Pew Pew Platter

bucs new.png

Click to enlarge

I don’t have much time today, so I’ll have to make this quick. Here’s what you need to know:

1. What you see above is the new Buccaneers helmet, which was unveiled last night.

2. My very preliminary thoughts on the helmet, written within the first few minutes after the unveiling (and therefore subject to change once I see how it looks on the field, or once I feel like changing my mind for any number of arbitrary reasons), are laid out in this ESPN piece, which was posted last night.

3. I have another ESPN piece today, and it’s an exclusive — check it out here.

4. By the time most of you read this, I’ll be on my way to my first day of grand jury duty. It should be a fascinating civic exercise, but I’m annoyed by how blog-disruptive it’s going to be. So if you were recently charged with a felony in Kings County, don’t be expecting any sympathy from me (especially if you were wearing purple while allegedly committing the crime).

Okay, gotta run. I have lots of content stockpiled for next week, so things will run pretty much like normal, even if I’m busy handing up indictments. Enjoy your weekend and I’ll check in with you on Monday. ”” Paul

+ + + + +


PermaRec update: A tattered 50-year-old love letter found under the rodent-infested seat of a rusted-out 1959 Chevy Bel-Air — and then returned to its rightful owner — is the focus of the latest entry on the Permanent Record Blog.

+ + + + +

’Skins Watch: As several people have pointed out, it’s high time for a reputable new poll — instead of the questionable 10-year-old one that everyone likes to cite — to see what Native Americans think of the ’Skins name (from David Goodfriend).

Baseball News: Curtis Granderson was breathing Ethier the other day (from Nicholas Schiavo). ”¦ New tequila sunrise-esque alternate for Malvern Prep (from Drew Flanagan). … Okay, so this is really weird: One of the many take-offs of MLB’s silhouetted batter logo is this Mexican Baseball League design. That logo showed up yesterday as a helmet sticker in the middle of the violent protests in Ukraine. Bizarre (great spot by Neil Strawmyer). … “A Royals pitching prospect called the veterans on the team ‘old guys,’ so they decided to have some jersey-related fun by changing their NOBs to ‘Old Guy,’ reports Brian McDavitt. “Ah, the joys of spring training.” … Paul Caputo has written a series of blog posts about minor league nicknames and logos. … Uni Watch’s latest hosiery hero is Braves prospect J.R. Graham, who wears stirrups. He goes for a distinctive look in part so he’ll be more visible to his mom, who is legally blind (from Chuck Alexander). … As we’ve mentioned several times now, the Mets are using lowercase NOB lettering for three of their players. Here’s an argument against that.

NFL and College Football News: Reader Mike Sullivan got a Bills helmet for Christmas and is wearing it for one photo per day, wherever he happens to be. … Really good article about Arkansas’s difficulties in achieving the proper shade of red (thanks, Phil). … If you look closely at this sequence from last December’s Baylor/Texas game, you’ll see Baylor’s No. 60 wearing different pants striping than everyone else (good spot by Josh Lassiter).

Hockey News: The Alaska Nanooks are going GI Joe (from Brad Iverson-Long). … The Dropkick Murphys are selling a sticker featuring a shamrock patterned after former Bruins goalie Gerry Cheevers’s mask (from Tris Wykes).

College Hoops News: If you’re a fan of mismatched jerseys and shorts, you’re gonna love Oregon’s new look. Naturally, I love the striped socks, as well as the color scheme (thanks, Phil).

Olympics News: In the wake of last night’s figure skating results, many people are questioning the sport’s competition’s subjective scoring system. What a surprise. Not a sport, a constant source of controversy and embarrassment, doesn’t belong in the Olympics, get rid of it already. … Whoa, check out the amazing jersey worn by the 1948 Canadian hockey team (thanks, Phil).

Grab Bag: The latest installment of the Brooklyn Beefsteak will take place on April 13. … Sponsorship run amok: Journalists seeking press credentials for the Brit Awards (the UK version of the Grammys) were asked to agree to mention MasterCard in their coverage. Douchebags. … This is bizarre: Some recently discovered dunes on Mars look a lot like Star Trek insignia badges. … My buddy Rob Walker has written a great piece about aesthetically pleasing security cameras. … New logo for The Tonight Show (thanks, Brinke)… New secondary logo for the St. Cloud St. athletics department (from Matt VandeVoort).

124 comments to Pew Pew Platter

  • The Jeff | February 21, 2014 at 7:21 am |

    I don’t mind the oversized logo or the chrome facemask, but the logo itself is a major step in the wrong direction. The old version of the skull & swords looked like it could have been a legitimate variant of the classic Jolly Roger flag. I could easily imagine a black version of that flag hanging off the mast of an actual pirate ship. The new skull & swords is just too modern and clean looking. It doesn’t look like flag art, it looks like a computer rendering.

    • brinke | February 21, 2014 at 1:53 pm |

      I was hoping they’d go back to a helmet with Bruce in the pewter scheme. Best of both worlds, right?

  • Bill S | February 21, 2014 at 7:27 am |

    The shell looks more silvery than pewter to me, especially when placed next to last year’s model. I think we’ll still need to wait until March 5 to see it in the context of the entire uniform.

  • jon | February 21, 2014 at 7:48 am |

    Am I mistaken, or don’t teams have to petition the NFL for uniform changes 2 years before they’re made? At least, that’s what they told us in Cleveland. That when the team was sold, we had to wait until 2015 for new unis. I’m surprised when I read that all these changes coming flew under the radar. And FWIW, I really liked the white designs leaked, these are just meh.

    • Brendan the Aspie | February 21, 2014 at 7:51 am |

      12 months before. Since the helmet rule was passed during the preseason, which was quite obviously less than 12 months ago, the change must have been decided on before the preseason started.

    • Bryan | February 21, 2014 at 10:15 am |

      Agree. The white helmet caught my eye.

    • Tony C. | February 21, 2014 at 10:19 am |

      the white helmet wasn’t a leaked design.. it was concept a person on reddit came up with.

  • Chris Holder | February 21, 2014 at 8:05 am |

    Put me in the camp of thinking the logo is a downgrade. The old design had a hand-drawn quality but still felt modern. This one feels too sterile, like it could be a generic “pirate” logo for dozens of teams. Even still, I could be ok with it if it wasn’t covering 75% of the helmet. Ugh. What is with these teams and oversized logos? They just look awful.

    The Bucs had, IMO, two really great uniform sets in their history. I have a feeling this third set won’t be remembered very fondly.

  • Scott Bennett | February 21, 2014 at 8:09 am |

    From the ESPN article:
    “Way too big, especially given all the vent holes and ridges on today’s helmets. ”

    I think the vents are why they went big. Now you have a vent that cuts a hole in the flag. With the new helmet models and moving of vents / holes, it probably became difficult to manage to keep the flag recognizable or at least intact. The original size was just off. It was either go bigger or go smaller, so they stepped it up.


    • Dumb Guy | February 21, 2014 at 8:14 am |

      I sort of think the holes give the flag a more “tattered” look as well. At least on the helmet model shown.

  • Dumb Guy | February 21, 2014 at 8:13 am |

    Bucs: I think, in this case, the large logo fits well onto the helmet at least. Just wondering how it will look when all the chin straps are added. Chin straps often muck up a helmet’s esthetic.

    • anthony | February 21, 2014 at 1:25 pm |

      …was just thinking the same thing. With four-point chin straps most of the sword will be covered.

  • mike d | February 21, 2014 at 8:26 am |

    I thought the old helmet looked fine, but this looks OK too. Have to wait to see it on the field to better judge it I guess.

    BTW, I hope the Browns don’t change their current set. It’s one of the best in the NFL.

  • Rob S | February 21, 2014 at 8:29 am |

    Some recently discovered dunes on Mars look a lot like Star Trek insignia badges.

    Pretty intriguing… though I had to raise my eyebrow over the captioning of the picture of “Willaims Shatner”. It didn’t help that the picture itself is backwards.

  • Mario | February 21, 2014 at 8:46 am |

    Bucs Helmet thoughts.
    All the colors on the old logo looked weather worn, and the new is shiny. The skull was way meaner in the old version and the fact that the new skull’s teeth line up with the laces on the football just flat out bothers me, while white laces are technically correct I think the black worked better, also why the football has highlights baffles me. Flag’s brighter shade of red is probably the same as the jersey, but I like the old red. Sword is shiny and new, old one was closer the the helmet’s pewter. Sword no longer has a leather look handle it is now white and though many swords have white/pearl handles I like the leather look . The V of the crossed swords has flattened out and looks less menacing.

  • Marcus | February 21, 2014 at 8:48 am |

    The Bucs’ new script logo is OK, but I love the updated skull, sword and football. The addition of the chrome facemask was a stroke of genius! I can’t wait to see the new pants and jerseys next month.

    • ScottyM | February 21, 2014 at 9:05 am |

      As a Bucs fan, I long for the Bruce days. This seems to be a cleaner nod to that era. The one area that’s lacking in detail is the sword itself. Fat lines, lacking in any clear design distinction.

      I do notice in a big way… a brighter red. Plus, with the football being more sherbet orange, perhaps the uniforms will nod back to the original days?! One can only hope. Also like that the pewter is a little more silver-y metallic.

      • Marcus | February 21, 2014 at 9:31 am |

        I don’t see the dark uniforms having an orange base. I think that color will remain an outline color for the numbers and nothing more. I expect that brighter red to be the primary color. The Bucs’ Jolly Roger in conjunction with the pewter is a strong identity and not reverting to Bucco Bruce was a no-brainer.

        • Chris Holder | February 21, 2014 at 9:57 am |

          Since the new helmet shell isn’t white, which presumably means wearing the throwbacks won’t be possible, I wonder if there will be an alternate orange jersey? Seems like that could be a possibility since there has been such a recent fondness for the creamsicle unis.

        • ScottyM | February 21, 2014 at 3:18 pm |

          That’s what I was thinking, Chris. I imagine red will be primary, white away, maybe orange as alternate. Pewter, white, red, and orange pants? (lol)

          PS, to Marcus, my thinking is that the “clean-up” of the Jolly Roger Buc was a nod back to the Bruce Buc days. Rather than continue the “tattered” appearance. Obviously, they weren’t going to go back to that iteration. Maybe with a little more application of the orange here and there, for old times’ sake.

    • Jimmy Matthews | February 21, 2014 at 7:02 pm |

      The Bucs have been my 3rd favorite (Packers and Broncos) NFL team for some time, did some work on their scoreboard years ago and have been around the organization and liked the logo and uniform set. The new logo has grown on me and I think it is a cleaner and more menacing look. I don’t mind it being larger and dig the chrome facemask and lighter shade of pewter. Excited to see what the new uniforms look like. Fortunately we don’t have to worry about a unitard look.

  • Rob S | February 21, 2014 at 8:51 am |

    Looks like the Calgary Flames are going to be breaking out their throwbacks soon after the Olympic break.

    All I can say about that is Yes yes yes yes yes yes! And I’m definitely on the side of the Flames following the Oilers’ example and returining to the classic, NO-BLACK, jerseys full-time, and relegating BFBS to third-jersey status.

    • Nate | February 21, 2014 at 9:04 am |

      There are so many teams that would be immensely improved if they simply went back to their 1993-1994 designs. Leading the pack is the Flames, but that also includes the Blues, Sabres, Senators (okay, maybe their 2nd design is a touch better), Penguins, Sharks, Panthers…

      Not all of those teams changed their designs for 1995, of course, but that’s a convenient year to look to.

      • Rob S | February 21, 2014 at 10:19 am |

        I’m more for the 1991-92 look for the Penguins. Huge fan of those gold upper sleeves.

      • jean delisi | February 21, 2014 at 1:43 pm |

        I am a Penguins fan I never liked the flying Penguin logo and the road sweater,to me, was a ripoff of the New York Rangers. I wished they go back to the 91-92 sweaters.

      • Bromotrifluoromethane | February 21, 2014 at 3:54 pm |

        As a Penguins fan in my former hockey watching life the Hummingbird look needs to come back. Just reverse the black and the white on the uniforms to make it work with the current, and proper, dark at home and you’re all set.

  • Graf Zeppelin | February 21, 2014 at 8:59 am |

    I’ve always liked the pewter. (Last year I wanted my new car in that color but couldn’t get it.) Apart from the Jets, the Bucs were the last NFL team to thoroughly overhaul its uniform for the substantially better.

    The ginormous decal ruins it for me. The logo change is fine, a slight downgrade — I like the tattered look of the previous version — but Jeebus Fleebing Cripes. Even the late, lamented Michigan Panthers didn’t have a decal that big.

    What good is an attractive and unique shell color if you’re going to cover the whole thing up with a huge, garish decal?

    I’m not a fan of the chrome cage either; the black was fine. (Then again, I’ve never liked chrome on cars either, so….)

    Let’s hope the rest of the uni doesn’t change too much…

    • The Jeff | February 21, 2014 at 9:06 am |

      Apart from the Jets, the Bucs were the last NFL team to thoroughly overhaul its uniform for the substantially better.

      No, I think that’d be the Bills a couple years ago. I think you may have blocked the navy uniforms from memory… I’ll post pics if I have to. ;)

      • Graf Zeppelin | February 21, 2014 at 9:08 am |

        You’re right, forgot about that. Good call.

      • Graf Zeppelin | February 21, 2014 at 9:17 am |

        Also, I think the Patriots’ current set (vintage 2000) is better than the soccer jerseys they wore previous to it, but not better than the one before that. Ditto Minnesota’s current; marginally better than the last, not the last-but-one.

        Everyone else who’s changed their uni’s since ’96 has gone either sideways (Chargers, Seahawks the first time, Giants, Rams, 49ers, Lions twice) or backward (Bengals, Falcons, Cardinals, Seahawks the second time, Broncos, Dolphins, Jaguars twice) in aesthetic quality. IMHO.

  • Patrick Mackin | February 21, 2014 at 9:04 am |

    CNN/, certainly a reputable source, conducted and published thorough poll of Native Americans about sports Indians nicknames back in 2002 and found the results “surprising”, meaning that there was not great opposition to the nicknames. To my knowledge that polling hasn’t been successfully refuted, although it certainly should be updated.

    • The Jeff | February 21, 2014 at 9:14 am |

      I find it rather… interesting that the article linked in the Redskins Watch today mentions Native leadership being opposed to a new poll:

      Resistance also came from Indian groups I asked, including the National Congress of American Indians, the Smithsonian’s National Museum of the American Indian and the Oneida Nation.

      They said one shouldn’t rely on polls to settle a moral issue. They stressed that Native American leaders were overwhelmingly critical of the name.

      “Changing the mascot of the D.C. team should not be determined by public opinion,” said the National Congress, which represents about three-quarters of enrolled tribal members.

      That sounds kinda like “we know what’s best for our people, don’t worry about what they actually think” to me. But I’ve had a couple drinks since I got home from work this morning, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

      • Lee | February 21, 2014 at 12:13 pm |

        I’ve always thought it strange when anyone pointed to a poll on something like this.
        Now we vote on whether its cool or not to call a team by a derogatory name?



        • Patrick Mackin | February 21, 2014 at 1:42 pm |

          I disagree with you Lee. It seems to me that in order to prove something is derogatory, the person making that statement bears some burden of proof. If the people who are purportedly offended, are not in fact offended, then the burden of proof has not been met. The fairest way to find out if that is true or not, is an objective poll.

        • Rob H. | February 21, 2014 at 5:37 pm |

          Right, because why would a poll be necessary? What do people’s opinions matter? All that matters is that the term is cleary a racial slur, and anyone who thinks otherwise, no matter what percentage of the people that might be, are clearly wrong.

      • daveclt | February 21, 2014 at 11:45 pm |

        It makes more sense to me to let the (allegedly) offended people decide for themselves if they are offended, than to have a national poll to tell them they should be offended.

  • scottrj | February 21, 2014 at 9:11 am |

    Let me get this straight: figure skating, which (1) has been competed since the mid-19th century, (2) was an Olympic event since before there was a Winter Olympics even, and (3) satisfies the IOC’s specifically-articulated requirements for inclusion in said Games, nonetheless deserves removal from them because it doesn’t constitute a “sport” within your self-formulated definition of the term?

    Now there’s a logically coherent position.

    • Bud | February 21, 2014 at 9:52 am |

      I agree with this completely. Whether or not you or anyone else reading this agrees with Paul’s definition of “sport” is irrelevant…why can’t things that don’t fit into that definition be included in the Olympics? They’re Olympic GAMES, or Olympic EVENTS, not Olympic sports. In fact, I’d argue that the Olympics SHOULD be more about competitions that don’t fit into his definition, rather than only include events that do fit. Most events that fit into his definition have their own league and decent following, the Olympics are the only big showcase for most of the events that don’t fit into his definition.

    • Padday | February 21, 2014 at 10:37 am |

      (1) Lots of things have existed since the 19th century. Your point? (3) The opinion of the IOC in relation to which events are and aren’t included is troublesome, especially when you consider just how difficult it has been to get equal recognition for women in many disciplines. (2) Kind of a mix of the above two answers: what has historically been the case should not dictate what is right for the future.

      Further points I would like to make: the Olympics should be abut rewarding the greatest athletic talent across a wide range of disciplines. As it stands, a gold medal won on the basis not only of subjective taste and arbitrary fashion but also of political wrangling and national biases is considered as valuable as a gold medal won on athletic ability, preparation, discipline etc. That doesn’t make sense to me.

    • Steve D | February 21, 2014 at 10:42 am |

      I feel that if you need a new definition of “sports” maybe Paul has a point. However, since the word had been around for centuries and people already use it, you need to conform to convention. If you pick up the NY Times, where do you think you’d find an article on figure skating? The Arts section or the Sports section? How about gymnastics? Surely in sports.

      To me the term sport refers to athletic contests…Scrabble having little athletics is not a sport. Within the heading sports, I see the following sub-categories:

      Games: Include baseball games, hockey games, football games, bowling game, golf game…anything athletic that you usually say “game” after. Skating is not a game. Scrabble is a game, but not a sport.

      Competitions: Athletics where you are competing against a person or clock…high jump, slalom, luge, car racing (seems athletic to me), horse racing, marathons

      Athletic Performances: This is the controversial one…Figure skating, gymnastics, snowboarding…often a pre-rehearsed athletic routine or performance that is judged somewhat subjectively. Singing is not athletic and not a sport.

      Just my 2 cents.

      • Padday | February 21, 2014 at 11:03 am |

        the word had been around for centuries and people already use it, you need to conform to convention.

        Not true at all. Language morphs, meanings change and words are bastardized all the time because the culture which those words fit into changes all the time. Even the word “sport” means something scarcely imaginable to those who would have existed just a couple of centuries ago when “sport” generally referred to gentlemanly pursuits undertaken on horseback such as hunting while early forms of football and such were largely considered too uncouth to be considered in the same category.

        • TA | February 21, 2014 at 4:28 pm |

          Language morphs, but it doesn’t morph by one guy making up a definition and demanding that international organizations adhere to his new definition.

        • Paul Lukas | February 21, 2014 at 5:23 pm |

          I’m not “making up” or “demanding” anything. I’m a cultural critic offering a critique, which is PRECISELY one of the ways that language evolves.

          Instead trying to make it personal, have enough intellectual integrity to engage in a simple exercise: Take your definition of choice and put it up against mine. Then let’s apply those two definitions and see what does and doesn’t qualify as a sport.

          We already know how it will turn out, becuase that’s what we did all day on Wednesday. And my definition held up better than any other one that was offered, including the ones from dictionaries. Got a better one? Bring it.

          Some part of you (maybe a big part) is thinking, “I really don’t like Paul Lukas.” Stop thinking about that and start thinking about actually engaging with the subject at hand. When you’re ready to do that, my definition and I will be waiting.

        • TA | February 21, 2014 at 7:23 pm |

          I actually do really like you. You’re one of the best journalists out there. I also sincerely appreciate your advocacy on the hot-button team name issue that brings you a lot of flak here. Saying I don’t like your definition of sport, and that I don’t like the changes you advocate (kicking a bunch of sports out of the Olympics, including some that have been there since the beginning) is not a personal attack.

          Oxford’s definition mostly works for me: “an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment”

          It’s not perfect, as I’d like more expounding on the definition of “physical exertion”, and I think something can be a sport without being entertaining, but it’ll do.

        • Paul Lukas | February 21, 2014 at 11:28 pm |

          Oxford’s definition mostly works for me: “an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment”

          Using this definition, every form of dance contest (including Dancing with the Stars and, of course, ice dancing) is a sport.

          A yoga competition is a sport.

          Cup stacking is a sport.

          Paddycake is a sport.

          Shall I go on?

    • hmich176 | February 21, 2014 at 12:11 pm |

      Two points:

      1)Here’s why figure skating doesn’t belong in the Olympics:

      The IOC kicked wrestling out of the Olympics because they didn’t think the sport’s governance was clean. They didn’t think the wrestling federation didn’t improve the judging system to the point it was fair.

      So, the IOC kicks out wrestling, but they’ll let figure skating stay in? How is figure skating’s governance clean? How is their system fair?

      2) I think Paul only meant that (aside from the dig that it’s not a sport) figure skating is an embarrassing, consistent source of controversy which makes figure skating undeserving of inclusion in Olympic participation.

      Sometimes, history be damned. Figure skating doesn’t deserve to be in the Olympics. It has a convoluted scoring system, plagued with controversies. The figure skating federation doesn’t want to fix it, so get rid of the Olympic competition.

      • Lee | February 21, 2014 at 12:19 pm |

        Whatever the rationales given regarding wrestling, TV considerations are what killed it, and why figure skating remains.
        And figure skating controversies are part of the spectacle, and drive part of the passion.


        • Paul Lukas | February 21, 2014 at 12:58 pm |

          And figure skating controversies are part of the spectacle, and drive part of the passion.

          Let me get this straight: There’s an aspect of something that’s totally fucked. But it’s been totally fucked for so long that its fuckedness has become an essential aspect of the thing.

          You’ve heard of too big to fail? Ladies and gentlemen, I give you too fucked to fail.

        • Bromotrifluoromethane | February 21, 2014 at 3:58 pm |

          “Too fucked to fail”… Though I haven’t read most of the arguments for or against figure skating I now want that on a t-shirt…

    • Lee | February 21, 2014 at 12:16 pm |

      While I also believe that figure skating isn’t really a “sport”, its still an Olympic event, and should remain as such.
      One of the things I like about the Olympics, is that in many ways, it has at least a little for everyone, no matter what you are into.

      I just don’t watch the stuff I don’t wanna watch.
      I don’t get the mentality if I don’t personally like something, it should be abolished.


    • Paul Lukas | February 21, 2014 at 12:52 pm |

      Paul here, on lunch break from jury duty.

      If you don’t think the Olympics needs to be exclusively about sports, be my guest. I assume this means you won’t mind if they add singing, dancing, basket weaving, and charades to the lineup of competitions.

      As for the notion that I have somehow come up with a “new defintion” of sports, I strongly disagree, and Wednesday’s discussion proved my point quite nicely. When you apply my definition and see what qualifies and what doesn’t, you end up with a list of things that, I submit, most reasonable people would consider to be sports. For every other definition that was put forth in the comments (including all the dictionary definitions), applying those definitions resulted in lists of things that, I submit, most reasonable people would NOT consider to be sports.

      My definition doesn’t conflict with people’s longstanding conception of what is and isn’t a sport; my definition CONFORMS with people’s longstanding conceptions.

      I defended my definition all day long on Wednesday, and nobody else was able to defend theirs. If you think you can do so, bring it. Until then, admit that figure skating isn’t a sport (and there’s nothing wrong with that per se, but I think it’s odd to have a non-sport in a sports festival, which is what the Olympics supposedly are).

      • hmich176 | February 21, 2014 at 1:17 pm |

        The modern Olympics were founded in the model of the Wenlock Olympic Games that occurred in 1850. The purpose was to have a festival with sports and other recreational events.

        Given that the First Olympiad in 1896 had shooting, which is a recreational event, it’s fair to say that the Olympics continued that spirit, which makes the Olympic Games less of a sports festival and more of a recreational festival.

        Really, it comes down to semantics and that’s what’s wrong with the whole debate. Every sport is a recreational activity. If you want to argue that figure skating isn’t a sport, fine. It’s still a recreational activity.

        And in that sense, figure skating belongs in the Olympics as much as any other event that’s ever been played.

        • Paul Lukas | February 21, 2014 at 1:27 pm |

          I like this — recreational activity! Not bad.

          Except nobody actually, you know, luges recreationally….

        • TA | February 21, 2014 at 4:23 pm |

          Yes, they do.

          “Big kids can zip down the Utah Olympic Park track too. The Adult Beginner Luge program (check the website for dates) includes four coached runs down the track. The $90 charge covers the track fee, instruction, equipment, and a one-year membership to the Wasatch Luge Club. Participating in the program is the only way to gain admittance to the club, which offers Thursday-night recreational slides November through March.”

      • Steve D | February 21, 2014 at 2:07 pm |

        Paul…Figure Skating is reported in the NY Times Sports section…Yahoo Sports reports on figure skating…here are all the SI skating covers over many years

        How is saying it is NOT a sport conform to the long standing definition of sports?

        • Padday | February 21, 2014 at 2:26 pm |

          Sports Illustrated features swimming suit clad models on its covers, should wearing a bikini be considered a sport? Also, this:

        • Steve D | February 21, 2014 at 2:30 pm |

          I knew someone would bring up the Swimsuit Issue…ok then…name ONE media outlet that is mainly known for covering SPORTS that has refused to cover figure skating on the grounds that they don’t believe it is a sport. You can also name one outlet that covers figure skating under a category heading other than sports.

        • Padday | February 21, 2014 at 3:04 pm |

          Actually, the swimsuit issue is more analogous than you might think. Both figure skating and bikini clad women are features which have become ingrained within sports culture based on their popularity rather than their actual sporting pedigree. Bikini clad women became part of it because of the notion that sex sells, while the continued inclusion of figure skating in sports culture I presume is because it is broadly popular. In other words, female flesh and figure skating both are only part of sports culture because they sell. The fact that figure skating ended up in the realm of sports, while competitive ballroom dancing or battle of the bands competitions didn’t is largely a product of historical accident really. It’s broadly just a hangover from a time when the winter olympics was really more of an exhibition of general cold weather pursuits.

          Besides, this is all just the same fallacy that says that something can’t change because it just is and everybody says so. Culture is not monolithic, it is not immune to change and just because prevailing attitudes at one moment in history say one thing does not mean that they won’t change later on.

        • Steve D | February 21, 2014 at 3:25 pm |

          Sex sells and skating brings in a lot of money…so despite probably a growing number of informed people saying it shouldn’t be considered a sport, it will be for the foreseeable future. Even if some governing body of language says it is not a sport, the IOC will never eliminate it or the Winter Olympics will be a ghost of what it is.

        • Padday | February 21, 2014 at 3:42 pm |

          Sure, but since when has this site ever put economic reality over ivory tower idealism? Black merchandise sells best but we still bemoan BFBS. Flashy college uniforms help recruiting but Oregon is public enemy no.1. And figure skating is probably one of the most popular Olympic events but that doesn’t mean it deserves the same recognition as actual sports where a person’s athletic ability isn’t going to be undermined because somebody doesn’t like their choice of costume or musical accompaniment.

        • Paul Lukas | February 21, 2014 at 5:09 pm |

          Figure Skating is reported in the NY Times Sports section…Yahoo Sports reports on figure skating…

          Duh — BECAUSE FIGURE SKATING IS IN THE OLYMPICS! If you removed the Olympic status/sanction/etc. and treated figure skating as what it truly is — a mix of performance art and musical theater — no sports section would waste a sentence on it. It would be covered in the Arts section, which is where it belongs.

        • Rob H. | February 21, 2014 at 5:47 pm |

          For the record I don’t consider the swimsuit issue “sports” either, however I do not wish for it to be excluded from Sports Illustrated.

          Late in Wednesday’s discussion I brought up that I thought figure skating was not a sport, however that I wouldn’t think that that should exclude it from the Olympics, to which Paul said basically what he is saying here: “Fine, but then you’d have no problem with (all other sorts of non-sports being) in the Olympics” My response, which I thought was particularly on point and releveant, came well after midnight, so no doubt it was missed by most of you, so here it is again:

          I agree with that… If they (the ‘Olympic Powers That Be’) wanted to make ‘Scrabble’ an Olympic event, that’s their prerogative. It’s not going to make me consider it a sport, any more than I consider figure skating a sport now.

          I’ve never thought of the Olympics as purely a ‘sports’ festival. It is what it is — the Olympics. Not entirely sports, but not exclusive of sports, either.

          Think of how many other things also use ‘Olympic’ terminology. Like on the high school level, they have ‘Math Olympics’, they have ‘Science Olympics’ – they give the winners of academic events like these gold, silver and bronze medals, etc. Purely academic events, but they use ‘Olympic’ terminology.

          I’ve never thought of the Olympics as purely a Sports Festival, but I don’t think they’d consider a game like scrabble or chess (because of the lack on an athletic component).

          But if they did consider something like that, that would even highlight more that the Olympics are entirely unique.

          Some things that are definitely (in my opinion) sports are not Olympic – golf (for now), bowling, American Football, etc.

          Some things that are not sports (in some people’s opinion) are Olympic – figure skating, synchronized swimming, etc.

          Therefore I can only conclude that the Olympics are what they are (sports, non-sports distinction not withstanding) — simply whatever the Olympic Committee wants them to be.

        • Padday | February 21, 2014 at 6:21 pm |

          I agree with a lot of what you’re saying. The Olympics is really unlike any other sporting event out there, it really fits in more with the Expo culture of the early 20th century than it does any modern sporting event. It’s about corny values, about corny identity politics and corny internationalism. I mean, for most of these sports we have proper World Championships annually which generally will reflect better the actual state of competition in a given discipline.

          That said, the Olympics is a modern sporting competition when all is said and done and one that is vitally important for athletic careers. It seems problematic to me therefore that the value of every gold medal is the same when in fact some of those are going for truly objective feats of athletic excellence while others are based on subjective, fashion and whim based determinations. It doesn’t seem quite fair to those who win gold based on achieving objective superiority in their discipline that their reward is the same as that given to one who may just have happened to push the right buttons for a possibly biased, possibly corrupt and always arbitrary set of individual opinions.

        • Rob H. | February 21, 2014 at 7:43 pm |

          …and if the NY Times or Yahoo! is covering something “in the sports section” that just proves that they consider something to be a sport merely because it is in the Olympics, that doesn’t make it so.

          I can assume that anything being sold at a car dealership must be a car, that doesn’t make the candy bar that the receptionist is selling for her son’s school’s fund-raiser a Mustang.

  • Kevin Zdancewicz | February 21, 2014 at 9:17 am |

    I have been reading Paul Caputo’s Story Behind the Nickname series and it is really fun! You should check it out. Nice work, Paul!

  • random reader | February 21, 2014 at 9:20 am |

    Curtis Granderson “breathes Ethier” likely because he is endorsed by New Balance (he was wearing New Balance cleats during his final season with the Yankees). When a player crudely cuts the Nike Swoosh off, it feels more to me like it’s done just because a non-Nike endorser said so.

    Trivial note: Nike once mistakenly sent Granderson the wrong-sized cleats (back when he was still wearing Nike cleats) and he was a little put off by it because he said his shoe size had never changed.

  • Steve D | February 21, 2014 at 9:22 am |

    After wearing a retro jacket last week (as Uni Watch pointed out in a ticker item), Buck Showalter was back in a current Orioles script jacket yesterday.

  • Newt | February 21, 2014 at 9:31 am |

    I dont like the sword holding up the flag. Too many swords in that logo. Other than that it looks pretty sharp

    Are they going to get new uniforms with new letter font?

  • Steve D | February 21, 2014 at 9:39 am |

    My take on the Mets lower case lettering:

    For d’Arnaud, I think D’ARNAUD looks fine…the apostrophe lets you know something is going on with the d. You don’t need lower case.

    For deGrom, I would have a small cap for the e like this:

    For den Dekker, I would do small caps on DEN with no space between den and Dekker…I hate the ways spaces look on a NOB.

    So I don’t see the need for these odd lower case letters either.

    • Graf Zeppelin | February 21, 2014 at 10:27 am |

      I have to agree. d’Arnaud is fine, but d’ARNAUD is absurd. D’ARNAUD makes more sense.

      den Dekker can’t really be Den DEKKER because it’s not Den Dekker, it’s den Dekker. But it’s not denDekker either, so DEN DEKKER should be fine. den DEKKER makes no sense, for the same reason as d’ARNAUD.

      By those rules, deGrom also can’t be DeGROM because it’s not DeGrom. But unlike Den Dekker there’s no space between the preposition and the name (like “McGee”), and unlike D’Arnaud there’s no apostrophe. So DEGROM doesn’t really work, and DE GROM is not quite correct.

      It should be noted also that if any of these names were used at the beginning of a sentence, they would properly be spelled/capitalized D’Arnaud, Den Dekker and DeGrom, respectfully.

      If I had my way, I would have:


    • Graf Zeppelin | February 21, 2014 at 10:28 am |

      I would add that it should be up to the player what he wants his name to look like.

    • Tom V. | February 21, 2014 at 11:37 am |

      How about small capital letters instead of the lowercase den’s and de’s? My last name contains a “de” but I would always capitalize it, my name is in three parts though, so it’s not exactly the DeGROM predicament.

  • Jeff | February 21, 2014 at 9:54 am |

    The titans helmet would look cool with an oversized logo

    • JTH | February 21, 2014 at 10:58 am |

      The titans helmet would look cool with an oversized a completely different logo


      • Ben Fortney | February 21, 2014 at 11:16 am |

        I had to think really hard to even remember what logo the Titans have on their helmet.

        Would love to see them get a new lid. The navy/baby blue is a fantastic color combo, baby blue over white pants looked great last season, and I love the shoulder stripe they have, the helmet is a stinker though.

  • diggerjohn111 | February 21, 2014 at 10:01 am |

    I think the article on the Metspolice website is insensitive in the mildest, and bigoted in the worst case. Many of us have surnames with lowercase and upper case letters, it is a symbol of our ethnic heritages, and our ancestors’ places in history.

  • Dumb Guy | February 21, 2014 at 10:29 am |

    The Buca website has a 360 view/video of the helmet. I like it even more now.

    Nobody has mentioned the new logo/wordmark. Much better IMHO.

    • The Jeff | February 21, 2014 at 10:35 am |

      I think they lose another point for having “BucS” on the front bumper.

    • Ben Fortney | February 21, 2014 at 11:22 am |

      Just took a look at the new wordmark: yet another team moves to a jagged/pointy font Nike seems to push on everyone. Overused, looks like Michigan State, recent Jaguars, etc.

      • Glen | February 21, 2014 at 1:13 pm |

        The negative space in the “C” and “E” really bother me. I keep looking to see if there is a hidden image because the negative space is so bold in the mark.

        • MEANS | February 21, 2014 at 1:57 pm |

          it’s not even an original font for the team! it’s basically CG Woodblock with some “enhancements”

    • Seth | February 21, 2014 at 1:53 pm |

      Although I’m not crazy about the huge logo due to the odd structure and vents of modern helmets, I agree that it does look better from the front and rear views.

  • Padday | February 21, 2014 at 10:49 am |

    The new Bucs decal reminds me a bit of the Turn Ahead the Clock uniforms and the way they fairly lazily decided that “giant logos = futuristic”.

    • Glen | February 21, 2014 at 1:12 pm |

      I get this too. From the back of the helmet, it reminds me of a NFL Europe helmet. Maybe Rhien Fire or Frankfurt Galaxy?

  • getreal | February 21, 2014 at 11:06 am |

    This Redskins name issue is about as dead as a doornail and yesterdays news. It’s over, the name is not changing. You’re quite pathetic flailing at every last morsel to keep this issue on life support.

    • Skycat | February 21, 2014 at 11:39 am |

      Someone’s on the wrong side of history:

      • getreal | February 21, 2014 at 8:59 pm |

        you can comfort yourself with empty words, I have reality on my side. The NFL draft will be hear before you know it, and the Washington REDSKINS. Will be on the clock. The filthy lib radicals tried…and they failed

        • Skycat | February 21, 2014 at 10:20 pm |

          Great. You can be the first on your block to get a t-shirt that reads “I still call them the Redskins.”

        • Padday | February 21, 2014 at 10:30 pm |

          Wanting to shut down the argument ASAP and deflecting any criticism with recourse to petty name calling: doesn’t really seem like the symptoms of somebody confident that they have reality on their side.

    • Paul Lukas | February 21, 2014 at 12:45 pm |

      If it’s truly dead, then you shouldn’t mind if I waste my time on it.

      The rest of us who realize the issue is very much alive will continue on without you.

      — Paul (on lunch break from jury duty)

      • getreal | February 21, 2014 at 8:59 pm |

        then you will continue to cost yourself readership

        • Paul Lukas | February 21, 2014 at 11:22 pm |

          And this matters because why..?

          I honestly don’t care if Uni Watch has 10 readers or 10,000 readers. What I care about is presenting things that matter to me. If other people like those things, that’s great; if not, that’s fine too.

          I notice that you were reading today, however.

  • Alex Parisi | February 21, 2014 at 11:17 am |

    On the Buccanneers: When I first saw the new helmet I thought the decal was way to big. Given the size, I thought the opposite side would have player numbers, similar to ASU’s helmet (one of ASU’s helmets). After seeing all sides, I think the design is great. The helmet looks phoenominal in the front.–nfl_mezz_1280_1024.jpg

  • Will S | February 21, 2014 at 11:29 am |

    Red Canoe has come out a cap for the 1948 Canadian Olympic hockey team (RCAF Flyers).

    The cap (and other RCAF items sold there) have “A portion from the sale of this product goes to support RCAF Veteran and Canadian DND aviation related initiatives.”

  • quiet seattle | February 21, 2014 at 11:34 am |

    Too much. Too big, too busy. A giant sword. A giant flag–in “action!”. Two more swords on the flag. A skull on the flag. A football on the flag. Overload.

    Keep the pewter helmet. Put this (or something similar), in a reasonable size, in white with a red outline, on the helmet….

    The facemask is an improvement. It’s closer to the neutral grey which facemasks are intended to be.

  • EddieAtari | February 21, 2014 at 11:52 am |

    The Skull-n-Cross-Swords itself looks like an appropriate size and seemingly proportional to other classic NFL helmet logos. The red flag seems more like a splash-background for that primary logo.

    Also, the skull is too “Austin 3:16” for my taste…

  • Chris | February 21, 2014 at 12:32 pm |

    The Bucs logo reminds me of the oversized logos on the Turn Ahead the Clock jerseys back then.

  • Ben D | February 21, 2014 at 12:49 pm |

    I like the Bucs new helmet. My first reaction was the same as Paul’s…those poor equipment managers who are going to have to work with a decal that large. My biggest fear was that they would drop the pewter. Glad it stayed and hopefully the uniform will just be tweaked, as I feel it’s a solid set(that could be better if they’d ditch the white pants). Let’s just hope we don’t get a black jersey and pants option.

  • Will S | February 21, 2014 at 12:56 pm |

    Found a great website for the 1948 Flyers.

    Chapter 8 on the formation and pre-Olympic training
    Chapter 9 on the Olympics
    Chapter 11 on post Olympic tour/ Anniversaries & Remembrances

    loads of pics plus links to old newspaper articles in there too.

    here’s a page from Chapter 8 with a pic of a pre-Olympics game worn jersey and practice jersey (at the bottom of page)

    • Christopher F. | February 21, 2014 at 5:32 pm |

      What’s the reasoning behind not paying designers? I understand a high school football team not paying… but EA and the Madden franchise rake in millions.

      • Paul Lukas | February 21, 2014 at 5:38 pm |

        I agree.

  • Bic | February 21, 2014 at 1:51 pm |

    So you’re gonna convict someone based on the color of the clothes they wear?


    Shame on you for not taking your civic duty even remotely seriously.

    Shame on you.

    And before you bleat it, yes yes yes i know all about ‘humor’ and ‘funny’ and ‘jokes’ and this is NONE of those.

    • Paul Lukas | February 21, 2014 at 6:40 pm |

      I knew Big Cock Johnson. Big Cock Johnson was a friend of mine.

      Bic, you’re no Big Cock Johnson.

  • Dave Mac | February 21, 2014 at 2:26 pm |
    • Chris Holder | February 21, 2014 at 3:24 pm |

      I’ll give credit where it’s due – that’s a much nicer logo than the one it’s replacing.

  • Thomas J | February 21, 2014 at 2:27 pm |

    The New Bucs helmet and logos feature a lot of grey outlining. Continuing Nike’s goal of having grey in every teams color scheme.

  • Bromotrifluoromethane | February 21, 2014 at 2:34 pm |

    As I said late last night:

    Wordmark, logo update, and helmet all a major downgrade IMO. That new skull just makes me think of “Stone Cold” Steve Austin for some reason. They had a good look and took a huge step back with these. I hope any uniform updates aren’t as big of a step backwards (Nike likes wings, Bucs have parrots, maybe they’ll put parrot wings on the shoulders).

    Now can we please stop making the matte/chrome helmets a thing? Especially with the oversized logos? It looks ridiculous enough in high school and college.

    • Bromotrifluoromethane | February 21, 2014 at 3:49 pm |

      I do like the update to the pirate ship logo. I’ll give them credit on that part. That’s the one positive from this update. Now to wait to see what the uniforms will look like.

      But even with this mess as a Falcons fan I would greatly welcome a UNIFORM re-design for my team (as long as they leave the helmet and logo alone). We still have one of the worst looking uniform sets in the league so there’s really no way to go besides up for that. I’m hoping there will be a new look to go along with the new dome in a few years. Of course I’d also like to see the return to their proper color uniforms, black, but based on the new stadium they’re still heavy on the red. But at this point as long as we get a change I’d be all for it, I’d hope.

      • Rob H. | February 21, 2014 at 6:21 pm |

        That’s funny, I consider red to be the Falcons “proper” color. I guess if you ‘came of age’ between 1971-89 you think the Falcons should be red, and 1990 or later — or 1966-70 for that matter — you prefer they wear black.

        • Bromotrifluoromethane | February 21, 2014 at 7:54 pm |

          Ironically as someone born in the 70’s I grew up watching them in red and much prefer the black. They look much better in black. The Glanville era uniforms are my favorite set they’ve had although I do prefer the current logo.

  • Will S | February 21, 2014 at 2:41 pm |

    Great Britain member required to do shirt change (name wasn’t on the back) in the 2nd end of the gold medal curling game.

  • Rydell | February 21, 2014 at 8:42 pm |

    I am a NY Giants fan. I would love to see them bring back their logo of ‘the giant’ above the stadium throwing a football as at least an alternate logo that is included in their attire.
    This needed to be written because all is chaos when the Bucs didn’t bring back their pirate guy as their logo, well boohoo.

    TB’s chrome rocks I love their new helmet. Glad they kept ‘Buccaneer’ colors..pirate ship is ok.

  • Steve D | February 21, 2014 at 9:23 pm |

    Duh – BECAUSE FIGURE SKATING IS IN THE OLYMPICS! If you removed the Olympic status/sanction/etc. and treated figure skating as what it truly is – a mix of performance art and musical theater – no sports section would waste a sentence on it. It would be covered in the Arts section, which is where it belongs.

    And our lives would be better how? Perhaps the Olympic sanction is the main reason why people view skating as a sport…and I only read about it in sports sections…and almost every definition or description of its history I have seen calls it a sport…and every major sports news outlet covers it. Doesn’t make them right I suppose…and I know you disagree, but it seems the general populace has been hoodwinked into thinking it is a sport and nobody is really being hurt by that.

    • Paul Lukas | February 21, 2014 at 11:36 pm |

      it seems the general populace has been hoodwinked into thinking it is a sport and nobody is really being hurt by that.

      Never said anyone was “being hurt” by it. But it’s nice when things are what they claim to be. And figure skating — a mix of performance art and musical theater — is clearly not a sport, just like Dancing with the Stars (which is much more similar to figure skating than any real sport is) is not a sport.

      There’s nothing wrong with not being a sport. If forced to choose between a world without sports or a world without artistry/creativity, I’d gladly live without sports.

      But things that are not sports should not claim to be sports, just as things that are not art should not claim to be art. It would be nice if the participants and fans of figure skating could be honest enough to call it what it is.

      • Steve D | February 22, 2014 at 12:27 am |

        Emmitt Smith, a football hall of famer, was a great contestant on Dancing with the Stars…probably trained for a few months. How long would it take him to train to be able to compete in a figure skating competition? Likely he couldn’t even attempt it. Clearly figure skating is at a much higher athletic skill level…just needs uniforms and objective scoring.

        • Paul Lukas | February 22, 2014 at 7:27 am |

          just needs uniforms and objective scoring.

          I agree that it’ll be a sport if they have objective scoring. But just how are they going to do that?

  • Patrick Mackin | February 21, 2014 at 9:54 pm |

    “Rob H. | February 21, 2014 at 5:37 pm |
    Right, because why would a poll be necessary? What do people’s opinions matter? All that matters is that the term is cleary a racial slur, and anyone who thinks otherwise, no matter what percentage of the people that might be, are clearly wrong.”

    I see. Rob’s opinion is also known as the Voice of God, and only his opinion counts, because he has a direct pipeline to the truth. That’s a convenient way to win an argument, by announcing that only your opinion counts. The collective opinions of the people supposedly harmed by the alleged insult is immaterial and irrelevant, because Rob doth decreed. Nice. Ridiculous and silly, but nice.

    • Rob H. | February 21, 2014 at 10:38 pm |

      Somebody’s sarcasm detector wasn’t working. But it’s okay because my jackass detector is.

  • daveclt | February 21, 2014 at 11:39 pm |

    1. Tweaks to the flag logo: Don’t care. Won’t be noticeable.

    2. Tweaks to the red color: Don’t care. Won’t be noticeable.

    3. Chrome facemask: Need to see it on the field. But please stop calling it a grille.

    4. Oversized logo: I’m intrigued. They didn’t just make it bigger. They tilted it and the flag “flows” with the helmet, kind of like how the Seahawks/Rams/Eagles/Bengals “decals” flow with the helmet instead of just being stuck in the middle of it. I think this can work.

    5. Lighter pewter color: This is the biggest downgrade. Honestly, I think this color is more aligned with the actual color of pewter. But I like the darker color much more, since it was unique. Like someone already said, I think this may end up looking like silver. My guess is that they tweaked it to allow for a creamsicle alternate jersey. That’s a plus, but I already miss the darker pewter. Then again, one picture on their site shows an almost black helmet. So I guess we need to see it in action.

  • Chubbs | February 23, 2014 at 8:53 am |

    Interesting ESPN piece on the fan designed unis for the next Madden game. I just think the people over at Madden should worry about getting the current uniforms for all 32 teams correct before they do anything else. This last year’s game had so many errors when it comes to unis. If your not sure what I am talking about, take a look at the Dolphins unis.