Monday Morning Uni Watch


We already knew the Ravens had dropped the neck roll collar on their purple and white jerseys, and yesterday we learned that they’ve done likewise on their black alternate
. That isn’t particularly surprising, but it’s still interesting to see. Several readers suggested that they should have dropped the purple trim on the sleeve cuffs, as if you can’t have contrasting cuffs unless you also have a contrasting collar (like on a ringer T-shirt), but I don’t mind the extra splash of color, even if it is purple. What do you think?

In other NFL news from yesterday:

• As you know, the Titans are wearing a 15th-anniversary patch this season. But CBS ran a player profile video of Chris Johnson wearing the team’s old 10th-anniversary patch.

• Chiefs linebacker Tamba Hali tore both of the sleeves on his base-layer undershirt.

• Pats quarterback Tom Brady had to change helmets after his helmet radio malfunctioned, which prompted several readers to say, “Hey, I thought the NFL had banned helmet switcheroos!” People, I know it’s fun to play gotcha, but the NFL’s stated goal has never been to eliminate helmet switches; it’s to minimize helmet switches. A case of a malfunctioning radio is definitely among the situations they already allowed for. (I’ll have more to say about all this in a new ESPN column later this week.)

• I haven’t been able to find a photo, but I noticed several Saints players wearing a Pinktober accessory I hadn’t seen (or maybe just hadn’t noticed) before: pink visor clips.

• Speaking Pinktober, if you look at photos of the Browns/Lions game, you’ll find not a single pink accessory. The teams weren’t even wearing the pink ribbon helmet decal.

•  No pink in the Cowboys/’Skins game either, except for Robert Griffin III.

• In a related item, a Jags fan came up with a unique Pinktober gesture.

Turning to Saturday’s NCAA action, Phil and his contributors had lots of good coverage in yesterday’s entry, so start there. Once you’re caught up with that, here are some additional items:

• The Kentucky/Alabama game had something I’ve never seen before: an official with a tattoo! And not just any tattoo, but the Playboy bunny logo. I can recall any official in any sport having a visible tattoo before. Seems very unprofessional somehow — shouldn’t he have used cover-up cream or something?

• Interesting to see that Johnny Football was wearing Under Armour underwear. The Adidas folks can’t be happy about that.

• One of Washington’s running backs had some NOB issues.

(My thanks to all contributors, including Zack Bennett, Matt Brown, Dustin Cook, John Enriquez, David Keel, Brendan Slattery, JJ Sledge, and of course Phil.)

+ + + + +

MLB cap update: Remember my story last week about a possible change in MLB cap fabrics? On Friday I heard from a source who said he had spoken with someone highly placed in the world of MLB caps. We’ll call him Source No. 2, whereas my source for last Thursday’s piece was Source No. 1.

Let’s go one thing at a time:

• Regarding the change of cap fabrics for next season, Source No. 2 says one team is definitely on board for that — the Dodgers — with a second unnamed team close to pulling the trigger. But contrary to what Source No. 1 had told me, Source No. 2 says there’s no indication yet that it will be an MLB-wide thing. I’ve done some additional checking to see if I can figure out which source is right (or if neither of them is right), but so far no dice.

• Source No. 1 had told me that Nike was trying to wrest the MLB cap contract from New Era, whose MLB deal expires at the end of 2014. Source No. 2 says New Era does indeed have competition for the cap contract after 2014, but from Under Armour, not Nike. Still, No. 2 says his connection in the cap world believes New Era will end up retaining the contract, and that the new deal may be wrapped up very soon.

Keep in mind that this is all hearsay (i.e., both of my sources are getting their info from professionals in the cap world — they do not work in that world themselves). That doesn’t mean the info is wrong, of course, but details sometimes get lost or distorted in translation. One reason I haven’t written about this for ESPN yet is that there’s no way I’d base a breaking news story on a hearsay source (and even if I wanted to, there’s no way my editors would let me). It’s fine for a blog post, though, especially when I’m giving you a caveat like this. My hope is that it will lead to a primary source. If that’s you, don’t be shy.

+ + + + +

’Skins Watch: Here’s a good, thoughtful piece on how ’Skins fans liked the letter that Daniel Snyder recently sent to them regarding the team’s name. … Speaking of Snyder’s letter, officials at the Red Cloud Indian School in South Dakota are disputing a key part of the letter and denouncing the ’Skins name (from Tommy Turner). … A Native American group is asking the Minnesota Sports Facilities Authority to refrain from printing or broadcasting the ’Skins logo or name during the Nov. 7 ’Skins/Vikings game at the Metrodome, on the grounds that doing so would violate Federal labor laws, hate-speech protections, and the civil rights of Native Americans. If the group’s request is turned down, they may take legal action (from Greg Fedio). … DC sports radio guy Eric Bickel has written a defense of Dan Snyder’s position (thanks, Phil). … Students at a DC high school are going to hold a debate on the ’Skins name (from David Goodfriend). … One common refrain from Dan Snyder defenders is that “only white people” care about the ’Skins name. That’s a silly argument on its face (I suppose white people weren’t allowed to care about civil rights either?), but it’s also demonstrably untrue. Aside from the many Native American groups who are protesting the team’s name, the movement also includes quite a few black sportswriters, the most recent one being longtimes New York Times sports columnist William C. Rhoden. ”¦ Here’s the winning design in 99desisns’s “Rebrand the ’Skins” contest. … Bob Costas weighed in on the ’Skins name, and on the larger Native American issue, during halftime of last night’s Dallas/Washington game. I strongly disagree with much of what he said (he thinks “Braves” is essentially the same as “Vikings”), but we agree on one thing: The ’Skins name is highly problematic.

Baseball News: I see Big Papi was wearing Day Glo-trimmed batting gloves last night. Is that the first time he’s done that? ”¦ Speaking of the Bosox and batting gloves, see this Franklin glove? Jacoby Ellsbury wears that same model (in a different color), only his version has a Nike logo. “He is also contract with Nike, so he drew a Nike logo on the glove,” says Adam Volk. ”¦ Great story about how Mickey Cochrane restored the old English “D” to the Tigers’ uniforms in 1934 (good job by Todd Radom). … Here’s something I’ve never seen before: a flocked Mets batting helmet (good find by Bruce Menard). … If you look at Bob Gibson striking out George Scott for the final out of the 1967 World Series, you can see third base ump Augie Donatelli running toward the ensuing crowd of celebratory Cards and stealing a St. Louis player’s cap right off his head (if the video doesn’t auto-forward to the correct spot, skip to the 4:20 mark). “They talked about that during the pregame show for Saturday afternoon’s Dodgers/Cards game,” says Brian Derrick. “Super-interesting story. They mentioned this ump did this more than once.” There’s a little more info here. Donatelli, alas, passed away years ago, so we can’t ask him to tell us more about all this. … Tigers pitcher Max Scherzer, a Missouri alum, showed up in the ALCS interview room on Saturday wearing a sweatshirt with the score of Mizzou’s upset win over UGA from earlier that day (thanks, Phil). ”¦ Interesting story about Bill Mazeroski and other former MLB stars selling their old uniforms and other memorabilia. ”¦ Here’s something you rarely see up for sale: an old jersey with detachable sleeves.

NFL News: Here’s a good photo I haven’t see before of the Steelers’ Batman uniform (from Yancy Yeater). ”¦ Lots of readers forwarded me the promo email for these “drenched” jerseys yesterday. Idiotic stuff, natch, but it’s just fashion merch, so who cares? ”¦ Rick Friedel notes that Packers kicker Mason Crosby’s nose bumper has an unusual clip for his facemask. Here’s another photo, and in this one you can see that someone else on the team — probably Crosby’s holder — has the same thing. Last season Crosby had conventional clips on his nose bumper. ”¦ Okay, so this isn’t technically an NFL item, but this has got to be the most amazing football jersey I’ve ever seen. Wow!

College Football News: What’s up with this horseshoe? According to this story, “While walking down an interior hall in the Osborne Complex toward the field, the Huskers are led by Head Coach Bo Pelini, and all raise their hands to touch the lucky horseshoe that hangs above the door as the Huskers leave the North Stadium. The same horseshoe hung in the South Stadium tunnel, and before that the horseshoe hung above Nebraska’s locker room entrance in the original North Stadium.” ”¦ I put this in the MLB Ticker, but it’s worth putting here too: Detroit Tigers pitcher Max Scherzer, a Missouri alum, showed up in the ALCS interview room on Saturday wearing a sweatshirt with the score of Mizzou’s upset win over UGA from earlier that day (thanks, Phil). ”¦ Baylor RB Glasco Martin IV has RNOB (from Matthiew Mitchell).

Hockey News: The Mighty Ducks live! Additional pics from last night’s throwback game in Anaheim here. Everyone seems to agree that this one was a big, big success. ”¦ Yesterday’s edition of CBS Sunday Morning included a segment on Bobby Orr. The show’s reporter was wearing a Bruins-style jersey with the show’s logo. Also, note the Orr’s gloves are monogrammed with his name (from Gordon Cromer). ”¦ There are times when a GI Joe uni is justified (from Terry Duroncelet).

Soccer News: Mexico wore their new World Cup kits in their World Cup qualifier match against Panama. Why? According to this story, “Before beating Panama, Mexico’s World Cup future was so uncertain that Adidas decided to have them wear their World Cup kit now ”” long before any other Adidas team even shows their new kit ”” just to be sure the thing was put to use” (from Britton Jackson). … Saturday’s Southern Counties East League Premier Division game on between Canterbury City and Whyteleafe was called off when the visitors (Whyteleafe) turned up in a kit identical to the home side’s and failed to in a desperate attempt to replace it (from Graham Clayton).

Basketball News: While taking a tour of the completely amazing Brooklyn Army Terminal on Saturday afternoon, I saw a guy wearing an amusing Celtics T-shirt. ”¦ Whoa, look at this amazing harlequin-patterned hoops uni. Would love to see the jersey and shorts together on a mannequin (or a human!).

Grab Bag: There’s a pretty awesome-looking new book about an infographics pioneer (from Heather McCabe). … New logo for the city of Kansas City. “Personally, I’ll always have a nostalgic attachment to the old one, but I like the shout-out to the Monarchs,” says Joe Nguyen. ”¦ Willard Kovacs has taken some creative license to show us how sports history might have looked if Pinktober had existed decades ago. ”¦ I just won this cool-looking 1965 uni catalog for a song. More details once I receive it from the seller.

187 comments to Monday Morning Uni Watch

  • Joseph Gerard | October 14, 2013 at 7:45 am |

    The NFL must finally be wising up on the Pink being overkill.

  • Ryan M. | October 14, 2013 at 7:46 am |

    Heard on the radio this morning a clip of Bob Costas at halftime of ‘Skins/Cowboys talking about three Washington team name being an undeniable slur. No idea if there’s a link somewhere (I’m in traffic right now) but it seems like it would belong in ‘Skins Watch.

    • Prentice | October 14, 2013 at 7:49 am |

      Same here….came to get the Costas reaction but no mention in the ‘Skins watch. Costas gave a thoughtful analysis, even considering the other Native American team names.

    • terriblehuman | October 14, 2013 at 3:31 pm |

      And Costas explains himself on Dan Patrick’s radio show. Relevant excerpt:

      But Redskins, if you take a step back, we’ve become used to it, because it’s been in common usage for so long. But if you take a step back and you think of what the equivalent of Redskins would be if applied to an African American, a Hispanic, an Asian, or any other ethnic group, then you have to start thinking of it a different way. Or put it in these terms: if you were to walk into a gathering of Native Americans – if you were on a reservation or happened to come across a family of Native Americans in a restaurant, and you began conversing with them – would you feel comfortable referring to them as Redskins? Using the term Redskins over and over again?

      • arrScott | October 14, 2013 at 4:41 pm |

        And that’s really all there is to it. You show me someone who would honestly say “yes” to Costas’ hypothetical, and I’ll show you someone whom the vast, vast majority of people would regard as a terrible, probably bigoted, person. At least 85% of us, if we witnessed someone do such a thing, we’d stand up and get in that man’s face and ask him to leave the restaurant.

        If a decent person would not use a word in mixed or polite company, then no sports team should call itself by that word. And it’s just a fact that no decent person would refer to another person as “redskin” to his face, unless he was a bigot and/or intended to start a fight.

  • Ronnie Poore | October 14, 2013 at 7:52 am |
    • Paul Lukas | October 14, 2013 at 8:10 am |

      Not the same photo — look at the “NY.”

  • Kyle | October 14, 2013 at 8:03 am |
  • Dumb Guy | October 14, 2013 at 8:04 am |

    The cap-stealing ump is wacky!! LOL!

    • Mark in Shiga | October 14, 2013 at 8:55 am |

      I can’t get over how transparent his lie was: “I saw a cap falling off that fellow’s head…” — yeah, sure you did, Augie. Thief.

    • mild bill | October 14, 2013 at 12:07 pm |

      The umpire stealing the cap was bizarre but the most unusual part of the video was that it took only 35 seconds for the Cardinals to leave the field.

    • muddlehead | October 14, 2013 at 1:25 pm |

      Amazing. Who’d a thunk. Caught red hat handed. I’ve never ever watched a pre-game show for any game any sport anytime. What else have I missed? In fact, I watch games with the sound off. Whatever. How did Augie the doggie’s bizarre deed just come to all of our attention a few days ago?

  • Dumb Guy | October 14, 2013 at 8:05 am |

    The Jag fan made me laugh out loud. Nice.

  • Dumb Guy | October 14, 2013 at 8:06 am |

    While the winner in the 99designs contest is pretty good, I don’t like Warriors as the new name for the ‘Skins.

    • The Jeff | October 14, 2013 at 8:14 am |

      I had the opposite reaction. I like Washington Warriors as a Redskins replacement (if it must be replaced), but I thought that winning entry was garbage.

      • andyharry | October 14, 2013 at 9:37 am |

        Agreed. Warriors is a fine, if rather generic name, but the winning entry is not very well done. Truth be told, there are only about 5 that have professional potential, and that is not one of them.

      • arrScott | October 14, 2013 at 11:59 am |

        Garbage? No way. It’s underdeveloped, sure, and not ready for prime time. The basic concept of adopting the shape of the Pentagon is solid, though, and makes for a strong, simple iconography of the sort that football requires. This one is just a bit (OK, a lot) rough around the edges. Guy spent too much time fancying up the script – why spell it “WARRIOR$”? – and not enough revising the helmet logo.

        “Garbage” would be any of the other entries whose basic idea boils down to, “Put a big star on the helmet.” Do these people really not know who DC’s chief rival is?

        Anyway, new plan: Change the name to Warriors and put a tomahawk on the helmet. No, not that tomahawk, this tomahawk.

        • alex35332 | October 14, 2013 at 12:10 pm |

          As a Washingtonian I would strongly protest any militarized logo like that one with the Pentagon… which is not in Washington. It would be like the Kansas City Chiefs using a map of Kansas instead of Missouri.

        • Winter | October 14, 2013 at 12:24 pm |

          Given that they already play in Landover, and not DC, that horse is kind of out of the barn.

        • alex35332 | October 14, 2013 at 12:29 pm |

          Yes, but the odds are they will move back to DC in the next 20 years.

        • arrScott | October 14, 2013 at 12:37 pm |

          I hear you, alex, but if the name is “Warriors,” then the iconography will necessarily be militaristic. Better to at least be so in a locally relevant way. And the shape of the Pentagon conveys the concept of militarism without the need for overt military images like guns or rockets or fighter jets or, yes, spears.

          But I share your basic objection, which is why I hope the team becomes the Pigskins or the Americans, not the Warriors.

        • Coleman | October 14, 2013 at 1:11 pm |

          Oh man, that Tomahawk… I used to sleep right next to those. No joke.

    • Judy A | October 14, 2013 at 12:47 pm |

      Every time I see “Griffins” proposed as a new name for the Redskins, a little piece of my soul dies. How much longer is it going to take for my friends and family in DC to come to terms with the fact that we got another Heath Shuler on our hands?

      • Steve B. | October 14, 2013 at 12:51 pm |

        No way, he is having a hard time right now, but he has already more than eclipsed Heath. The kid is a stud.

        • Judy A | October 14, 2013 at 2:07 pm |

          I’d rather have Wilson, Tannehill, or Foles. I’d rather have Kirk Cousins starting. Griffin makes bad decisions. He committed turnovers on back-to-back drives yesterday, and both were bad decisions.

          Even if he turns out to be a decent QB (and I’m skeptical that he’ll ever be the stud that DC thinks he’s going to be), naming the team after him seems like a gigantically stupid and short-sighted move.

        • Steve B. | October 14, 2013 at 2:23 pm |

          I’d still take him over the 3 QBs you mentioned. He has made some bad decisions of late, but I don’t fault him on the interception last night.

          Regardless of what either of us think of him as a QB, I fully agree with you that naming the team after him, or any player, would be just terrible.

          I’d rather see Americans or Potomacs or Redhawks, so that way if KC Masterpiece does indeed replace RGIII, we’ll still be good to go.

    • brendan | October 14, 2013 at 2:24 pm |

      Stick a portrait of Mike Shanahan on the helmets. His skin is beet red most of the time anyway. Problem solved.

  • Joe | October 14, 2013 at 8:15 am |

    David Ortiz wore day glo trimmed gloves in the ALDS – had them on for his 2 hr game vs David Price

    Had red gloves in game 1 ALCS – prob why the Sox lost

    • Kevin Z. | October 14, 2013 at 9:56 am |
      • biged6464 | October 14, 2013 at 10:04 am |

        He wore red w/ the day glo trim in game 1 and black w/ day glo trim prior to that. His gloves have the color way of the lesser Shok Sorb model but are clearly the CRX Pro that many Franklin players are wearing now in favor of the Neo Classic model

  • Johnny | October 14, 2013 at 8:18 am |

    I also noticed during the Browns-Lions game that the pink ribbons that are usually under the NFL logos on the 25 yard lines were faint like they weren’t repainted from last week. I also noticed that the CSC Event Staff had pink jackets instead of the normal yellow.

  • Mike | October 14, 2013 at 8:26 am |

    The 49ers-Cardinals game was also pink free (unsure about the ribbons on the helmets).

  • Kyle Allebach | October 14, 2013 at 8:30 am |

    That pic of the Pinkwashed Chuck Bednarik hit made me violently shudder.

  • Chris | October 14, 2013 at 8:34 am |

    as an athletic trainer, I must occasionally remove a facemask from an injured player who has a head/neck injury. I use an electric screwdriver or special tool to remove the clips. The ones on the Packer’s kickers appear to make it easier to remove the mask. I wonder how well they fasten the mask to the helmet for other position players?

    • Eric | October 14, 2013 at 1:44 pm |

      As an equipment manager, I can tell you that the front bumper in the picture is a new thing Schutt makes for their helmets, and we use it for any position.

      • Chris | October 14, 2013 at 8:38 pm |

        pretty awesome, I’ll be seeing of I can get my coaches to buy our kids some.

    • Rickf | October 15, 2013 at 9:08 am |

      I indicated/thought the same thing about the other position players in regards to the effectiveness of the quick release on the helmet. Doesnt seem like a viable option for anyone other than kickers.

  • Rich A | October 14, 2013 at 8:45 am |

    Packers kicker is wearing a Schutt Vengeance DCT helmet.

    per Schutt website:
    “Patented Twist Release System
    Two piece faceguard retainer seem eliminates upper loop straps, making it easier and faster to attach or remove the faceguard.”

    • Paul Lukas | October 14, 2013 at 8:53 am |

      Good work — thanks!

      • Commenter formerly known as Eric B. | October 14, 2013 at 11:23 am |

        Those clips were in the ticker back in May. I remember because that was my first ticker submission ever used.

        • Commenter formerly known as Eric B. | October 14, 2013 at 11:24 am |

          Correction, February….don’t know where I got May from.

    • M.Princip | October 14, 2013 at 9:24 am |

      Both players are actually wearing the Schutt Air XP Pro helmet, with the new upper mask retainer .

  • Dumb Guy | October 14, 2013 at 9:15 am |

    Speaking of redskins…..

    Happy Columbus Day!!

    • Will S | October 14, 2013 at 11:23 am |

      to fellow Canadians, go get stuffed because it’s…
      Happy Thanksgiving Day.

      • Jimmy Matthews | October 14, 2013 at 3:45 pm |

        In South Dakota, Columbus Day is referred to as Native American Day.

        • arrScott | October 14, 2013 at 9:50 pm |

          High on the list of things I’d decree if I were emperor – including pickoff attempts earning the pitcher a ball, but never ball four – is changing King Day and Columbus Day to something like Liberties Day and Discovery Day, respectively. I don’t mind honoring Columbus as an explorer. I do mind not honoring Ericson and the Native elders and Fremont and Lewis and Clark and Powell and Carson and the Basque fishermen and Hawai‘iloa and Hudson and Bering and Hennepin.

  • Matt B | October 14, 2013 at 9:24 am |

    “Lots of readers forwarded me the promo email for these “drenched” jerseys yesterday. Idiotic stuff, natch, but it’s just fashion merch, so who cares?”

    That’s what we thought when Adidas brought out the similar NBA fashion jerseys – “awful, but they’ll never be worn in a game”. And look how that turned out…

    • Kyle Allebach | October 14, 2013 at 1:38 pm |

      NFL =/= NBA. Goodell is too conservative to allow something like that to actually take the field (which is a good thing).

  • Joe bailey | October 14, 2013 at 9:42 am |

    Paul you mentioned that there wasn’t any pink during the Browns/Lions game yesterday. I was at the game with my kids and my 13 year old said “I thought the players had to wear pink.”
    It was noticeable. On the field on each 20 yard line was the nfl shield which last week had the pink ribbon around it. This week you could tell that they had painted over the ribbon because you could see the shadow of the ribbon. Now, all of the field workers that usually wear yellow “staff” windbreakers were in pink. The tv time out dude had pink mittens and all of the “collectible” Pepsi cups had pink with “a crucial catch” slogan on them. So it’s kin of a half assed pinktober game. I wonder if there’s a league minimum of pink that is supposed to be used.
    Joe bailey

  • Robert S | October 14, 2013 at 9:58 am |

    If the ‘Skins changed their name and the Indians changed/eliminated “Chief Wahoo” logo, would that be it for controversial team names/mascots/logos?

    What is the end game? Will the day come when Scandanavians stand up and say “Vikings” are disrespectful as it interprets all Scandanavians as “raping and pillaging killing monsters”? Or will someday people of Irish decent rise up and be against how the Irish are classified as always “Fighting”?
    Or should we all just do what the Houston Texans did.

    The Kansas City Missourians. The Atlanta Georgians. The Chicago Illinoisians.

    I do agree with your take on the name “Redskins” as culturally insensitive. But I am just wondering about your take on the “end game” of this issue, if there is even one.

    • Paul Lukas | October 14, 2013 at 10:20 am |

      If the ‘Skins changed their name and the Indians changed/eliminated “Chief Wahoo” logo, would that be it for controversial team names/mascots/logos?

      For some people, probably. For me, no.

      Will the day come when Scandanavians stand up and say “Vikings” are disrespectful as it interprets all Scandanavians as “raping and pillaging killing monsters”?

      Faulty logic. “Vikings” is (a) not an ethnic slur and (b) not a case of cultural misappropriation. Minnesota was settled by Scandanavian immigrants, so naming their team as the Vikings was their way of celebrating themselves.

      will someday people of Irish decent rise up and be against how the Irish are classified as always “Fighting”?

      More faulty logic. “Irish” is neither a slur (maybe if it was Fighting Micks) nor a case of cultural misappropriation (because Notre Dame is a Catholic school). “Fighting” is a standard sports trope — Fightin’ Phils, e.g.

      I am just wondering about your take on the “end game” of this issue, if there is even one.

      I can’t speak for others. But for me, it’ll be over when non-Native teams no longer use Native American imagery, except in cases where permission has been granted (FSU, e.g.).

      • The Jeff | October 14, 2013 at 10:40 am |

        Minnesota was settled by Scandanavian immigrants, so naming their team as the Vikings was their way of celebrating themselves.

        Yeah, because there’s so many Scandinavian players on Minnesota’s roster today, right? Maybe back when teams were actually comprised of local players that argument worked. Now, not so much. What happens when the Vikings move to Los Angeles and don’t change the name? Are they still celebrating themselves? I really fail to see how a team comprised primarily of non-local players are free to use one culture’s image, but not another’s simply because of the history of the geographic location they currently play in.

        • Paul Lukas | October 14, 2013 at 10:47 am |

          Yeah, because there’s so many Scandinavian players on Minnesota’s roster today, right?

          For all I know there have never been Scandinavian players on the roster. Team names rarely have anything to do with the players; it has to do with the culture and heritage of the community. And Minnesota’s heritage is predominantly Scandinavian.

          Similarly, Boston’s Irish heritage is why the city’s basketball team is called the Celtics. Milwaukee’s brewing heritage is why the team is called the Brewers (even though, to my knowledge, they’ve never had a brewmaster on the roster). And so on.

        • arrScott | October 14, 2013 at 12:11 pm |

          This is why I don’t like the “cultural appropriation” standard. While the popular myth is that Minnesota was predominantly settled by Scandinavians, and/or that it is today a predominantly Scandinavian-descended population (the white folks, anyway), that’s not true. Minnesota’s largest cultural group has always been German. German-Americans were the large majority in territorial and early statehood days, and have remained the large plurality to this very day. The North Star State has twice as many Germans as Norwegians, and more Irish than Swedes. Even adding Norwegians and Swedes together, which many Swedes would happily do but no true son of Norway would countenance, Germans outnumber them by a fair bit.

          So if cultural self-reference really is our standard, then in fact “Vikings” is on ice nearly as thin as “Braves.”

        • CortM | October 14, 2013 at 1:26 pm |

          “Vikings” has always struck me as being potentially more offensive to, say, those of Celtic descent, whose ancestors were regularly pillaged by the Viking hordes.

          Don’t the comedians say that anything is funny, given enough time? It’s sort of that way with sports team mascots. Much of the issue here is that different groups have different notions of what’s “too soon.”

          When the Houston MLS franchise announced it was calling itself “Houston 1836”, there was outrage in the Mexican-American community, where the general feeling was that celebrating the year of Texas independence was an affront to their heritage. Many non-Latinos, including team management, were blindsided by these objections. The Native iconography debate almost always belies the cultural divide between those who have decided that it’s time to get over our treatment of Natives, and those who think that issue is still very, very fresh.

          Some soccer fans in the Polish Ekstraklasa have taken to showing club loyalty by making the Nazi salute. Seventy-five years ago, the Nazis ravaged Poland and murdered millions of its citizens, and today, people are employing Nazi symbolism to support their favorite team. The offensiveness of this seems to be lost on them. Apparently, they think seventy five years is Long Enough.

      • Robert S | October 14, 2013 at 10:44 am |

        In regards to your Fighting Irish reply:

        In that case, if a non-slur name is to be used, such as Irish, could the Washington franchise change their name to Washington Native Americans and get away with it?

        Or would it be alright if, say a franchise in Atlanta, were to change their name to the Atlanta African Americans? Or Atlanta Fighting African Americans?

        Or the Green Bay Fighting Caucasians?

        Or the Minnesota Fighting Norweigans?

        Or the New York Fighting Jews?

        Again, I agree with Redskins being bad, but if it is ok to use a non ethnic word for a team, wouldn’t “Native Americans” work? I guess my argument is, theoretically, if “Irish” is ok to use, shouldn’t any PC term be acceptable?

        • Paul Lukas | October 14, 2013 at 10:50 am |

          In that case, if a non-slur name is to be used, such as Irish, could the Washington franchise change their name to Washington Native Americans and get away with it?

          From my perspective, that would still be cultural misappropriation.

          As for other names, we can debate them if and when they’re proposed. My primary concern at the moment is to get teams to stop using imagery that belongs to a marginalized group that was was nearly eradicated by a near-genocidal campaign of ethnic cleansing.

        • LarryB | October 14, 2013 at 11:57 am |

          Whenever anybody comes up with points contrary to Pauls opinion about Redskins he counters with the faulty logic line.

          All it takes is a few people to say a certain name offends them. Then get some media people to agree and write about it and here we go again.

          I seriously would like to know if ANYBODY on here or in general used the word Redskins to offend native Americans.

          Such as a few white guys talking about something and one says Oh those damn Redskins are worthless.

          In my entire life I have never uttered the word Redskins in an attempt to be derogatory.

        • LarryB | October 14, 2013 at 12:15 pm |

          I grew up in the era when kids played cowboys and Indians. So I have been around for a while.

          The other thing is when I first started reading Uni watch there was no skinswatch being the #1 thing we all see after the feature. The name was not a big deal until people choose to make it a bigger deal. Why is it so offensive now when it was not that big a deal a few years ago or in the 70s 80s etc? it is a manufactured issue. Or manufactured by media people who are not native Americans and once the train gets rolling other non native Americans jump aboard.

        • arrScott | October 14, 2013 at 12:26 pm |

          Larry, the singular of “data” is not “anecdote.” But if you want to duel anecdotes, fine. I have personally never witnessed the word “nigger” spoken as a racial epithet. But I have personally witnessed the word “redskin” said, whispered, and shouted as a racial epithet multiple times. Including once by a beloved ex-NFL star.

          This isn’t about counting up how many people claim that something offends them. None of us has a right not to be offended. It’s about the simple fact, one that as a conservative-minded guy I regard as an important first principle, that words have meanings.* And the simple, undeniable, undebatable fact of the matter is that the word “redskin” is a racial insult against several million of my fellow Americans. I don’t care if anyone is actually offended by the word, or if anyone claims to be offended. The fact that it is a slur against my fellow Americans is enough for me. In my book, anyone who fails to object to an insult against his fellow Americans is no patriot. Even if the insult may be innocently unintended, as is the case with Snyder and the Redskins. When someone uses language that insults my fellow countrymen, I stand up and I say, “No, sir, I object.”

          *While the phrase has been popularized by Rush Limbaugh, it comes from Cervantes, who wrote, “Words have meaning and names have power.” An apt observation for this debate. And worth noting that Cervantes was a favorite of George Washington.

        • Paul Lukas | October 14, 2013 at 12:35 pm |

          Whenever anybody comes up with points contrary to Pauls opinion about Redskins he counters with the faulty logic line.

          No, Larry. Whenever someone employs faulty logic, I call it out as such.

        • LarryB | October 14, 2013 at 1:06 pm |

          arr so it does come down to if even a single person is offended by any team nickname and the media picks up on it, then what?

          Side note I work with kids with behavior issues in Pa. Go to different schools. Was in a school Mohawk Pa. The nickname is Warriors. They had a pep rally for football game. Have a kid dressed as an Indian. One song they played during rally was the tune of Hail to the Redskins. I did not know the words.

          Last week I went to see my old HS the Hubbard Eagles destroy its long time neighboring rival the Brookfield Warriors 54-9. Brookfields mascot is an Indian.

        • LarryB | October 14, 2013 at 1:20 pm |

          As for the faulty logic line, that is simply Pauls opinion and everything contrary to his views is faulty logic.

          It is like when I used to waste a lot of my time on a political message board dominated by far right wingers. They would jump all over the few libs and claim oh my you got owned. Your logic is faulty. Instead of saying we disagreed. They acted like any thing against the far right wing views was flawed.

          The logic used here is not really faulty. Just say you disagree with it. Just saying the logic is faulty does not make it so.

          If a few people all of a sudden claim they are offended by Fighting Irish or Vikings or whatever then where does it stop?

          In watching local Youngstown area highlights I am reminded of how many schools use Devils in the nickname. Plenty of Blue devils and or red devils. A while back there was some push by far right Christians to have those name changed. Should we have a Devils watch right after the skinswatch?

          Curious how many other color devils name are used? Blue dominates maybe followed by red. Are there green devils or orange?

        • CortM | October 14, 2013 at 1:36 pm |

          I grew up with kids from the Seneca Nation, Cattaraugus Reservation in western New York’s southern tier. I’ve heard “redskins” used as a racial slur. The Seneca kids I knew hated the term. They used to call themselves “skinjuns”, which I guess was a Native variation on Black kids calling each other “nigga”.

          My father-in-law grew up in Wyoming. He had a million stories about the rotten ways people in Wyoming treated Native Americans, including calling them “drunken redskins.” He often said that hearing men he respected used racial slurs was part of his personal religious awakening: as a kid, he promised God that he would never talk that way about other people.

          The weird thing is that until a couple of years ago, neither he nor I associated the racial pejorative “redskins” with the Washington Redskins. When it finally hit, “Hey, how are they getting away with that? How come i never noticed that before?” it was sort of shocking.

          Unlike Paul, I think there’s a place for some Native iconography in sports. I also think that just because the Seminoles have signed off on the Tomahawk Chop, it doesn’t make it OK. But Redskins? Horrible.

        • arrScott | October 14, 2013 at 1:38 pm |

          arr so it does come down to if even a single person is offended by any team nickname and the media picks up on it, then what?

          Then what? Then nothing. I’ve already told you, I don’t care how many people are or claim to be offended. I care what the word means. The meaning of this word is a racial insult. Do some Native Americans embrace the word as a sort of cultural judo to claim it and weaken its power to insult? Absolutely. Just as some Hispanic people I know make a conscious effort to claim and use the words “spic” and “greaser” to blunt the wounding power of those insults. Nonetheless, it would be reprehensible to name an NFL team the Spics or Greasers.

          My own ancestry is mostly Irish. I’m not offended by slurs like “mick.” If you call me a “mick” I will not be offended, or claim that you have offended me. But I will assume that you intended to insult me, and I will respond accordingly. That’s the key difference, which I suspect most Redskins defenders only pretend not to understand. It’s not about anyone being offended, it’s about some words being insults, and the basic standard that decent people avoid using insulting language, and they also object to others doing so. It’s about having values beyond our own selfish appetites and pleasures.

        • Paul Lukas | October 14, 2013 at 1:39 pm |

          No, Larry, you are mistaken. When I disagree with someone, I say, “I disagree.”

          But when someone employs faulty logic, makes an apples/orange comparison, resorts to false equivalences, or makes a straw man argument, I call it out as such. More importantly, I explain why.

          If I engage in any of these same behaviors, I should be called out too.

        • CortM | October 14, 2013 at 1:56 pm |

          Larry B: I did a little quick research. “Red Devil” probably derives from the Book of Revelation, in which Satan is described as a red dragon. In man western cultures, red is considered the Devil’s color.

          Duke claims that “Blue Devil” is derived from the name of an elite French fighting force that was touring the US in 1915 and 1916, raising money for the war effort, but the earliest known use of the term is in the late 1700s, when it was employed as a euphemism for depression (“the old blue devils have come to visit me”).

          (That French outfit, the Chasseurs Alpins, inspired two amazing and little-known historical footnotes: a song by Irving Berlin, called “The Blue Devils of France”, and a fighting unit, comprised entirely of Polish-born immigrants to the US, called Haller’s Blue Army, which was instrumental in defeating the Soviet Union in the almost unknown Polish-Soviet war of 1920.)

          In Poland, the phrase “black as the Devil” is common.

          Chaucer used green as the color of the Devil. If I remember my medieval lit class correctly, in the poem “Sir Gawain and the Green Knight”, the green knight appears to be the Devil.

          So that’s Red Devils, Blue Devils, Black Devils and Green Devils. So far, no Orange Devils.

          I have not been able to find

        • LarryB | October 14, 2013 at 3:06 pm |

          Thanks cortm for the info about devils

        • Phil Hecken | October 14, 2013 at 5:19 pm |

          “I used to waste a lot of my time on a political message board dominated by far right wingers.”


          You owe me a new keyboard, Larry.

      • Chris Powless | October 14, 2013 at 11:44 am |

        So who says that the tribe can sell the imagery to Florida State for some whopping amount of cash and it suddenly becomes acceptable? I’m not a Seminole (although I do have Onondaga blood in me) but if I was a Seminole, I’d be even more offended that elders from the tribe sold out to FSU for cash. The hypocrisy is even worse. So regardless of whether or not the elders sold out, it is still offensive to some tribe members, so your “one person” argument better take precendence. So Mr. Lukas, unless you’re a hypocrite you better think long and hard hard about your “permission granted” exception.

        • Paul Lukas | October 14, 2013 at 11:50 am |

          So who says that the tribe can sell the imagery to Florida State for some whopping amount of cash and it suddenly becomes acceptable?

          Actually, I have no idea if the FSU/Seminole deal involves a “whopping amount of cash,” or any cash at all. It may simply be a case of asking permission and receiving it.

          Either way would be fine by me, because it means the people who own the intellectual property are controlling how and by whom it’s used, which is a pretty standard notion in American life.

          You have a weak grasp on the meaning of “hypocrisy.”

        • Chris Powless | October 14, 2013 at 1:09 pm |

          Oh, okay. I guess I don’t understand hypocrisy.

          So I suppose if the leader of the Jewish faith signed off on a new NBA franchise called the “New York Jumping Jews” you’d have no problem with that, right?

          And if any Jewish people were offended, well, because their leader gave the A-OK, it’s their problem.

          Perfectly acceptable.

          Sorry. I apologize that I misinterpreted the word “hypocrisy” earlier.

        • Paul Lukas | October 14, 2013 at 1:14 pm |

          So I suppose if the leader of the Jewish faith signed off on a new NBA franchise called the “New York Jumping Jews” you’d have no problem with that, right?

          If the leader was the duly elected representative of my group, then I’d be fine with it, because that’s how elected representation works. (There is no such person in Judaism. There is, however, for the Seminoles.)

        • ChrisH | October 14, 2013 at 1:23 pm |

          I’ve read that the Seminole Tribe receives a sizable portion of the profits from merchandise sales (which could translate to hundreds of thousands of dollars?) and that students of Seminole descent have access to full scholarships, though FSU has had few few graduates from that program.
          It may be possible that since this agreement between the Tribe and a state-run entity is mutually beneficial, the relationship between the tribal leadership and state officials may be similarly reciprocal, especially when the matter of gaming licensure/renewal comes up?

        • Chris Powless | October 14, 2013 at 2:07 pm |

          Okay. I’ll buy that. Regardless of how blatently offended a member of the tribe might be, “that’s how elected representation works” is good enough reason for you.


          Now, do you want to talk about “how capitalism works”, inasmuch as it should thus be well within Daniel Snyder’s rights to keep the name of his business entity if he so chooses?

        • Paul Lukas | October 14, 2013 at 2:16 pm |

          Now, do you want to talk about “how capitalism works”, inasmuch as it should thus be well within Daniel Snyder’s rights to keep the name of his business entity if he so chooses?

          As I have stated many, many times (and hereby reaffirm), I fully support Dan Snyder’s right to call his team whatever he likes.

          However, he does not have the right to be free of critique. And those of us who feel his team’s name should be changed will continue to offer that critique, in an attempt to persuade, and to change hearts and minds.

          If you yourself are not persuaded, that’s fine. But the critique will continue. Boycotts and protests are perfectly legitimate tools with long, proud traditions in American history. We’ll see how this one plays out.

        • Chris Powless | October 14, 2013 at 2:27 pm |

          You know what?
          I’ll absolutely give you credit for that.

          At the same time, I think there’s a big double standard that has to be eliminated.

        • Paul Lukas | October 14, 2013 at 2:32 pm |

          Could you please explain what the “double standard” is?

        • Chris Powless | October 14, 2013 at 2:52 pm |

          Sure, and I don’t mean your double standard specifically but the double standard in a general sense.

          If tribal names as team names are offensive to some, then it shouldn’t matter whether they were signed off by a tribal leader, group of elders, or any other “elected representation.”

          If it’s offensive to some, then elected or not a tribal leader should not sell out his tribe’s dignity and heritage for scholarships or a cut of the merchandising.

          Tribal leadership that sells its name to a University athletic department is no different than naming rights to a ballpark or a college bowl game. However, not only are they selling a name, they’re tarnishing the dignity of an entire people.

          A tribal signature shouldn’t make Seminoles any less offensive than “Illini” or “Hurons” or “Fighting Sioux”.

          Tribal names either are or aren’t offensive, but not both.

          Not trying to be adversarial, but I see a big double standard.

        • Paul Lukas | October 14, 2013 at 3:00 pm |

          I’m sorry, Chris, but that is not a “double standard” (as you yourself seem to acknowledge). I ask that you please not use inaccurate language that simply inflames the issue.

          Now then: You’re assuming that the only standard at work here is “offensiveness.” But some people — myself included — see this as more of an intellectual property issue. In other words, Natives should get to control how their imagery is used. However a given tribe or nation wants to handle that — direct referendum, deference to tribal elders, etc. — is fine by me. The point is that they get to decide. That’s the crux of the issue for me, not “offensiveness.” (Others, obviously, may disagree.)

          As for people who are displeased with how their elected representatives handle an issue (or are simply displeased about an issue, period), they’re free to elect someone else next time, or to protest/boycott/etc. That’s how a civilized society works. You can’t please everyone, but you can have protocols for how issues are dealt with. That’s what’s happening right now with this issue.

        • Chris Powless | October 14, 2013 at 3:23 pm |

          “Robert”? Oh, never mind.

          Therein lies the double standard. When we’re talking about “Redskins”, the main argument seems to be that “if even a a small minority are offended it’s worth trying to force a change.”

          But when it comes to a tribal name, if you’re in the minority, well then, elect a new leader. Oh, you don’t have an electoral majority? Then too bad for you, just go on being offended, sucks for you.”

          And Mr. Lukas, do you really equate a name that represents the history, heritage, and dignity of a people and their generations of struggles as little more than “intellectual property”, for sale to the highest bidder no different than a corporate name, a copyright, a product, or a jingle someone wrote for royalties from ASCAP?

          Does a tribal name really boil down to little more than a trademark in White Man’s book of laws?

        • ChrisH | October 14, 2013 at 3:25 pm |

          Let me see if I have this aspect of your position correct.
          Since specific tribes, like say the Seminoles, can be called upon for approved use of ‘their’ imagery, so long as they get some say/pay/something in return for the use thereof, it’s OK even though the approval does little/nothing to prevent other tribal persons (approving tribe or otherwise) from being off-put by cultural generalizations or inappropriate/over-zealous fan behaviors(don headdresses and body/face paint, etc…).
          However, since ‘generic’ American Indian representations…Redskins, Braves, Chiefs, Indians, etc… do not reference a particular tribe and since no single subset of the American Indian population can speak for all (as Roy Halbritter is doing?), approval can never be sought let alone granted, therefore those terms can never be used as team names and that imagery is off limits?

        • Paul Lukas | October 14, 2013 at 3:35 pm |

          When we’re talking about “Redskins”, the main argument seems to be that “if even a a small minority are offended it’s worth trying to force a change.”

          That’s some people’s argument; it’s not mine.

          But there are also costs and benefits. Selling the rights to something has benefits (revenue) and, potentially, costs (“dignity,” as you call it, although I’d argue that a cooperative relationship could end up being very dignified). You can weigh those costs and benefits and have a system — through elected representation, referendum, etc. — in which the people who should get to make that call can exercise that right. You won’t be able to please everyone, but at least you have a reasonable protocol that puts the right people in control of something that belongs to them.

          Now, let’s look at the costs of keeping the ’Skins name: It’s cultural misappropriation (which is wrong) and it glorifies a racial slur (which is also wrong). And what are the benefits of keeping the team name?


          See, that’s an easy one to weigh.

          I have to run. Good discussion!

        • Robert S | October 14, 2013 at 4:00 pm |

          So, hypothetically, if Daniel Snyder and the Washington Redskins franchise could get every major “tribal leader” (lack of a better term, sorry) to agree to use the work Redskins in exchange for money (one for or another), this would be ok then?

          It’s a cultural misappropriation (wrong) and it glorifies a racial slur (also wrong) but certain leaders and organizations get money for allowing it (benefit).

          So when do the Scandinavians and the Irish form an elective leader and demand the same from Minnesota Vikings, Notre Dame, and the Boston Celtics?

        • Chris Powless | October 14, 2013 at 4:46 pm |

          Thanks Paul.

          I always appreciate an intelligent, well thought out discussion.

        • Rob H. | October 14, 2013 at 5:24 pm |

          Seminole Tribe receives a sizable portion of the profits from merchandise sales

          Haven’t any bean counters in Tallahassee realized that if they had a different nickname they could be keeping a larger percentage of merchandising profits?

      • Will | October 14, 2013 at 7:23 pm |

        In honor of Washington’s political heritage, I vote we rename them the Washington Liars. LOL!

        Slowly beginning to change my view and think the Redskins should rename.

    • BWags | October 14, 2013 at 4:18 pm |
  • quiet seattle | October 14, 2013 at 10:05 am |

    The Woodstock harlequin basketball uniform is eye-popping.

    Mostly, I like how it is executed: two colors, no excessive trim, standardish font with just enough flair. Reminds of my favorite uniform, the ’72 Bullets.

    • Terry Proctor | October 14, 2013 at 11:27 am |

      The 1979-80 New Orleans Pride of the WBL and the 1980-81 Atlantic City Hi-Rollers of the CBA also wore half-and-half uniforms. Both looked pretty sharp. AC played in Rochester that year against the Griffins.

      • Doug Brei | October 14, 2013 at 10:26 pm |

        As the guy who often sat next to you at the scorer’s table, my old friend Terry, I believe you mean “Zeniths”, not “Griffins”.

  • BvK1126 | October 14, 2013 at 10:08 am |

    According to Jerry Jones, Dan Snyder is sensitive to the Redskins name issue because he’s Jewish.

    • Dumb Guy | October 14, 2013 at 10:25 am |

      I may look like an idiot for asking this question, but is being Jewish an etnhic thing or a religious thing? I’ve always been cloudy on this one.

      Thanks to those that enlighten me.

      • Paul Lukas | October 14, 2013 at 10:30 am |

        It’s both! That’s why there’s such a thing as, say, a Jewish atheist, even though there’s no such thing as, say, a Muslim atheist or a Catholic atheist.

        • Winter | October 14, 2013 at 10:35 am |

          Isn’t Salman Rushdie a Muslim atheist?

        • terriblehuman | October 14, 2013 at 12:12 pm |

          Isn’t Salman Rushdie a Muslim atheist?

          He was born a Muslim before he became an atheist. So no, not at the same time. Islam is not an ethnicity.

        • alex35332 | October 14, 2013 at 12:13 pm |

          We prefer to be called Jtheists over Jewish Athiests

        • Winter | October 14, 2013 at 12:22 pm |


          I see what you’re saying, but that’s just a refutation, not a clarification.

        • Winter | October 14, 2013 at 12:27 pm |

          Or perhaps the distinction is between culture and ethnicity…as I believe there is definitely a Muslim culture.

        • alex35332 | October 14, 2013 at 12:30 pm |

          Well the culture/ethnicity would usually be Arab or Persian

        • terriblehuman | October 14, 2013 at 12:37 pm |

          But that culture is basically a set of rituals that follow the Muslim teachings (and religion is essentially a set of rituals and founding myths). What makes the Jewish experience unique is that there’s an Yiddish tradition that’s almost wholly separate from the teachings of Judaism.

          As for Rushdie specifically, culturally, he’s basically British with a Muslim-Indian upbriging. He spent his adolescence and entire adult life in the West and I don’t know that he actually maintains any “Muslim culture”.

        • Dan | October 14, 2013 at 2:19 pm |

          I thought I had the whole Jewish thing figured out until I heard about Messianic Jews, who are supposed to be Jews who believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah, but who are not Christians themselves, they’re still Jews.

          That’s where I get really confused because the whole thing seems like an oxymoron to me.

          As Dave Barry would say, I swear I am not making this up.

        • Will | October 14, 2013 at 7:24 pm |

          Paul, just out of curiosity, is it ethnic to you or religious?

    • CortM | October 14, 2013 at 3:02 pm |

      Every religion grows a culture. Aaron Eckhart doesn’t practice the religion, but he still considers himself a Mormon. Garrison Keillor is in every way a sniffy little Upper East Side millionaire agnostic intellectual, but he still claims to be potato casserole scarfing, Old Time Gospel singing Lutheran.

      You can be a Muslim atheist. The other Muslims won’t be happy with you, but you can do it.

  • Trainer Dave | October 14, 2013 at 10:22 am |

    After seeing pics of the Mighty Ducks throwbacks, I really wish they would go back to that full time!! It’s nice to see teams venture away from the usual Blacks, Blues, and Reds!!

  • Matt E | October 14, 2013 at 10:25 am |

    I’m probably wrong, but the Saints pink visor clips looked like it was simply pink tape wrapped over the clips.

    • Paul Lukas | October 14, 2013 at 10:30 am |

      Could be. Either way, I hadn’t seen that particular piece of gear being pinkwashed before.

  • Roger Faso | October 14, 2013 at 10:39 am |

    IMO, all NFL teams with black jerseys should have a colored trim, stripe or element, except for one … the Oakland Raiders. Otherwise, they all look like they’re trying to be the Raiders.

  • MEMAL | October 14, 2013 at 10:58 am |

    I’m with Trainer Dave, the Ducks should bring back that look. I feel that it would not only be an improvement, but I feel, and have felt for some time, like it would be a top ten look. At least bring back the logo. It’s way better than the duck foot and wordmark logo that’s on their unis now.

  • Dan Brandle | October 14, 2013 at 11:14 am |

    I’m pretty sure I know where Christopher Columbus stands on the Redskins’ nickname issue.

  • Al | October 14, 2013 at 11:22 am |

    Hope Nike gets the MLB deal next year. When is the MLB uniform deal up? Love to see nike get that too

  • Robert S | October 14, 2013 at 11:34 am |

    I love the NFL’s involvement in the Breast Cancer Awareness month, but I really wish they could leave it as an on the field thing and not the players. I would say put some pink ribbons on the field, endzone, even a small one on the screen on TV, but that pink clashes with almost every uniform and really distracts. Or limit it to gloves and a ribbon on the helmet if you must.

    I just don’t see how millionaires wearing a few pink accessories 4 Sundays a season increases our awareness and one might argue does more damage than good if people dislike the pink accessories. Especially when the NFL, like everything else, goes overboard on it.

    • Odessasteps | October 14, 2013 at 11:39 am |

      Gotta sell all that pink NFL merchandise

      • alex35332 | October 14, 2013 at 12:14 pm |

        You are not going to sell more or less Pink merch with the players wearing it.

      • terriblehuman | October 14, 2013 at 12:28 pm |

        I disagree. Besides the sheer visibility (i.e. You don’t see field markings on the front page of the sports section), having merchandise that’s “on field” is a huge value-added. Sports fans love “authenticity” and you dont get any more “authentic” than having players wear it on TV.

        • Robert S | October 14, 2013 at 12:59 pm |

          So how many PINK NFL items have you all bought and wear regularly/occasionally/at all?

        • terriblehuman | October 14, 2013 at 1:30 pm |

          I don’t think there’s a huge intersection between the kind of people who read Uni Watch and the kind of people who buy pink crap because OMG AWARENESS.

    • terriblehuman | October 14, 2013 at 12:14 pm |

      But you can sell more pink merchandise when you have players wear them! And when only a small percentage of the proceeds go to Komen, you have to milk every penny.

  • SoCalDrew | October 14, 2013 at 11:36 am |

    The Celtics as ”Laker-busters”? That didn’t work out too well in 2010, if I recall.

  • Odessasteps | October 14, 2013 at 11:38 am |

    I wonder if the NFL prefers the Redskins debate to be occupying the off the field talk since it takes away from League of Denial talk.

    About Which would they rather have Costas do a halftime essay?

  • JimWa | October 14, 2013 at 11:47 am |

    Did you know that the foul poles at Wrigley Field actually sit partially in foul territory?

    • Paul Lukas | October 14, 2013 at 11:56 am |

      Interesting. But I strongly suspect most foul poles have a diameter that’s wider than the width of the chalk stripe. If the pole is centered on the stripe, that means the pole’s foul-facing edge would be in foul territory.

      The only way to avoid this problem (assuming the pole is wider than the stripe) is to have foul-facing edge of the pole align with the foul-facing edge of the chalk line.

      And even then, there are other variables: No chalk line is perfectly straight; the poles sway in the wind; and so on.

      No fair/foul indicator is perfect; each one is just a visual aid.

  • Turtle12 | October 14, 2013 at 12:06 pm |

    Virginia Tech and Tennessee will play at Bristol Motor Speedway in 2016.

    • ChrisH | October 14, 2013 at 1:36 pm |

      The venue may be different (potentially awful), but the Vols’ checkered endzones will be wholly appropriate.

    • Will | October 14, 2013 at 7:35 pm |


  • terriblehuman | October 14, 2013 at 12:10 pm |

    I haven’t followed the Seattle Sounders much, but the third uni they wore against Portland can be best described as GAH!!!!!.

    Do they wear this set often? Or is this a Cascadia Cup special?

    • Bobby | October 14, 2013 at 1:24 pm |

      Occasionally, they wear them in the Open Cup and Champions League, I think. This time was probably just to avoid a potential clash.

      • terriblehuman | October 14, 2013 at 3:33 pm |

        Yeah, I understand wearing a change kit since both teams wear green (albeit in different shades). But the Sounders could’ve just worn their slate unis. But instead…

  • terriblehuman | October 14, 2013 at 12:15 pm |

    You know what’s more offensive than the ‘Skins nickname? this.

    • Dumb Guy | October 14, 2013 at 12:56 pm |

      The execution is the worst part. Ilconceived and weak.

    • Judy A | October 14, 2013 at 12:58 pm |

      You can’t be a Redskins fan and a Cowboys fan. That’s like being fan of both the Red Sox and the Yankees, or the Steelers and Ravens.

  • LarryB | October 14, 2013 at 12:18 pm |

    That Andy Russel picture is eye popping. Very colorful.

  • Steve D | October 14, 2013 at 12:18 pm |

    Scherzer used helmet number stickers to make the score on his sweatshirt…nice job.

  • David Gratt | October 14, 2013 at 12:31 pm |

    any other pix of the Army Terminal? I’ve never been able to go on any of those tours. That building is amazing!

    • Paul Lukas | October 14, 2013 at 12:49 pm |

      I didn’t any other pics. But the tour was amazing.

  • mk smith | October 14, 2013 at 12:40 pm |

    No pink to speak of at the Thursday night Bears/Giants game. Just these gloves:

  • arrScott | October 14, 2013 at 1:00 pm |

    Finally had time to watch “League of Denial.” Just devastating. One important bit of subtext: Back in the day, I used to have some professional contact with the NFL’s office of legal counsel. Because it’s the glamorous NFL, and because it has essentially an infinite amount of money, the NFL hires and keeps excellent attorneys. And because the NFL, as an institution, consists of little more than a collection of contracts (plus a marketing and PR operation), it is unlike most major corporations. Most corporations are companies that, by dint of necessity, have a few lawyers working for them. The NFL is a bunch of lawyers who, by dint of necessity, have a few non-attorneys working for them. This is not a condemnation! I like lawyers and respect their work, and the simple fact is that the NFL cultivates and employs some of the best attorneys in America. But you sort of need to understand that context to really get where the league is coming from in some of its otherwise hard-to-fathom behavior. It’s not just about the cash bottom line, it’s about minimizing immediate risk and delaying exposure. Many other companies – BP, say – would have folded years ago and taken a short-term hit to secure their long-term positions. The NFL is doing the opposite, which makes little sense if you think of it as a normal corporation but perfect sense if you think of it as a counsel-driven body.

    My wife watched it with me, and she was most horrified by the overt racism and sexism the NFL displayed and that several of its people stated. I see a real danger for the league in this. It’s one thing when the league is sticking it to an older generation of mostly white players. But in 10 years, it’s going to be a bunch of middle-aged, mostly Southern white men standing against mostly black players and widows.

    Bottom line for me is that I really do wonder if football has a future. There is still a lot of uncertainty about incidence and prevalence, as well as specific mechanics of causation, but in the end it seems clear that there is some correlation between football and CTE. The correlation in this case seems to point toward causation. CTE is sort of like mad cow disease. For a parent, what’s the acceptable risk of causing your child to catch mad cow disease? I think for most parents, the answer is zero. If there is any danger whatsoever that a thing will expose your child to a brain-rotting disease, then most parents will seek to prevent their children from having any contact with that thing. Unless the evidence gathered so far is quickly and decisively shown to be anomalous, I can see the spreading awareness of the CTE risk turning youth football into a regionally Southern sport faster than the Redskins change their name.

    • Paul Lukas | October 14, 2013 at 1:11 pm |

      Agreed. While all the data isn’t yet in, it’s increasingly looking like football is essentially a public health hazard. I hope that turns out not to be the case, because I really like football. But that does seem to be where the evidence is leading.

      • teenchy | October 14, 2013 at 6:43 pm |

        ” I can see the spreading awareness of the CTE risk turning youth football into a regionally Southern sport faster than the Redskins change their name.”

        Why would football become regionally Southern, as opposed to a sport played in some other region of the country? I’d like to know the logic behind this statement.

        • terriblehuman | October 14, 2013 at 9:21 pm |

          Football already draws a disproportionate amount of talent from the South (Texas included). There’s a combination of poverty and a culture that supports football.

          Now, not all football players come from poverty – there are kids whose parents pay for quarterback “gurus” to train them outside of the high school football season. There are suburban prep schools that colleges draw from. But if CTE becomes too much of a menace, football will become a non-option for those people.

          That leaves people who either lack the education/knowledge of modern science to recognize CTE as a threat, or the human capital to pursue other professions to get out of poverty. And while poverty is everywhere, the South is where colleges scout and where people are most excited about football. And the southward skew will become even more acute if the middle and upper-middle classes decide football isn’t their thing.

        • arrScott | October 14, 2013 at 9:35 pm |

          teenchy, I live in the South. If there’s a region on the nation where parents will deny the risks of harm to their children in the name of some ideological or cultural commitment, or even embrace that risk of harm, it’s the South. In pretty much no other parts of the country are parents generally eager, for example, to permit the literal poisoning of their children by private industry. Plus, the culture of football is rooted deeper in parts of the South than anywhere else in the country.

          So if there comes a day when American mothers generally say, “Holy shit, I’m not letting my child risk getting brain-rot disease,” the critical mass needed to cause youth leagues to collapse will be reached faster just about everywhere outside the old Confederacy than it will be reached in the South. That’s just how the United States works: Social innovation usually hits the South last. Almost any cultural institution that dies, becomes a regional Southern thing before it disappears completely.

          Also, to add to terriblehuman’s more precise analysis, the South, including the Southwest, is the region whose climate is already most favorable to football, and so if football begins to recede from youth sports culture, it be natural for that region to experience the slowest decline. Where I come from, it’s easy to switch kids from football to early-start winter sports, and anyway real winter puts an early end to the youth football season. You can play football for six straight months in much of the South, whereas in much of the rest of the country, you get ten to thirteen good weeks before it gets too cold to send children out onto the gridiron.

      • Doug Brei | October 14, 2013 at 10:52 pm |

        We live in a country that still permits the sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products. Don’t worry…football isn’t going anywhere soon.

    • Steve B. | October 14, 2013 at 1:48 pm |

      I would imagine that the NFL would consider some of the CFL rules (bigger field, lining up one yard from line of scrimmage) sooner that later.

      I remember reading this report a year or so ago on this topic. I found it a good read…

      • Too Tall Paul | October 14, 2013 at 2:18 pm |

        That was an interesting read. Just curious, how many of today’s NFL (and, for that matter, college) stadiums could accommodate a larger, CFL size field without major stadium modifications?

        • Steve B. | October 14, 2013 at 2:26 pm |

          I wondered that too. I would imagine there would be some serious expenses fitting all those stadiums to the CFL standard field.

        • Bobby | October 14, 2013 at 2:32 pm |

          A lot of them (NFL, anyway) could do it width-wise, length-wise would be a real problem.

        • terriblehuman | October 14, 2013 at 3:20 pm |

          Pretty much every NFL stadium built in the last 15 years, which is to say, most NFL stadiums, are built to accommodate international soccer, which requires a width of 70 to 80 yards, plus clearance for side- and touchlines. That’s more than enough to accommodate CFL width (65 yards).

          The problem is the length (150 yards), since FIFA-regulation fields are 110 to 120 yards long. But if the idea is to improve safety, then I imagine width matters more than length (that’s what she said).

  • Ed Hughes | October 14, 2013 at 1:36 pm |

    Paul, according to Google Earth the building depicted on the cover of the Sports Specialities catalogue is still there at 52 Isabel Street in Winnipeg. It still looks much the same.

  • Kevin | October 14, 2013 at 1:38 pm |

    More Russell Southern Miss. style pants, and proof they are no better than a high school team….

  • CortM | October 14, 2013 at 2:00 pm |

    That Secret Society football jersey looks a whole lot like the All-Star sweaters the NHL wore in the Forties and Fifties.

  • Coleman | October 14, 2013 at 2:10 pm |

    This has nothing to do with uniforms, but I must spread the news. I was in Lexington, Ky this weekend and went to a Titanic “tour” at Rupp Arena. If anyone is in the area between now and January, it is a must see.

    The artifacts, the history, and just the general ambience were an amazing experience.

  • David Firestone | October 14, 2013 at 2:32 pm |

    In terms of athletes selling their uniforms and other memorabilia to private collectors, I have done the opposite. Before he passed away, I sold Igor Larionov one of his Chicago Blackhawks gamers, and I just sold a lot of Brian Hunter game-worn items to his dad.

    • Paul Lukas | October 14, 2013 at 2:34 pm |

      Interesting! David, did they find you, or did you contact them?

      • David Firestone | October 14, 2013 at 2:37 pm |

        The Brian Hunter lot was through eBay, and I honestly had no idea until his dad emailed me yesterday. The Larionov, I had made a video about it, and put it on YouTube, and his daughter contacted me and made an offer which I accepted, and sent to him.

        • Paul Lukas | October 14, 2013 at 2:45 pm |

          Very, very cool!

        • Mike Monaghan | October 15, 2013 at 12:29 am |

          Igor Larionov isn’t dead though……

    • DJ | October 14, 2013 at 2:49 pm |

      Igor Larionov is still alive, and never played for the Blackhawks:

      • David Firestone | October 14, 2013 at 4:28 pm |

        This is why I shouldn’t comment before I had my coffee, I meant Igor Korolev

  • David Firestone | October 14, 2013 at 2:44 pm |

    In terms of NFL helmet switcheroos, I’ve been thinking about a racing phenomena I have been seeing for a while. NASCAR drivers frequently wear two different helmets, one for qualifying, and the other for race use. I think it might have been mentioned in a ticker item, but I’m not sure. This is not a recent deal, I have an example of one from 1996 in my collection. What intrigues me is that this is allowed, but a throwback helmet in the NFL isn’t

    I think the NFL helmet situation may also be a factor in the proposed ban on Formula 1 livery change ban as well.

    • Paul Lukas | October 14, 2013 at 2:46 pm |

      Are these really comparable situations? A racing helmet, ideally, never suffers an impact; a football helmet undergoes impacts all game long.

      • David Firestone | October 14, 2013 at 4:26 pm |

        In fairness, while auto racing helmets ideally never suffer impacts, which is true, the kinds of impacts they can suffer are far worse than football helmets. Football helmets are not designed to keep the player alive after crashing into a stone wall at 190 MPH, and then protecting the driver from fire. Unlike football, in auto racing, drivers can be crushed to death and burned to death at the same time, so the safety equipment has a bigger burden placed on it than most other safety equipment in sports.

        • Paul Lukas | October 14, 2013 at 7:03 pm |

          Right. But the whole notion of switching football helmets is about maintaining a proper fit for lots of sustained impacts. So you’re really talking apples and oranges. It’s not about which helmet is “stronger”; it’s about how and under what conditions they’re used.

  • collin | October 14, 2013 at 4:00 pm |

    while i have no issue with bob costas’s comments, i don’t feel that halftime of an nfl game (even when the skins are playing) is the best time. i for one don’t watch football to get preached at during halftime, i just want some sports analysis. at least it was sports related, unlike his gun control sermon last year.

    • Paul Lukas | October 14, 2013 at 4:21 pm |

      One man’s “preaching” is another’s commentary, collin.

      Costas’s job — or one of his jobs, at least — is to give commentary during halftime of Sunday Night Football. Maybe you feel he shouldn’t have that job (a perfectly defensible position), or you don’t like how he does his job (ditto), but NBC nonetheless feels halftime is a perfectly fine time for him to talk about such issues.

      Since it’s now well-established that he’ll be doing this each week, maybe you should consider changing the channel during halftime..? Just a thought. (Similarly, I can’t stand the opening sequence with whatshername singing the theme song, so I make a point of skipping that.)

    • terriblehuman | October 14, 2013 at 4:44 pm |

      The “stick to sports” argument is facile and sort of assumes sporting events happen in some vacuum where the real world doesn’t play a part. Also, from the column I linked to in an early comment:

      But, unlike many of my readers, I don’t think Costas crossed some sacred line by talking about this issue at halftime of a football game involving this Redskins team. I sort of suspect if a differently disposed commentator had taken an opposite stance on the matter, the complaints about “stick to football” might not be as loud.

    • Will | October 14, 2013 at 7:28 pm |

      I sit through all of halftime to hear Costas before I hit the sack (Unless the Packers are playing of course). Only time of the day’s coverage where you get something deeper.

  • Betharu | October 14, 2013 at 4:27 pm |
  • Rob H. | October 14, 2013 at 5:31 pm |

    Anyone figure out why Mike Carey had homemade numbering on his uni yesterday? I saw Phil re-tweeted it, but no mention here today.

  • Phil Hecken | October 14, 2013 at 5:36 pm |

    I’m frankly amazed that so many people who Get Itâ„¢ just don’t get it.

    • CortM | October 14, 2013 at 6:42 pm |

      Some very vocal people in Washington are gripped by a bad case of political Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy, nearly killing the country so they can be credited for heroically saving it. And they call this patriotism.

      Lots of people don’t get it about a lot of things these days.

      • Phil Hecken | October 14, 2013 at 7:25 pm |

        “nearly killing the country so they can be credited for heroically saving it.”


        Saving it for whom? (or should I say, from whom?)

      • terriblehuman | October 14, 2013 at 9:22 pm |

        But make sure the fix is only temporary so we can have this kabuki 6 months from now and the arsonists can claim to be the firefighters yet again.

  • Dan | October 14, 2013 at 6:10 pm |

    Just some food for thought. As sad as this is, back in the day white people weren’t offended by African Americans having to use separate entrances, bathrooms, drinking fountains, etc. It was normal to them and they often used the same excuses to justify it. Then things changed and we looked back and said, “That was the right thing to do.” The same should be for the Native Americans as well.

  • Willard | October 14, 2013 at 7:43 pm |

    Vince Lombardi’s great grandson called me and asked me to create a pair of the pink glasses Vince had on in my “old school breast cancer awareness” montage. I didnt have heart to tell him they aren’t real and I just freestyled them in MS-Paint.


  • Ricko | October 14, 2013 at 8:52 pm |

    Egad! Everything in San Diego is blue and pink.

    It’s like a bad dream of being trapped in a “So You’re Having a Baby” Store.

    Also the Chargers’ powder blue are distracting and…well, counterproductive. I keep thinking about prostate cancer when I should be thinking about breast cancer.

  • TA | October 14, 2013 at 10:36 pm |

    Add Charles Krauthammer to the list of commentators opposed to the R word.

  • Bromotrifluoromethane | October 15, 2013 at 12:08 am |

    Loving the Ducks throwbacks! I wish they went back to these full time. Yes I said it, the world can end now. Only minor issue I had is I wish they went with the later version with the shoulder logos which looked even better. But I get why they went with these.

    As for the Ravens. I am also glad they dropped the Nikelace/Neck roll like others have but I do miss the contrasting color colors. To me it looked much better with the black colors just like the Bucs did. I also miss the color collar on Miami and Washington too. It’s just a little extra splash of team color that always looked good to my eyes.

  • Kevin W. | October 15, 2013 at 1:43 am |

    Sorry Paul, I don’t care what you say but those Ducks jerseys were AMAZING. They need to go back to those jerseys full-time. The name can stay as just the Ducks, but the eggplant-and-jade uniforms look infinitely superior to their current jerseys now that we know what the throwbacks look like on the Edge template.