinking the stripes. Again, this is just a theory.”


That’s it for today. Thanks to Paul for taking the lede — I am actually pretty pumped for this ESPN series, and I’m trying to guess what his *worst* uniform will be — the dreaded #122…gotta think the Vikings, Preds, Raptors and either the Astros or Rockies have the outside shot at the booby prize (but I’m sure I’ll be wrong). What do you think?


“If the Seahawks swapped the neon snot with a respectable silver or gray, these unis would actually have something going for them. Who are they marketing to? Laser tag enthusiasts???”
—Mike Colvin

270 comments to What I Did on My Summer Vacation

  • BurghFan | August 20, 2012 at 7:15 am |

    The bear on the Twins team pic represents Hamm’s Beer. (“Hamm’s Toasts The 1965 Minnesota TWINS.”)

    • Chance Michaels | August 20, 2012 at 1:02 pm |

      I agree that it’s not really a logo, it’s an illustration. But illustrations like this one are exactly why I love mascot logos.

  • Ted Machnik | August 20, 2012 at 7:39 am |

    “From the land of sky blue waters……Hamm’s”

    • Cort McMurray | August 20, 2012 at 7:47 am |

      Didn’t they used to use that bear in cartoon advertisements? He was sort of a soused Yogi Bear.

      • Arr Scott | August 20, 2012 at 7:57 am |

        Which is to say, an awesome Yogi Bear. Just search for Hamm’s as on YouTube; there are a lot of great old cartoon ads there.

        I think it would be more accurate to call this an illustration, not a logo.

        • Ry Co 40 | August 20, 2012 at 8:52 am |

          “I think it would be more accurate to call this an illustration, not a logo.”

          great point! sometimes i get my brain too wrapped up in logos

      • Ricko | August 20, 2012 at 8:01 am |

        The Hamms’ Bear wasn’t soused, just fun.
        And he was around for years, in print ads, TV commercials, billboard, POP displays, etc., all a LONG time before Yogi Bear.

        There’s a story told about an aging copywriter at Campbell-Mithum ad agency would drink his lunch every day and then spend the afternoon asleep atop his filing cabinets.

        A new employee asked, “How does he get away with that?”

        “Because,” an agency veteran explained, “he wrote ‘From the land of sky blue waters.'”

        • teenchy | August 20, 2012 at 8:58 am |

          I picked up a Hamm’s bear bottle opener at a yard sale in Black River Falls, WI some years ago. A nice reminder of those times.

          RyCo: I saw a man wearing one of your Invaders t-shirts on the boardwalk in Rehoboth Beach, DE last week. Didn’t make the connection until after I passed and he was lost in the crowd. You or one of your minions? ;-)

        • Ry Co 40 | August 20, 2012 at 9:32 am |

          no way, that’s so cool!

          tall skinny guy? i think it was the Invaders #1 defenseman, and all around good guy, my buddy Pat. i saw he took the family unit to the beach last week, but wasn’t sure where.

          i always wondered if and where a UWer would spot a random Invaders shirt/jersey/hat. that’s the first i’ve heard though.

          made my morning

          Pat is the kind of guy that would get a HUGE kick out of being spotted. gonna email him now

          ‘Vaders season is only 2 months away!

        • teenchy | August 20, 2012 at 9:08 pm |

          RyCo: Yes, fairly tall and skinny – at least, taller and skinnier than I. ;-)

    • Matthew Reed | August 20, 2012 at 12:17 pm |

      not to belabor this but here is the same logo from a twins yearbook

    • alvernaz3 | August 20, 2012 at 4:28 pm |

      The St. Paul Pioneer Press named the Hamm’s Bear as a runner-up on its list of “150 Influential Minnesotans of the Past 150 Years” in 2000

  • DenverGregg | August 20, 2012 at 7:45 am |

    I forgot to mention yesterday there appeared to be a crawler notice about the UniRankings on the Jets/Giants coverage. Only caught “rankings from #1-122 starting Monday”, but saw that three times. At the time I was more interested in the Broncos game on the adjacent screen.

    Falcons ought to be #122.

    • Paul Lukas | August 20, 2012 at 7:53 am |

      Wow — didn’t know they were promoting it like that. Pretty cool!

      • Bobby Fenton | August 20, 2012 at 8:42 am |

        I caught that too and rewound, but it was actually an incredibly lame list done by somebody over on that they were plugging. I checked it. It was a complete waste of time and not worth seeing, and the reasoning behind the rankings was a joke.

        The Uni Watch list will be definitive.

        • phillipwilson | August 20, 2012 at 11:29 am |

          Impressive, interesting, landmark, yes. definitive no. More starting debates than ending.

  • The Jeff | August 20, 2012 at 7:48 am |

    “The prime candidates include the Chargers and, remarkably, the Rams and Raiders. Jacksonville…”

    The NFL really needs to get over this Los Angeles thing. If they wanted a team in LA, they should have told the city of Cleveland to STFU back in 1996, and the 1999/2002 expansion should have consisted of Houston and Los Angeles.

    At this point, it really doesn’t even make much sense to put a team in LA. History seems to show that the city will only support a team that’s winning… and any team up for relocation isn’t exactly doing that.

    • Ricko | August 20, 2012 at 8:12 am |

      Not to mention the current owners would make a lot more money divvying up a likely billion expansion fee than they would from letting an existing franchise move to L.A.

      • Winter | August 20, 2012 at 8:28 am |

        True, but there’s also the negative PR of franchises that are unable to get a new stadium (Chargers), have stadium issues (the Rams) or thrive in general (Jags).

        Of the moving possibilities, I think the most likely is the Chargers. I’ve heard of very little positive movement on a new stadium in San Diego. As someone with St. Louis ties, I’d rather it not be the Rams, as I like the idea of St. Louis having what passes for an NFL franchise (I still think they should have an NBA franchise, but that’s another discussion).

        As far as the Jags go, that situation is just…eh. I don’t really care one way or another what happens to the Jags.

        • DenverGregg | August 20, 2012 at 9:12 am |

          My best guess is that the Chargers return to LA and then the Jackwagons move to San Diego a few years later.

      • Chance Michaels | August 20, 2012 at 3:11 pm |

        Don’t cry for their lost expansion fee; they will still have loads of fun divvying up that fat relocation fee.

    • walter | August 20, 2012 at 9:30 am |

      There’s no evidence Los Angeles would support one team- and they want two ? Yeah, look how well that went, last time.

      • Jeremiah | August 20, 2012 at 11:38 am |

        The argument that LA wouldn’t support one or even two teams is weak. The Rams called Los Angeles (and Anaheim) home for 50 seasons. You’re right, no evidence that LA would support an NFL team. The Rams used the lure of a new stadium in StL to justify leaving, and the Raiders wanted the same (but never even got it from OAK). LA always said “no” to publicly financing an NFL arena (and good for us, too). The Rams and Raiders were very popular in LA, and both remain so to this day. Both played in crappy football stadiums at the time, though, and that was really why they wanted to leave. One or two teams in the new, privately-financed, Farmer’s Field will do just fine.

        • Chance Michaels | August 20, 2012 at 3:13 pm |

          Not to mention that it’s tough to extrapolate future events in the NFL based on data points closing in on twenty years old.

          It was a different world then.

    • Joseph Gerard | August 20, 2012 at 10:36 am |

      I think Cleveland was more than justified in what happened. Plus, with Canyon just being a short drive down Interstate 77 and clearly being in the Browns territory, I’m sure the NFL wanted to keep its historical ties to an area with an active NFL team.

      To be completely honest, after the new 49ers and Vikings stadiums open, that’s probably going to be it for a while. The Niners (and possibly Raiders) new stadium aside, California tends to be stubborn on the stadium front. The Chargers, Raiders, and A’s have been wanting new stadiums. Nothing is getting done about a stadium in LA. (Despite the age of the Rose Bowl and the Coliseum, I don’t even think one is needed anyways.) I just wrote a letter to the editor to the Oakland Tribune yesterday about a compromise for at least the situation in Oakland and something that should be examined: let the Raiders move into the new 49ers stadium (which the league strongly supports anyways), then have MLB use their “best interest in baseball” clause to convince the Giants to let the A’s move to Candlestick Park for 2-3 years. In the meantime, they could tear down the Coliseum and build the long-delayed Cisco Field on the site of the Coliseum. As far as media markets are concerned, the A’s and Giants play in the same market anyways.

      And the Jaguars? I look for them to move to London if anything.

      • Joseph Gerard | August 20, 2012 at 10:37 am |

        Canton. Stupid spell check.

      • Winter | August 20, 2012 at 11:15 am |

        I still don’t see the big objection to putting the A’s in San Jose.

        • Joseph Gerard | August 20, 2012 at 11:30 am |

          I don’t either, but the Haas ownership of the A’s signed over the rights to San Jose to the Giants back when it looked liked that they might move to Tampa. Now it has come back to haunt the A’s. IDK, here in Pittsburgh we have either new facilities or relatively recent facilities, so I’m not too worried about it here.

          What I find more puzzling is that the Falcons and the Washington NFL team want new stadiums even though they were both built in the 1990’s.

        • Bromotrifluoromethane | August 20, 2012 at 4:30 pm |

          Commish told Atlanta no more Super Bowls unless they build a new place. All about the $. I’ve been to the Georgia Dome a few times for games both before and after it was fixed up. Still a nice place but compared to other places it’s old. As long as I still get to sit here in Pa and watch Atlanta play on field turf in at least a retractable dome as they are leaning towards I’ll be happy. If they go open air and grass again I’ll be very annoyed.

          And now queue all the “football should be played outdoors in mud, rain, and 16 feet of snow” people. UUuummm… Yeah. PLAYED outdoors like that is fun. But to sit and WATCH it like that? Not so much.

        • Joseph Gerard | August 20, 2012 at 4:45 pm |

          Meh, the Falcons are in no danger of relocation, and the NFL will NEVER let the team that plays at FedEx Field move out of D.C.

        • BurghFan | August 20, 2012 at 6:57 pm |

          Right now, all those rich Silicon Valley companies have boxes at Giants games, since their ballpark is closer and nicer than Oakland’s. A new A’s park in the Valley would change that, so the Giants are claiming their old territorial rights to block it.

      • Jeremiah | August 20, 2012 at 11:54 am |

        “Nothing is getting done about a stadium in LA. (Despite the age of the Rose Bowl and the Coliseum, I don’t even think one is needed anyways.”

        All of that is false. Farmers Field is expected to break ground next year, right next to Staples Center. It is a privately-financed facility. As to the assertion that no new arena is needed, well, the Coliseum is one of the reasons Al Davis took the Raiders back to OAK. This was after he tried to get a stadium financed in the LA-area city of Irwindale. No NFL team wants to call the Coliseum home. Same with the Rose Bowl. They are anything but state-of-the-art. Politicking over the viability of both of those sites for NFL use is what prevented LA from getting the franchise that was awarded to HOU, because Houston was building a new facility. The league wanted no part of putting a team into either of those facilities, yet LA (particularly misguided councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas) kept insisting on making improvements to the Coliseum and housing a team there. The proposed improvements would have cost easily as much as a new facility since the Coliseum is so old. Yes, a new arena is needed.

      • Jeremiah | August 20, 2012 at 12:05 pm |

        And just to add, Georgia Frontiere deliberately tanked the team so she could leave. They were so horribly mismanaged under her tenure that even NFL said “no” to her initial request to relocate to StL. The league cited her poor management of the team. Only after threatening legal action against the NFL (which could have caused trouble for the league’s anti-trust exemptions) did Paul Tagliabue agree to her demands. She was the living example of the villainous owner in “Major League”.

        • Joseph Gerard | August 20, 2012 at 12:31 pm |

          The NFL, unlike MLB, doesn’t have antitrust exemptions. If anything, they’re restricted on the days they can play whenever high school football is in season. Remember when they had those occasional Saturday games in December, which with the exception of the 1-2 games NFL Network airs every December have pretty much died off?

          The fact of the matter is, the NFL, as with the NHL and NBA, tend to do better in smaller markets. Green Bay, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Kansas City, and to a lesser extent Buffalo: what else do those places have going on? Now look where they have blackouts: Oakland, St. Louis, Cincinnati, the entire state of Florida. (Buffalo still gets them occasionally, but that’s due to Lake Erie and Lake Ontario dumping a lot of lake-effect snow than anything else.) St. Louis and Cincinnati are baseball towns first, each with a strong following for basketball as well. The other cities have either economic factors or are in large areas where there are other recreational thongs to do. (Jacksonville somehow fits in both despite being 2nd smallest to Green Bay in population.) At the end of the day, LA already has a pro football team, and its called the USC Trojans.

  • George Chilvers | August 20, 2012 at 7:58 am |

    Man U were actually sponsored by Sharp. The colours were a tribute to the original Newton Heath green and gold, which many supporters now wear to display opposition to the Glazers and a desire to get back to traditional values.

    • diz | August 20, 2012 at 1:16 pm |

      …while still paying the same money to watch as everyone else

  • Dave | August 20, 2012 at 8:10 am |

    Both goalies in the UConn picture are wearing #2.

  • Craig D | August 20, 2012 at 8:18 am |

    The picture of Emmanuel Stephens looks like his sock was pulled down to reveal his white tights…not the pant leg covering the sock.

    • Ricko | August 20, 2012 at 9:16 am |


  • Dumb Guy | August 20, 2012 at 8:22 am |

    Texans-fying other stuff. FAIL! Certainly in the example given anyway.

    • The Jeff | August 20, 2012 at 8:29 am |

      You have no idea…

  • boxcarvibe | August 20, 2012 at 8:23 am |

    Ricko, NICE Benchies today. That’s geting clipped out and put on the cube wall.

    • concealed78 | August 20, 2012 at 11:34 am |

      Is that a 1970-71 Cleveland Indians or 1955 Cincinnati Reds cap?

      • Ricko | August 20, 2012 at 11:51 am |

        Actually, Indians went to that hat in ’58, then brought it back in ’70 after wearing the red version of it for a few seasons. Redlegs also wore it briefly, sometime in first half of the ’50s.

        So the answer is yes, it’s MLB from Ohio. :)

      • Ricko | August 20, 2012 at 2:45 pm |

        Anyone else notice that for displaying all 18 of Kentucky’s uni combinations evidently they could find only one football player?

        But, y’know, those unis’ll help recruiting so maybe next year they’ll have two.

  • Brad | August 20, 2012 at 8:28 am |

    “In Friday’s edition of the ticker you linked to possible AFC throwback jerserys including the Bills and Patriots,” writes Brian Belcher. “Here are the NFC jerseys. This is the first time I’ve seen the Redskins alternate and the Seashawks grey jersey.”

    Thanks, Brian, we appreciate you linking to Pro League Authentics. We aim to provide interesting news about uniforms and jerseys, and interesting products. When in Philly, please stop by the store in Center City.

    • Tim | August 20, 2012 at 11:18 am |

      I’ve been in Pro League Authentics a few times, they have a great selection of merchandise and seem like great guys.

  • Seth H | August 20, 2012 at 8:57 am |

    Anybody know what stadium is shown in the Gatorade ad?

  • Graf Zeppelin | August 20, 2012 at 9:14 am |

    I’m sure this made its way into the comments when it appeared, but I’m too lazy to look for it, so I’m reposting the link. Not bad, I agree with some of it, and I like that the Mets and Jets are ranked so high, but I just got the feeling it was stealing Uni Watch’s thunder a bit. Still worth a look.

    • The Jeff | August 20, 2012 at 9:19 am |

      With his #122 being the Patriots… I’m not even going to click through the whole list. There’s no way in hell that New England has the worst uniform in sports.

      • Graf Zeppelin | August 20, 2012 at 9:23 am |

        Agreed, but a lot of the rankings do make sense. In the aggregate, the list seems to share Uni Watch values, with some (inevitable) exceptions.

        • The Jeff | August 20, 2012 at 9:56 am |

          I caved and skimmed through the list… I can’t complain about my Raiders at #3, but to have the Niners with their stupid truncated sleeve stripes and stupid gray facemask ranked higher? NO.

    • Joseph Gerard | August 20, 2012 at 1:39 pm |

      I cant disagree with the Penguins being 112, the Pirates being 35, or the Steelers being number 7. But I know a lot of yinzers that will not be too happy with the number one option being from Broad Street.

    • Tim E. O'B | August 20, 2012 at 1:44 pm |

      He ranks the Blackhawks #5 and calls them, “the best (uniforms) in hockey.”

      Then he ranks the Phlyers at #1.


      • Tim E. O'B | August 20, 2012 at 1:48 pm |

        Also, this:

        “Bears: Points deducted for the navy pants. In the name of Sweetness, I insist the Bears go back to the all-white on the road, otherwise, not a lot to quibble about with these classic beauties.”

        …Is madness. Da Bears’ Blue (H) White (J) Blue (P) is one of the best looks in the NFL.

  • Bernard | August 20, 2012 at 9:15 am |

    It’s borderline absurd that a guy who looks like this can so skillfully manage a website dedicated to athletic aesthetics for more than a half an hour, let alone several straight weeks every summer. My low-profile cap is off to you, Long Island Phil!

    • Jet | August 20, 2012 at 9:18 am |

      It’s the Islander jersey, right? ;)


  • Jet | August 20, 2012 at 9:17 am |

    Yes, the Edmonton Oilers logo is outdated and screams “70’s”…but I never thought of their uni as bad. Probably because unlike the Vancouver Canucks for example, they didn’t completely revamp their uni, colors and logos every ten years. They’ve kept a fairly consistent look and when you add in several Stanley Cups, it helps create the aura of a “classic look” a la Montreal, Detroit, Rangers, etc.


    • Paul Lukas | August 20, 2012 at 9:26 am |

      That’s a fair analysis. Not the same one I came up with, but very fair.

      • Arr Scott | August 20, 2012 at 9:54 am |

        Question, Paul: When you write, “[the] 1970s, which is not an era you want to remind people of,” are speaking in particular of the Oilers and that team’s experience of the 1970s? Or are you saying that the 1970s in general are an era that no team should ever remind people of?

        Just curious because to my eye, despite some famous examples of aesthetic excesses (rainbow gut baseball jerseys, bell-bottom jeans, President Nixon’s sideburns and/or giant lapels), the 1970s had more instances of truly great design than any decade since. Personally, I’d rather be reminded of the 1970s than, say, the 1980s or 1990s, if a team is going to remind me of a decade, in terms of general design. Though on an individual team basis, I sure as heck don’t want the Twins to remind me of the 1970s, for example, because that was such an awful time for the Twins, both on the field and uni-wise.

        • Paul Lukas | August 20, 2012 at 10:05 am |

          What I meant was that mid-century design tends to feel timeless — it has aged well. The same can’t be said for much 1970s design, including the Oilers’ logo.

        • Arr Scott | August 20, 2012 at 10:27 am |

          I hear you, but I don’t entirely agree – I think that the main reason midcentury design feels more timeless is that with 30 extra years, the non-timeless design from that era has faded more from memory. Same phenomenon explains why all the songs on oldies stations are good – the music in eras past wasn’t better; we just stop playing the bad stuff when it’s no longer new. At flea markets and antique shops and the like, I see plenty of midcentury relics that can be pinpointed to a 2-year span with the briefest glance, so non-timeless and thus instantly dated is most commercial design in all eras.

          Personally, I think the average 1970s design will feel less dated in the coming decade than the average 1980s or 1990s design will in the corresponding decades hence.

        • Paul Lukas | August 20, 2012 at 10:33 am |

          I don’t completely agree. I have every reason to love 1970s design, because I grew up in the 1970s — it should press all sorts of nostalgic buttons for me. By and large, though, it doesn’t, because so much of the design from that period was weak.

        • Tim E. O'B | August 20, 2012 at 1:56 pm |

          Wait, Paul, are you saying that this doesn’t stand the test of time? Next you’re going to say this doesn’t look like an N or an igloo ?


        • Bromotrifluoromethane | August 20, 2012 at 4:44 pm |

          I know I’ll get burned for this but this is exactly why I can’t see the love for the Islanders logo. If they didn’t win those four cups would anybody still want that around?
          Being born in the mid-70’s but growing up in the 80’s I can see the nostalgia factor but I’ve always thought it looked terrible. It took me years to realize the orange “smear” wasn’t a turd (and no I’m not being a smart ass. I really didn’t recognize what it was representing until I was around my early teens). The fact that the “Islanders” isn’t centered and that the “I” is part blue and part orange always annoyed me too. Can’t that be slid down to keep it from overlapping and keep it all orange?

        • Attila Szendrodi | August 21, 2012 at 2:52 am |

          Tim – N? Igloo? I thought it was an elephant.

    • walter | August 20, 2012 at 9:35 am |

      It would thrill me if all teams redid their iconography in a 1970s spirit, though I can certainly imagine the uproar among 99% of the contributors to this site. The ’70s were a golden age of graphic design.

      • M.Princip | August 20, 2012 at 9:50 am |

        “The ’70s were a golden age of graphic design.”

        Hear, hear!

      • boxcarvibe | August 20, 2012 at 10:26 am |

        What the Tampa Bay Rays did was faux retro enough. Please…no more!

    • Teebz | August 20, 2012 at 9:54 am |

      For an NHL team like the Oilers who have been in existence since 1979, there have been multiple uniform changes in their existence. They went darker blue and copper from their original blue-and-orange in 1996. They introduced the Todd McFarlane alternate in 2001. They fell into the Reebok apron design in 2007. They introduced a blue-and-orange alternate jersey in 2008. And then they went back to having blue-and-orange as their primary home uniform. If you’re keeping track at home, that’s five changes to their uniform set in 15 years.

      “They didn’t completely revamp their uni, colors and logos every ten years. They’ve kept a fairly consistent look”? Not by my watch.

      • walter | August 20, 2012 at 10:01 am |

        The bar is very low, I admit.

      • Jet | August 20, 2012 at 10:52 am |

        Teebz, in comparison to the Canucks?? I don’t include alternates in the equation because every team has alternates and I don’t think they should be included in judging a team’s look. I don’t include the apron design because every team did that. Yes, the Oilers darkened the blue and changed the orange to copper but they still kept the basic overall look of their original uni (even dating back to the WHA although the logo letters were orange then and their first-year uni was orange instead of blue) as compared to Vancouver, who’ve had wildly-divergent unis, logos and color schemes.


        • Teebz | August 20, 2012 at 11:31 am |

          C’mon, Jet, not every team went aprons. The Leafs, Blackhawks, Canadiens, and Rangers actually went very traditional in their first iteration with the Edge. Edmonton could have done the same. And as for color change, that’s a significant uniform change. The removal of stripes, the changing of stripes, the changing of fonts and font colors – all very significant changes to tell when a jersey was actually worn. If those aren’t significant, then this website doesn’t exist.

          Vancouver’s jersey designs have followed their ownership changes, if you recall. Each new owner or ownership group has changed the jersey. Vancouver’s not the only team to experience this “phenomenon”. See: Sabres, Buffalo as an example.

    • JTH | August 20, 2012 at 12:47 pm |

      It’s already been sung.
      But it can’t be said enough…

      The kids of today should defend themselves against the 70s.

    • quiet seattle | August 20, 2012 at 6:55 pm |

      Tim E., those two logos you cite (the Golden Seals and the Nordiques) are among the finest I’ve ever seen, regardless of the era in which they were created. Clean, striking, bold and–my favorite–abstract. I would happily welcome those back on a sweater today.

      Sure, there was some crap produced in the 70’s, but those two sure weren’t.

      (Or am I misunderstanding your sarcasm?)

      • Tim E. O'B | August 20, 2012 at 7:31 pm |

        Nope, you got me. They’re crap.

      • BurghFan | August 20, 2012 at 9:39 pm |

        I liked the green and blue Seals logo, myself.

  • andyharry | August 20, 2012 at 9:25 am |

    I can’t fathom what, exactly, is ‘cool’ about the City and State of New York fishing for free design work for its public signage. Would it be cool if the New York Times asked freelance writers to submit articles so they could pick their favorite one to publish, and as a reward, “Hey, you’re getting published in the Times! You should be thanking us, pal!”

    • Jet | August 20, 2012 at 9:45 am |

      I bookmarked that link to read later because I would have considered submitting a design. Didn’t know it was “free.” I’ll pass, thanks…


    • Ben Fortney | August 20, 2012 at 11:44 am |

      I disagree, seeing a design I created plastered all over NY State roads would be pretty cool.

      I’m in the air about the preponderance of “crowd sourced” design/coding contests these days. Yes, you’re doing work for free, but it’s sort of like interning; you’re learning on the job and you add to your portfolio. It’s a much better exercise than a project assigned in a classroom.

      • Glen | August 20, 2012 at 12:29 pm |

        Spec design work is nothing like interning. Sure, you could add the work if you “won” the contest, but otherwise you ended up spending hours of your time on a useless project. NYC has plenty of money, they don’t need to spec design work, except for exploiting the work of designers without pay.

        Instead, contact a local small non-profit and help them with design work while adding valuable piece to your portfolio. A branding/design piece in use will be exponentially more valuable than a contest piece that didn’t win.

        • Ben Fortney | August 20, 2012 at 12:42 pm |

          Don’t get me wrong, designing something gratis for a non-profit is fine – but dealing with “real world” specifications and bureaucracy is also a valuable experience.

          (BTW, it’s NY State who like most states are dealing with budget issues.)

        • The Jeff | August 20, 2012 at 12:44 pm |

          Great – so the professionals will ignore the contest, and some amateur might be able to get some exposure. I’m not sure I see the downside. Designing something just for the sheer fun of it? What a horrible thing. I mean, if you can’t get paid for it, what’s the point, right?

  • andyharry | August 20, 2012 at 9:28 am |

    What is cool about the City and State of New York fishing for free design work? They’re not even giving a monetary reward to the ‘winner’ of the contest. This is a step below spec work.

  • Pierre | August 20, 2012 at 9:35 am |

    I was watching some of the Redskins/Bears game last night. Bears looked great all wearing the same uniform. Mostly so for the Redskins except for, I believe, Santana Holmes who wore burgundy socks/leggings (or maybe they were just painted on…who knows?) without stripes like the rest of the team. How freakin’ hard is it for a team to dress alike. If the guy preferstights or leggings you mean Nike can’t make him a pair with team stripes? What if Drew Brees decided he liked striped socks instead of the plain black ones the Saints wear? What would the league/team do if he decided to start wearing striped socks…?

  • walter | August 20, 2012 at 9:37 am |

    I’m certainly willing to cut UND some slack for their solid black, since, y’know, they had their nickname and mascot yanked away.

    • Paul Lukas | August 20, 2012 at 10:07 am |

      Nothing was “yanked away” from anyone. UND chose to abide by the NCAA’s membership terms. They could have chosen to keep their nickname and mascot while playing without NCAA sanction. Totally up to them.

      • The Jeff | August 20, 2012 at 10:17 am |

        Yes, because that’s a totally fair option. Sure, they wouldn’t *have* to disband their sports teams, but good luck finding anyone to play against.

        • Paul Lukas | August 20, 2012 at 10:32 am |

          Right, because there are no club sports anywhere on any university campuses across America. And because being a member of the NCAA is an entitlement. Got it.

    • Coleman | August 20, 2012 at 10:59 am |

      You just HAD to bring it back up, didn’t ya Walter…

      • Paul Lukas | August 20, 2012 at 11:01 am |

        Yeah, this is well-trodden ground, and it tends not to bring out the best in anyone. Let’s please move on. Thanks.

  • Eric S. | August 20, 2012 at 9:40 am |

    I assume the Seahawks are eligible even if they haven’t played a regular season game in their current set. They have to be a serious contender for #122.

    • M.Princip | August 20, 2012 at 9:55 am |
      • Ben Fortney | August 20, 2012 at 11:47 am |

        Much better than the washed out monochrome, but i think the template itself is too busy; shoulder stripes, weird logo box, neon green, pattern on pants, pattern on helmet, pattern on neck.

        One or two of these would’ve been solid (shoulder stripes, neon green – imho) – 6 is overkill

        • Lee | August 20, 2012 at 12:03 pm |

          Agreed. I especially hate the shoulder box, the name on the one shoulder stripe, and the fact that the helmet at first glance seems like its from a different color palette than the rest of the uniform.

          Too much. But thats exactly whats wrong with Nike.


        • Ben Fortney | August 20, 2012 at 12:07 pm |

          Oooh, forgot the name on the shoulder. 7 diff elements.

        • Glen | August 20, 2012 at 12:35 pm |

          Repetition of a symbol doesn’t count as a separate design element. Your response just shows that you don’t understand the elements within the uniform from the Salish artwork of the Seahawks logo and jersey.

        • Ben Fortney | August 20, 2012 at 12:47 pm |

          I said nothing about the pattern itself, I like the native logo/artwork, but using it 3 different ways is silly.

          A neon green pants stripe, a tapered almost monochrome helmet stripe, and a blue semi neck stripe are certainly different elements.

  • tom | August 20, 2012 at 9:41 am |

    how awesome would grey NYG unis look with blue pants and blu helmets?

    on another note, i think the Jets are really missing the boat with their helmet decal. why not slap a “NY” on the helmet….

    • The Jeff | August 20, 2012 at 9:52 am |

      on another note, i think the Jets are really missing the boat with their helmet decal. why not slap a “NY” on the helmet….


      Although, having 2 teams with NY on the helmet is a bit lame… I’d honestly rather see the Jets go back to the green helmets and italic JETS wordmark – or, you know, actually put a freakin jet on the helmet instead of letters.

      • The Jeff | August 20, 2012 at 9:53 am |

        Ugh… link FAIL… let’s try that again…

        • tom | August 20, 2012 at 10:21 am |

          Exactly. That’s it.

          I mean you are in the biggest NFL market, and you don’t even attempt to be New York’s team? Slap the NY on the helmet and go to work.

          And yes, winning and a good quarterback would also help New Yorkers to like you….atleast extend the Olive Branch and put a NY on the helmet.

        • concealed78 | August 20, 2012 at 11:20 am |

          That looks generic as hell. Leave the Jets helmet logo alone.

        • The Jeff | August 20, 2012 at 11:24 am |

          Don’t blame me for it looking generic, that logo *is* one of the Jets official logos, at least it was a few years ago, I’m not sure if they still claim it today.

        • tom | August 20, 2012 at 12:56 pm |

          how does that look generic? its the same font as the jets wordmark. and it’s a capital “NY” as opposed to the lower case “ny” of the giants.

          bottom line, get some smart graph design guy to cook up a good looking NYJ logo for the jets helmet

        • concealed78 | August 20, 2012 at 1:47 pm |

          Looks like Jeff found a BFF in Tom.

          It’s looks generic because it’s just two stinking fat letters in a plain sans-serif font italicized. If it looks like it was typed out on a computer, it doesn’t work. The oval needs some work, like into a football shape and maybe some laces. There’s plain and TOO plain. It’s generic because there’s nothing unique about it.

        • tom | August 20, 2012 at 3:44 pm |

          look all i’m saying is that the Jets can keep the white helmets, same stripes, and green facemask.

          the logo that guy submitted was a Jets official logo. its the green oval, with capital NY in the jets wordmark. i think it looks slick. to have an nfl helmet with the letters “NY” is big time.

        • tom | August 20, 2012 at 3:49 pm |

          guys…this is it!

          except make the helmet white and make the oval green, white ny:

          notice the new shade of green

      • tom | August 20, 2012 at 1:06 pm |

        and i really dont see how having 2 NY teams with an “NY” logo on the helmet is lame.

        look at the Yankees and Mets. They practicably have the game interlocking logo on their caps (i know the differences b/w the two, im just pointing out that they use interlocking NY on their caps). And the Knicks used the interlocking logo in the 70s

        Why not let the Jets get and interlocking logo on the helmet?>

    • Graf Zeppelin | August 20, 2012 at 10:21 am |

      Disagree; I love the Jets’ helmet decal. Although I love the 1965-77 version of it even more, being football-shaped instead of oval.

      • tom | August 20, 2012 at 11:06 am |

        they got the oval decal on their jersey as a patch. its too repetitive.

        leave the patch on the jersey and change the helmet decal to what the previous poster gave a link to.

        • concealed78 | August 20, 2012 at 11:21 am |

          Or get rid of the jersey patch. Just like the Steelers. That patch just never looked right on there.

        • Wheels | August 20, 2012 at 11:21 am |

          Get rid of the patch on the jersey and leave the helmet decal as it is.

        • Phil Hecken | August 20, 2012 at 11:25 am |

          just dump the jersey patch

        • Rob S | August 20, 2012 at 11:54 am |

          Agreed on losing the jersey patch. The jersey design is pretty iconic already without it.

        • Graf Zeppelin | August 20, 2012 at 3:52 pm |

          I don’t think it’s “repetitive” but I agree it’s unnecessary. Still, I like it better where it’s placed on the shoulder, rather than in the center under the collar like the Giants have which pushes the number down too far.

          I get why teams started putting logos on their jerseys in the ’90s; it makes them harder to bootleg. Used to be you could get an NFL jersey (or some of them, at least) by just buying a generic jersey in your team’s color (at, e.g., a Champion factory outlet) and getting custom numbers put on it.

      • Ben Fortney | August 20, 2012 at 11:50 am |

        Logo’s too detailed for the helmet, intricacies of the design get lost.

        I’m throwing a vote towards the Jets as one of the teams Nike gets involved with. They try to be the “edgy” “anti-establishment” team (ie: not the Giants) so a revamped, uniform would fit right in, even if it’s only a 3rd.)

        • tom | August 20, 2012 at 1:12 pm |

          I hope Paul puts the Jets at 122 so we can get a change.

        • walter | August 20, 2012 at 1:18 pm |

          I don’t like the forest green, but that’s because I’m color blind. It looks black to me.

        • Graf Zeppelin | August 20, 2012 at 4:03 pm |

          Nah, don’t agree, but I respect your opinion.

          I think there’s a lot the Jets could do uni- and logo-wise with a name like “Jets.” I think they blew it in ’78 with a really dull and unimaginative re-design. The whole uniform became even more generic and spartan than the ’65-77 look:

          – solid-color helmet with no striping, and script/wordmark on the sides instead of an actual logo;
          – shoulder loops and opposite-color sleeves/TV numbers replaced by basic two-stripe sleeve and TV numbers on the shoulder;
          – pants with one stripe instead of two.

          IMHO the ’78 change was a downgrade. The jersey sleeves in particular; opposite-color sleeves look terrible on a baseball uniform but great in football for some reason. The Broncos did it for a couple of years in the mid-60s, and a few USFL teams did it too. I always loved that look. The ’78-89 Jets jerseys were just too plain for my taste, and I was never enamored of the angular italic “Jets” script.

          You’d think the Jets would have added silver at some point, since jet planes and jet engines tend to be made of metal. Instead they added some black trim in 1990 (but, thank the Lord, no black alternate jersey) that didn’t do much to improve the look (which wasn’t bad, but wasn’t great either).

          Anyway, my point is that they missed an opportunity in ’78 to come up with a really interesting, modern (for the time) look that might have stood the test of time; since it wasn’t anything special, the ’98 retrofitting was a welcome upgrade.

  • FYSD | August 20, 2012 at 9:55 am |

    There is no way the Preds are anywhere near #122. It has to be either the Vikings or the Bengals.

    • Phil Hecken | August 20, 2012 at 10:04 am |

      i figured the bengals would be a lock for #122…then i thought, “hey, maybe paul will throw a wrench into the works” and NOT put them there…just cuz

      but yeah, it wouldn’t surprise me to see them there, even though that might just be *too obvious*

    • Jeremiah | August 20, 2012 at 11:24 am |

      I don’t think the Raptors are anywhere near a lock for the last spot, either. My guesses are Bengals, NFL Cardinals, Vikings, Preds, or NBA Kings. Top spot is either MLB Cardinals, A’s, or Packers.

      • Paul Lukas | August 20, 2012 at 11:26 am |

        Jeremiah cast a pretty wide net there, but he got one thing right. That’s all I’ll say.

        • Coleman | August 20, 2012 at 11:38 am |

          I’m pretty biased, but the Packers better be #1!

        • Chance Michaels | August 20, 2012 at 1:15 pm |

          >fingers crossed<

        • JTH | August 20, 2012 at 1:27 pm |

          Honestly, do the 2012 Green Bay Packers deserve the top spot?

          Stripes on the collars and solid green socks? what is that shit?

          And they need to ditch the sparkly helmets and green facemasks.

        • The Jeff | August 20, 2012 at 1:37 pm |

          The green facemask is a good thing. One could even say that it’s “as Lombardi intended”, given the 1959 experiment with green painted masks (the paint chipped too badly and the idea was scrapped).

        • Coleman | August 20, 2012 at 5:22 pm |

          I’m totally fine with the green facemask, and the striped collar.

          When it comes to the solid green socks, let’s wait until the season really starts and see if they don’t put the stripes on. If they don’t, that would suck. I’m not a fan of the sparkles on the helmets either, but its not nearly as visible as others. So that I can deal with too.

    • concealed78 | August 20, 2012 at 11:29 am |

      I can’t really pick a #122, but right now it’s the Seahawks. If you asked me in April, I would have said Padres or Marlins. Ask me in December if they’re playing, it will probably be the Ducks or Avalanche.

  • Paul | August 20, 2012 at 10:10 am |

    FYI, in the Twins 1965 pic, coach Billy Martin is seated 4th from right, HOF Harmon Killebrew is in the top row, 2nd from right, and could be HOFs Tony Oliva is in the top row far right and Jim Katt is middle row 5th from left. 1965 AL MVP Zoilo Versalles is top row 5th from right. Future Twins manager Frank Quilici is top row, 2nd from left with Camilo Pascual to his left.

  • Joseph Gerard | August 20, 2012 at 10:22 am |

    I like that the Bucs road unis weren’t shown, as wasn’t the Saints throwbacks. I’m not sure if the Saints throwbacks are being worn again this year, but not show a jersey that Tampa wears at home most of the time?

  • odessasteps | August 20, 2012 at 11:05 am |

    Isnt san diego LA’s dw facto team now, regardling things like viewing area and blackouts? Just build a stadium on the i-5 between the two citites and call them the california chargers.

    • The Jeff | August 20, 2012 at 11:18 am |

      According to Wikipedia (because I’m too lazy to look for any other sources), Los Angeles isn’t actually affected by blackout rules – the blackout radius is 75 miles – San Diego is about 120 miles from LA.

  • Dustin | August 20, 2012 at 11:26 am |

    UTEP’s facebook has a better look at the new unis:

    At least they’re orange.

  • matthew | August 20, 2012 at 11:29 am |

    Hi. This is my first comment but I’ve been enjoying the site for quite a while, hope it goes through.
    Apparently, some dude on is calling himself the “uniform monitor” and ranked all 122 teams’ uniforms as well. I haven’t felt like going through it so I don’t know who is where, I prefer to follow yours since you have a great history with uniform knowledge. is the link to what they put.
    I’m curious as to what your thoughts are now that they are basically trying to “borrow” the idea from this site, even the hate of purple and teal. If you guys have already mentioned this, sorry. I don’t browse through the comments often.

    • Paul Lukas | August 20, 2012 at 11:36 am |

      The idea of ranking all the pro teams is hardly a proprietary concept. The guy on is free to do it; so are you.

      Now, do I think he took the idea from Uni Watch after I blogged about it a few weeks ago? Yeah, I do. But whatever — it’s not like I have an exclusive on this kind of thing.

      • matthew | August 20, 2012 at 11:48 am |

        True. I just found it “odd” his rankings are coming out the same time as yours are.

        Since you were successful at getting the black off the Mets’ jerseys and logos, please try and do the same thing for the Detroit Lions.

        • Dave | August 20, 2012 at 12:08 pm |

 for some reason didn’t include a byline on their 1-122, but it’s Dave Dameshek, who does uniform stuff on a regular basis (has for years on his various shows) and generally knows his stuff.

          As a fan of both UW and Dameshek, I believe this is a Armageddon/Deep Impact situation. Dameshek announced he was doing 1-122 on the Carolla podcast about a month ago.

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

          Dameshek announced he was doing 1-122 on the Carolla podcast about a month ago.

          Did he? Then good for him. There’s certainly room for two (or more) such rankings in this world.

        • Coleman | August 20, 2012 at 12:47 pm |

          Take the black out of Detroit’s uniform and it automatically jumps about 50 spots, IMO.

          It may be the “old uniform nostalgia” kicking in, but seriously. What’s wrong with this?…

        • The Jeff | August 20, 2012 at 1:01 pm |

          I don’t see what’s so bad about the Lions uniforms with the black trim. The previous version, sure – because the black looked like a lame afterthought. But the current uniforms were created with the black as a consistent part of the design, they look perfectly acceptable. I suppose they aren’t great, but they aren’t horrible either. I think there’s definitely some nostalgia bias in effect.

        • Coleman | August 20, 2012 at 1:08 pm |

          Fine by me. As long as the Packers beat them I don’t care too much what they wear ;)

        • Wheels | August 20, 2012 at 7:32 pm |

          Deep Impact was better than Armageddon. But it still sucked.

    • Phil Hecken | August 20, 2012 at 11:35 am |

      two words:


    • The Jeff | August 20, 2012 at 11:41 am |

      On one hand, it’s about time.

      On the other hand, it’s a freakin golf course. The idea that you need some sort of ultra elite membership to hit a freakin ball with a metal rod is just… ugh.

      • Phil Hecken | August 20, 2012 at 11:44 am |


        honestly, there is no need to comment on every single item that comes across in the comments…stick to football

    • JRod3737 | August 20, 2012 at 1:06 pm |


    • ChrisH | August 20, 2012 at 1:54 pm |

      And good for Condi and Darla!

      Augusta’s a private club, they can admit who they want.

    • Le Cracquere | August 20, 2012 at 2:15 pm |

      And double props to Augusta National for doing it in their own time, on their own initiative, and in cases where they themselves thought it justified.

      • Phil Hecken | August 20, 2012 at 2:45 pm |

        even if it was 30 years too late

    • StLMarty | August 20, 2012 at 10:59 pm |

      They set our croquet society back a few.

  • Tim | August 20, 2012 at 11:44 am |

    Timothy O’Malley notes, “Manchester City puts up a ‘tunnel cam’ for each home game, here is someone with vip access or works for the club wearing this years home kit without the sponsor on it.”

    Follow up on my own item, its actually a polo shirt the club sells.

    • Coleman | August 20, 2012 at 12:05 pm |

      That thing is sharp.

  • Achowat | August 20, 2012 at 11:46 am |

    Those Man United jerseys are throwbacks, to the old colors of Newton Heath LYR (Lancaster-Yorkshire Railroad) FC, hence the olde tyme-looking laces

    • Phil Hecken | August 20, 2012 at 12:02 pm |

      wow…kings for the win

      /shoulda figured

      • James A | August 20, 2012 at 5:52 pm |

        I’m proud to say I called the Sacramento Kings back on Friday. Do I get anything special, like a discounted buffet at the Palms?

    • The Jeff | August 20, 2012 at 12:02 pm |

      I wonder how far up the Bengals would jump if they ditched the white side panels.

      • The Jeff | August 20, 2012 at 12:06 pm |

        …and how the hell are the Carolina Panthers that low?

        Yeah, I think I’m not going to agree with most of this list. (Not that anyone should be surprised by that)

        • Paul Lukas | August 20, 2012 at 12:09 pm |

          Well, it’s good to know I’m doing something right.

        • Dustin | August 20, 2012 at 3:12 pm |

          The Panthers don’t have the greatest look, but at least they have complete shoulder hoops (well, some players do). And they should stick with the 1990s look, 90s nostalgia is already upon us.

      • Paul Lukas | August 20, 2012 at 12:08 pm |

        They probably still wouldn’t get out of today’s installment (i.e., wouldn’t jump above #101), but they’d definitely improve.

        • Simply Moono | August 20, 2012 at 8:26 pm |

          I must say, I personally would’ve swapped the Vikings’ and Bengals’ spots (not that it’s a quantum leap between where the two stand), because as bad as Cincy looks with the white side panels, the Vikings are even worse.

          I don’t love Nike, I just really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really like Nike, but I have to say that the Home Vikings uniform looks even worse with the Elite 51 technology compared to previous years. The side panels look larger.

          But that’s what I would do. This is — for the most part — your list. Fantastic job on the FirstAct end of the drum sets (that’s bottom-end of the uniform rankings in drummer-speak ;) ). I either agreed with your choices, or was indifferent about them (Oilers, in particular). Looking forward to tomorrow’s installment.

      • Arr Scott | August 20, 2012 at 12:45 pm |

        OK, so here’s something I’ve never understood. Why all the hate for the Bengals? The laughable badness of the Bengals seems one of those uni tropes that’s always assumed, never actually argued, sort of like how the Yankees are really, really awesome despite having a mismatching mishmash of core uni elements that’s instantly condemned when seen on any other team.

        So. Why exactly are the Bengals so terrible? Sure, they have loud tiger stripes. Which would be bad for, say, the Jets. But they’re the Bengals, right? Anyway, I have a combination of a childhood crush on the Bengals due to electric football and a grown-up indifference to pretty much anything having to do with the non-Toledo bits of Ohio, so I really would value an explanation from a Bengals uni-hater as to just why that uni is really so bad. You’re probably right and I’m just not seeing it, so help me see the light!

        • DenverGregg | August 20, 2012 at 1:10 pm |

          Ricko called it “too many bumper stickers”. Can’t improve on that. Between the wacky side panels, the contrast nameplates, the bespoke number typeface, the drop shadow, placing the tiger-stripes in multiple oddly-shaped iterations, there’s just too much going on.

        • quiet seattle | August 20, 2012 at 1:13 pm |

          The Bengals original uniform was a classic, from the BENGALS helemt on down.

          When they made the radical tiger stripe switch in ’81, they did it right. Just right. Subtle tiger stripes on the shoulers and pants.

          Then…they lost their way and the subtle tiger stripes started to dominate the uniform, the side panels appeared, the confusing pant stripes, the orange alternate, the monochrome blacks….etc. They are a complete mess and it’s embarassing.

        • concealed78 | August 20, 2012 at 1:17 pm |

          The helmet: which doesn’t bother me is fine. That’s the only Bengals helmet I’ve ever known. I think it’s more than enough to keep the bengal stripes there instead of randomly inserted on the jersey & pants.

          The jersey: round numbers (which I prefer only on the Bears) with blockshadow & “B” logo looks cheesy. The shoulder striping looks inconsistent – especially on the white jersey (no stripes where the TV number is but there further down). On the black jersey it looks odd because the stripes are not universal in shape & looks like a big rough gradient transition from black to orange (kinda like Tequila Sunrise but with fewer colors & stripes). Side panels & collars add absolutely nothing but clutter & contrasting color where it is not needed.

          The pants: just an oddly shaped random cutout on the sides. Same big gradient transition on the black pants which just looks like random orange bits. While say a lightning bolt works, but randomly shaped bengal stripes does not. It’s just not consistent or uniform.

          The socks: why wouldn’t you put stripes on this? Can’t really knit those bengal stripes or silk screen them. But I’m fine with the way they are.

          Overall it looks like a big cartoony mess that’s way too busy & doesn’t look like an NFL uniform. It just looks like it’s trying too hard to be something it’s not: an actual bengal. It’s jarring to say the least.

        • The Jeff | August 20, 2012 at 1:18 pm |

          Oh for the love of Celestia… the *ONLY* problems with the Bengals uniform are the white side panel and the small white section at the top of the pants stripe, which exists because of that side panel. Without that, they look fine. Maybe not quite as good as the original 1981 uniform, but definitely not in the bottom 20 of all pro sports.

        • Arr Scott | August 20, 2012 at 5:36 pm |

          I’m beginning to see the light with regard to considerations of form and shape. But I still don’t buy knocking the tiger-stripe panels as such. Seems to me that the Bengals are effectively using black/orange stripe pattern material as a color, not as a color combo element like a Northwestern stripe with two colors. So it’s not, oh look, there’s a big splotch of orange and black all mixed up, how busy; it’s, there’s tigerstripe.

        • concealed78 | August 20, 2012 at 7:37 pm |

          It’s complicated for the sake of being complicated.

          On the black pants, there is no real definition of the striped cutout section – the black bleeds into the rest of the black pants, so only the orange parts stick out.

          The use of should & sleeve bengal stripes is way too random & inconsistent – it looks different on all 3 jerseys. The back of the white jersey especially looks bad – like a Philadelphia Flyers knock-off.

          The whole thing is just a mess. It completely lacks any dignity or restraint. If it were a TV show, it would be American Idol. I would get rid of it as soon as possible.

          Another general question: are those helmet stripes still painted on or are those decals? Or am I misremembering?

    • concealed78 | August 20, 2012 at 12:24 pm |

      Wow, Paul agrees with my Avalanche sentiment. I really dislike the color scheme of Burgundy & Steel Blue which reminds me of my state’s ugly license plates, the crooked & clunky logo that doesn’t show the hockey puck well, weird font & they’ve never had a good looking jersey. I especially despise the Reebok cut. I just noticed: vertically arch lettering on the home & roads but straight on the alts. 4 colors that just look terrible together.

      • DenverGregg | August 20, 2012 at 12:48 pm |

        The Avs unis (and name for that matter) were a rush job when the team moved – and it shows. Just a few weeks before the season there was still talk of the team possibly being named the Colorado Cougars or Rocky Mountain Xtreme. Were it not for having won the Stanley Cup in their first year, they likely would have updated the logo and possibly the colors by now.

      • Arr Scott | August 20, 2012 at 12:54 pm |

        A different balance in the proportions with which the colors are used, and maybe tweaked saturation in one of them, and the Avs could have terrific uniforms. Even with that logo. But, yeah, as it is, a city that deserves to have great hockey uniforms, doesn’t.

      • quiet seattle | August 20, 2012 at 1:15 pm |

        Yeah, I was glad to see tht uniform placed low, hwere it belongs. Talk about a bad logo, too. It looked dated from the day it was introduced.

    • Arr Scott | August 20, 2012 at 12:31 pm |

      In cases where the judgment is based on a pre-revemp design, the list really needs to show the old, not the new logo. The chart makes it look like you’re saying the new, yet-to-be-seen, Nets unis are among the very worst in pro sports. Editorial nagging off.

      • Paul Lukas | August 20, 2012 at 12:41 pm |

        The Nets situation is unfortunate, but it’s just a case of bad timing. It was addressed in the introductory text.

      • concealed78 | August 20, 2012 at 12:42 pm |

        I’m pretty sure that’s an automatic file thing. I’d rather they would be up to date than Yahoo who still has the Blue Jays ugly old logo on their calendar schedule.

        I know we’re obsessive nitpickers here, but that’s a bit too ridiculous. Besides Paul explained his reasoning.

    • Arr Scott | August 20, 2012 at 12:37 pm |

      Given that several of the teams in the bottom quintile are condemned for key characteristics of the Yankees uniforms, the Bronx Bombers had better not be a top-10 choice!

      I’m not sure it would be possible for me to agree less with most of the rankings so far, but it’s still awesome. Great job Paul, and all the ESPNers and volunteers who helped you with this. I’m already looking forward not just to the top 100 of this list, but to reading next year’s update.

      • Paul Lukas | August 20, 2012 at 12:44 pm |

        Everyone knows you just wanted an excuse to say, “quintile” (and I’m jealous that I didn’t say it first).

        Thanks for the props, Scott. Disagreements are fine — I had second thoughts about certain teams during the entire process. I’m still second-guessing myself on a few things now, in fact. But at some point you just have to say, “OK, this is it” and let the discussion begin.

      • Joseph Gerard | August 20, 2012 at 12:57 pm |

        My money would be on the Yankees. When was the last time they overhauled any part of their uniform: the early 70’s, when they updated their road unis? The home ones have been unchanged since the Great Depression.

        As a Penguins fan I’m just surprised that they didn’t make today’s list. They need to return to their 80’s uniforms.

      • Le Cracquere | August 20, 2012 at 2:19 pm |

        A solid observation. Tradition and sentiment count for a whole lot–and should–but when a uni has that many inconsistencies and is that essentially dull, the rankings ought to reflect that as well.

    • Wheels | August 20, 2012 at 12:44 pm |

      I think the list should start with 122, not 101. Start with the worst.

      • Coleman | August 20, 2012 at 12:51 pm |

        Yeah, small detail, but I was surprised it was laid out that way too.

        Can’t wait for the rest of the list though!

      • Paul Lukas | August 20, 2012 at 12:53 pm |

        We thought about that. But then the final day would start with 25, and #1 would be at the bottom. We felt strongly that 1 should be at the top, so we kept each chart segment quintile in descending order, even though the segments themselves are being presented in ascending order.

        • Coleman | August 20, 2012 at 1:05 pm |

          I can get with that. I mean, its not like we can’t quickly scroll down and work our way up without spoiling it.

        • Ben Fortney | August 20, 2012 at 1:10 pm |

          Was there ever any discussion about people up/down voting the rankings once they’re all laid out?

        • Phil Hecken | August 20, 2012 at 1:41 pm |

          everyone knows you just wanted an excuse to repeat “quintile”

    • duker | August 20, 2012 at 1:13 pm |

      I’m amazed my Ravens weren’t on the list today. I’m guessing they’ll be near the bottom of tomorrows list.

      • quiet seattle | August 20, 2012 at 1:21 pm |

        I’m surprised the Ravens weren’t in the mix today. Their look is awful.

        The biggest surprise was scrolling down to see the Cavaliers in there. Sure the font is just slightly–slightly–bland (though I can live with bland over preposterous), but that uniform is a beauty. Two rare, complimentary colors and nice, conventional striping.

        • elgato11x | August 20, 2012 at 1:26 pm |

          Agreed, I was surprised to see the Cavs so low. I think they have one of the better unis in the NBA.

        • pflava | August 20, 2012 at 2:41 pm |

          The Cavs surprised me, too. The only thing I’m not crazy about is the font they used, but the colors and striping are really nice.

        • Geeman | August 20, 2012 at 4:00 pm |

          I think the Cavs have a nice look, like UCLA’s. Understated and classic.

          As for the Padres, they are underperforming. I don’t like brown, but they can draw on a rich history of team colors — navy blue, gold, orange — for a different look than the bland look they have now.

        • concealed78 | August 20, 2012 at 4:38 pm |

          Yeah I would definitely switch (wherever) the Ravens with the Cavs at least.

    • concealed78 | August 20, 2012 at 4:36 pm |

      The only thing I disagree with is the Cavs. Maybe it is a little plain, but I like the old school U-neck, the striping on the shoulder, neck, waist & shorts, I really dig that color scheme and it is their roots. The logo still sucks but I like the wine & Athletic gold vastly over the wine & Metallic Gold. Mixed elements from the 1970s-74 & 1974-81 sets. Dare I say, it’s actually in the same general category as the current Blue Jays – not exactly the same, but in the ballpark & for better or for worse, it was their best look(s).

  • JenInChicago | August 20, 2012 at 12:08 pm |

    Can’t tell you how angry I am about that hack job over at…..

    Wow – that list really is horrible….all he did was look at the color combos rank which schemes he liked best and then grouped the teams with that color combo together. They should be ashamed.

    I also am a bit honked off by his calling the Blackhawks logo “vaguely feminine”….what the hell does that mean?

    • Phil Hecken | August 20, 2012 at 1:42 pm |

      it’s not ‘masculine’?

      i, for one, will be very interested to see where the blackhawks does end up…because if it weren’t for one small, but not insignificant thing, those unis are the best in puck

  • Joe Nguyen | August 20, 2012 at 12:08 pm |

    In case it wasn’t already mentioned, Peyton Hillis continuing the Cleveland tradition of wearing sock stripes on his arms while now playing for KC…

    • Paul Lukas | August 20, 2012 at 12:14 pm |

      Great catch — thanks for sharing that!

  • Ben Fortney | August 20, 2012 at 12:23 pm |

    Before everyone goes ranking crazy, Creamer has an update on the Astros 2013 uni.

    • The Jeff | August 20, 2012 at 12:31 pm |

      Bad link.

      Upon going to the main site and looking, that article really doesn’t tell us anything. Not only does it not tell us anything, it tells us that it isn’t telling us anything.

      • Ben Fortney | August 20, 2012 at 12:37 pm |

        Ooops, Good link.

        I think the takeaway is that they’re talking designs in plural, which means some sort of combination. I left a comment on CC’s post saying I hope they use the 90’s font (and hat logo) with the 60’s color and star streaks.

        I’d have mocked that up for the contest if I had the time.

        • concealed78 | August 20, 2012 at 5:50 pm |

          Here’s version 1. Version 2 with no navy trim. You may have to zoom to see the full detail.

          I like the no navy trim version better, but I’m still not a fan of mixing team different era’s. It’s like it’s trying to appeal to every generation but lacks being unique.

        • Arr Scott | August 20, 2012 at 6:03 pm |

          Nicely rendered, concealed, but ugh, please Astros don’t do this. The 1990s Star Trek script is easily the weakest, least timeless script the Astros have ever had. It screams 1992 shopping mall computer store – looked dated even by the time the Astros wore it. General look and feel with the shooting star is great, but the Astros need either a slightly modernized version of the script that originally went with the shooting star, or they need something entirely new in that space.

        • Cort McMurray | August 20, 2012 at 6:22 pm |

          They won in that Star Trek wordmark, which is the sole reason people look on it with any fondness.

          It all needs a lot more orange.

          Roger Clemens signed with the Sugar Land Skeeters this afternoon, an independent team that plays in southwest Houston suburbs. The Astros’ next home game is August 28, versus the Giants. Clemens is scheduled to pitch on Saturday night.

          I’ll bet the Skeeters draw 10,000 on Saturday night. Astros attendance has been as low as 14,000 this season.

          New uniforms — that’ll fix everrrrrything!

        • concealed78 | August 20, 2012 at 6:48 pm |

          Nicely rendered, concealed

          Thanks. Yeah I’m not a fan of that 1994-99 look either. The broken star looks like the Energy Star logo sticker that was on my first computer. They totally ripped it off with the current cap.

          Basically Star Trek with Notre Dame colors. Blech. Improvement over Tequila Sunrise Shoulder yes but not anything from the 1960s. The 1965-70 set deserves a reprise. I think it’s on par or better than the Phillies or Braves sets & should stand the test of time.

          Cort – technically they went much farther than they ever did with the current set. 2-1 NLDS, 1-1 NLCS & 0-1 WS with the current set. 0-3 in NLDS in the 1990s.

  • ScottyM | August 20, 2012 at 1:08 pm |

    Curious that the “Bottom 20” consists of only one baseball team. And that team is San Diego, with what are among the least innocuous uniforms in their history … and a set that fits in alongside the vast majority of bland baseball sets in the ’10s.

    • The Jeff | August 20, 2012 at 1:12 pm |

      That’s because the Padres have a history of being “loud” so having a uniform as bland as the Yankees is a negative for them.

      • ScottyM | August 20, 2012 at 1:29 pm |

        What? They haven’t had a “loud” uniform in more than two DECADES! (And that’s more than half their history.) Methinks the criteria used throughout will be ripe with curiosities, particularly with baseball.

        IMO, pro baseball has been in a “dead era” of design for the better part of the 90s/00s/10s. That’s 25-30+ years of ubiquity. Something should be said about that level of “traditionalism” when compared with the variety over the previous 4-5 decades.

        Arizona and Colorado are two that come to mind that are infinitely worse than San Diego. I do get the point that SD should be brown and gold. But, you can’t hold that bland-ness against them … when the league basically stipulates ubiquity and same-ness.

        • TA | August 20, 2012 at 3:46 pm |

          I suppose it depends on your definition of “loud”. I’d say they were loud-ish until they dropped the pinstripes in 2002. And after that they were still unconventional with the “sand” instead of grey until a couple of years ago. Now they are the epitome of bland, plus they have two frequently-used awful alts. I wouldn’t put them at the bottom of MLB, or even in my bottom 5, but I can’t come up with much positive to say about them.

        • Arr Scott | August 20, 2012 at 4:12 pm |

          I like the Padres, and I like the basic design elements of their identity. But still, they use a basically good set of elements to the least interesting or distinctive possible purpose. No team does less with more than the Padres. I wouldn’t call the Friars the worst unis in baseball – Miami & Colorado are definitely worse – but I would call them the most disappointing. Bring back the sand road unis and find a way to wear something other than a Dodgers cap, and the Padres would be at or above league average. But as it stands, I can’t really argue with Paul’s ranking of them.

          In terms of disappointment, I’d rank the Braves pretty high – that is, low – as well. Their basic home look and their road grays when paired with the red-brimmed cap are, to my eye, possibly the best overall uni in baseball history. But throw in the multiple crappy alts and the disastrous all-navy road cap, and the Braves are right up there for me with the Padres in terms of doing less with more.

  • quiet seattle | August 20, 2012 at 1:26 pm |

    I really like the Power Rankings logo.

    • Tim E. O'B | August 20, 2012 at 2:17 pm |


  • Simply Moono | August 20, 2012 at 2:02 pm |

    “Speaking of Phil, he’s done one seriously kick-ass job over the past four weeks, so please join me in giving him a standing O.”


  • Paul Lukas | August 20, 2012 at 2:27 pm |

    For those who like to keep track of such things, I’ll be discussing college football uniforms on this radio station at 8:35am Eastern tomorrow:

    The link for streaming audio is right there on the site.

  • Jason M (DC) | August 20, 2012 at 2:37 pm |

    Hasn’t the Lions’ shade of blue gotten darker? I liked it better during the Barry Sanders years. The black definitely needs to go.

  • Ricko | August 20, 2012 at 2:46 pm |

    Crap. Let’s put this where it belongs…

    Anyone else notice that for displaying all 18 of Kentucky’s uni combinations evidently they could find only one football player?

    But, y’know, those unis’ll help recruiting so maybe next year they’ll have two.

    • Ricko | August 20, 2012 at 2:49 pm |

      I know, I know. There are several different players.
      Just couldn’t resist a joke.

      Hey, I feel for Kentucky.
      I have to hear about the Gophers all the time, remember.

  • Mark K | August 20, 2012 at 2:59 pm |

    Was expecting my Sabres to be near the bottom.

    A whole mish-mosh of piping, pit stains, extra numbers, etc.- surely they are worse than Edmonton.

    Maybe they’re getting credit for getting rid of the slugs.

  • Ricko | August 20, 2012 at 3:02 pm |

    I am absolutely astounded and appalled at any ranking that places the Colorado Avalanche unis at 118th.

    Clearly, they should be 117th.

    • Tim E. O'B | August 20, 2012 at 3:08 pm |

      I’d file a formal complaint.

    • Bernard | August 20, 2012 at 3:36 pm |

      Ricko, you’re out of your mind!

      There’s no WAY the Avalanche are at 117. In fact, I’d drop them ALL the way down to 119 (in a 2-way tie with the Nets.)

      • Arr Scott | August 20, 2012 at 4:16 pm |

        No ties! This sort of exercise only works if there are no ties. Anyone who hasn’t the intestinal fortitude to take a stand and put each team in its own place above or below every single other team has no business doing this kind of list.

        Which is why I have no business doing this kind of list. Me, I’d have a clear 1-12 ranking, and then 11 10-team ties.

        • Phil Hecken | August 20, 2012 at 4:43 pm |

          no ties?

          not even bow ties????

        • Arr Scott | August 20, 2012 at 5:31 pm |

          That’s hitting below the belt, man. Or below the neck, anyway!

  • daveclt | August 20, 2012 at 3:18 pm |

    Great start to the list, Paul. Of your first installment, I view the Clippers, Bobcats, and Cardinals (NFL) the worst of the worst. One of them should have been #122.

  • Bromotrifluoromethane | August 20, 2012 at 4:34 pm |

    Like the start so far. Only a few minor issues with it since like most of us I’m a bit biased towards some teams. One I do take issue with as a Falcons fan is the ranking you have for them. 102? Seriously? How could you? Those clown suits they wear should be headed quickly towards the high 110’s or pushing the 120’s. I know you hate purple but there’s no way the Kings are worse. Either of the Kings. I still say put the modern logo on these and you have what the Falcons should be wearing:

    • quiet seattle | August 20, 2012 at 7:13 pm |

      Bromotriffluoromethane, (may I call you “Bromo”), any uniform the Falcons wore prior to their current mess is an improvement. But I have to ask: what is it about their original logo that you don’t like?

      I think it’s great and was disappointed to see it go. Their current logo is, well, ridiculous.

      • Bromotrifluoromethane | August 20, 2012 at 9:48 pm |

        I’m not saying I hated the old logo. I liked it… A lot… As long as it’s on a BLACK helmet because the helmet and the jersey should be black not red (I will admit I hate the red helmets and red jerseys)…
        The current wordmarks blow but my preference is for the newer logo over the old. I thought it was a nice update to what served them well for decades. Although it was rather ironic to me that the original logo was only black/red/white yet the uniforms almost always had gray (silver?) in them. But when they updated the logo to add some gray into it they dropped the color from the uniforms and again went with just a black/red/white color combo. I wish they’d bring the color back somewhere in the uniforms. Either gray pants or bring back gray numbers with the black trim at home.

  • StLMarty | August 20, 2012 at 4:51 pm |

    Reading the comments over at Page 2… ya gotta love sports fans.
    Still not as good as the comments after the Dallas Cowboy piece of 2009. Or was it 2008?

    • StLMarty | August 21, 2012 at 12:34 am |

      waxin and milkin

  • Joe Palmucci | August 20, 2012 at 5:02 pm |

    I’m so excited I got in the News Ticker

  • Zima | August 20, 2012 at 5:07 pm |

    For once I don’t completely disagree with you on your rankings, Paul. I would say that you have a bias against “retro-looking” vs. “classic” You can’t tell me that there’s any real aesthetic difference between the Cavaliers’ current set and, for example, the Bulls’, in anything other than choice of colors. I think you just ranked them low because they’re both boring and new, as opposed to the teams like the Celtics which are boring and old.

    • Paul Lukas | August 20, 2012 at 5:56 pm |

      For once I don’t completely disagree with you on your rankings, Paul.

      I’ve never done rankings before, so I don’t know how you could have disagreed with them in the past.

      • Zima | August 20, 2012 at 10:53 pm |

        I of course meant your many “takes” on uniforms. But I’m glad semantics are more important than addressing your biases.

  • Tim | August 20, 2012 at 5:17 pm |

    Man Utd, while losing to Everton sent Anderson out on the field looking like this

    • Shane | August 20, 2012 at 5:38 pm |

      Eh, he’s pretty useless as a footballer anyway. Scored a brace against Schalke in the CL a few years back, but we’d already had the win secured.

  • Tim E. O'B | August 20, 2012 at 5:34 pm |

    UH, did people know about this? or this? and I just wasn’t paying attention?

    That’s their official website, good for them!

  • Christopher F. | August 20, 2012 at 6:05 pm |

    Paul, will you let us in on your methodology for doing this list?

    Not the reasons you pick one above the other (you hate purple, etc.)… I mean the process.

    Did you have 122 index cards and you just moved them around?

    Those of us with OCD would like to know!

    Some dude years back ranked *every* Beatles song. His methodology facinated me… though I’ve lost track of the site and now can’t find it.

    • Phil Hecken | August 20, 2012 at 6:09 pm |

      i sure hope fucking revolution #9 was worst and blue jay way was next to last

      and i sure as shit hope hey jude was NOT #1…

  • Ryan | August 20, 2012 at 6:20 pm |

    FWIW, on the ESPN SportsNation page on which you can rank MLB teams, I see listed some team named the “Florida Marlins.”

  • Tim | August 20, 2012 at 6:39 pm |

    That all-white Anacostia High School baseball team is a bit of a shock to Washingtonians. The schools were segregated in those days. Today, Anacostia is predominantly African-American. For the rest of you, imagine an all-white team with Harlem on their chest.

  • George Chilvers | August 20, 2012 at 7:06 pm |

    “(boy, that would make for a fine colorization)”

    As a Shorpy fan I already had put this in my “to be colourised at some time soon” folder

  • concealed78 | August 20, 2012 at 8:25 pm |

    Did anybody do their own power rankings yet?

    Here’s my MLB.

    I started with bottom feeders, then did the top, then did the middle & adjusted accordingly.

    Padres: You would easily get in my Top 10 if you were BROWN. 1-24 were all pretty respectable, but 25-30 has none.

    • Phil Hecken | August 20, 2012 at 8:39 pm |

      you guys are so dead wrong on the fathers

      yes, the suck, and yes, they’re so far removed from the late 60’s early 70s awesome they once were…

      but the astros, d-bags and rockies are far, far worse (actually, i like the rockies home pins and road grays WITHOUT pins — but the black vest and purple softball top ruin shit)…pads are bland, camo sucks, and they’re boring, but at least they look like a baseball uni

      how the fuck are the yankees #1 by such a large margin? yeah, it’s totally up there, but not #1, not to me

      • concealed78 | August 20, 2012 at 8:56 pm |

        Yankees #1 on an ESPN site? You know the answer to this, Phil. I’m not surprised the biggest fan bases are winning this.

        I stand by my #30 Padres ranking. Maybe it’s irrational but I really hate the Padres in navy blue. Absolutely hate it. If they want to be a bastard, I can be bastard.

        I should have put the Mets at #10 instead of including both black & orange teams in a row, but if I did this tomorrow, the list would look different too. If the A’s were in kelly, they’d be in my Top 10. The Rockies primary color should be purple.

        • Bromotrifluoromethane | August 20, 2012 at 9:58 pm |

          I couldn’t get the lists to play well with Safari. Maybe I’ll try again in Firefox if it’s still good to do. Nobody would like my rankings though.

      • Jim Vilk | August 20, 2012 at 10:16 pm |

        but the astros brewers and d-bags and rockies are far, far worse

        Fixed. Astros and Rockies are about even with the Padres, but none of them deserve the bottom of the list.

        • concealed78 | August 21, 2012 at 8:50 am |

          How so, Jim? MLB is pretty solid with good looks, but there’s always room for improvement – especially for the Brewers, Rockies, Padres, Astros & D-Backs & Marlins. My 15-24 group definitely needs some rehauling; be it color schemes, better caps or jerseys (including alts; ugh).

          But when your team is in the completely WRONG color like the Padres, you deserve to be at the bottom. They basically look like the navy blue Dodgers (and that should be the biggest insult of them all).

        • Jim Vilk | August 21, 2012 at 12:50 pm |

          I just meant the Brewers and D-Backs are more 30-worthy than the Padres. All of them have downgraded significantly and the Padres deserve to be *near* the bottom, but not all the way.

          Arizona’s color change was just as bad. They had a good thing going with purple (yeah, I said it) and copper.

          The Brewers could be easily fixed by brightening up the colors and losing that number font of theirs. They don’t have to go back to block numbers, but what they have right now just isn’t doing it for me. Until then, they’re my number 29.

  • jrg | August 20, 2012 at 8:40 pm |

    I wonder if the teams ever look at their home/away/alt uniforms side-by-side like in the Rankings. In almost every case, it is obvious that the set with the most black is the worst.

    Monochrome dark colors also stand out, and not in a good way.

    • Bromotrifluoromethane | August 20, 2012 at 9:56 pm |

      As a Pirates fan I happen to like all the black they use. Then again it’s my favorite “color” along with a dark Bears-ish Blue. I’d sure rather the black and yellow over a return to blue and red.

      Of course I wish they left the “P” alternate for home games and brought back the 1990-2000 scripted “Pittsburgh” on a road alternate.

  • Kenny Loo | August 20, 2012 at 10:45 pm |

    De nada,Paul.

  • Coleman | August 20, 2012 at 10:51 pm |

    I’m watching Rudy on tv, and ya know the first thing that comes to mind? “Man, they sure could use a crazy uniform makeover!” Fuckin’ bullshit.

  • Tim L. | August 20, 2012 at 11:13 pm |

    I might be late to the party… I just noticed that the Eagles checkerboard stitch atop their shoulder pads is alive and well on the Nike jersey.

  • Casey | August 22, 2012 at 2:02 am |

    Off topic, but the new-ish Mountain West Logo looks a lot like a logo from Dr. Who:

  • Dustin | August 22, 2012 at 10:09 am |

    I’m enjoying the rankings so far, but I was surprised that the Carolina Hurricanes didn’t end up further down the list for the fact that their logo uses the gale/tropical storm warning flag ( rather than the hurricane warning flag (