So What Will the NFL Look Like in 10 Years?

Browns team president Alec Scheiner was on the radio yesterday and was asked if he could ever see the Browns coming out with a “cutting-edge” uniform set like the one the Bucs just unveiled. Scheiner’s response, which you can hear at about the 4:30 mark of that audio clip, went like so (with thanks to reader Tim Ruschkowski, who sent the link to the radio interview):

I think we will ”” this is what I think we’ll do. We’ll have cutting-edge uniforms that link back to our history. So I don’t want to speak about the Bucs’ uniforms, but I’m really excited about our direction. We’ve been working with the NFL and Nike for almost a year now, and we have another year until we roll out our uniforms. I’ll be very surprised if our fans don’t love our new-look uniforms. I think we’re headed down a really cool path. ”¦ I don’t know exactly when [we’ll unveil them], but it’ll be next year before the draft.

Okay, so we all know what that means: An “updated” helmet (maybe it won’t have a logo, but it’ll definitely have some sort of graphic flourish), a custom font that “tells a story” about Cleveland’s industrial past, and pants something like the ones the Bucs just got. It could conceivably look good (especially compared to this), but it’s far more likely to look like shite.

Scheiner’s comments are particularly interesting in light of an email I received from reader Bobby Fenton on Monday night, just as the dust was settling on the Bucs’ uni unveiling from earlier that day. Here’s what he wrote to me:

I’m a lifelong Buccaneers fan, but also a lifelong fan of the NFL. I was extremely concerned back when I originally heard that Nike was taking over the NFL contract, but I remember you saying that it wouldn’t be as bad as feared, that it was still the NFL, that the teams still had the final say.

I wanted to believe that, but after [the Bucs unveiling], it seems very hard to deny that Nike is doing what Nike does. You’re right that the teams can stop it, but with the exception of a few of the hardcore teams like the Packers, Steelers, etc., the rest are falling for Nike’s bullshit hook, line, and sinker.

They are picking off teams one by one. I shudder to think what the league as a whole will look like in 10 years. The XFL might seem tame by then.

It’s true that my party line when Nike took over the NFL’s uniform contract was something like this: “Nike can’t unilaterally do anything. They’re just a vendor providing a service to a client. The client has the final say, and in this case the clients are the NFL’s owners, who are some of the most conservative businessmen in America. They’ve built up huge equity in their brands — most of them won’t just blithely put those brands into the Nike centrifuge.”

As we approach our third season of the NFL-Nike alliance, I’d say I was mostly right — most of the NFL still looks like, you know, the NFL. But it’s also true that Nike seems to be, as Bobby put it in his email to me, picking off teams one by one. The Browns will be the next domino to fall (unless some other teams get the Nike treatment before then), and there’s definitely a greater symbolic significance in getting the most plain-Jane of teams to modernize its look. When we did the first edition of the Uni Watch Power Rankings back in 2012, my entry for the Browns began with, “Somewhere in the Nike offices, there’s probably a high-ranking executive whose entire job is to persuade the Browns to adopt a helmet logo and an alternate jersey. ‘Vice President for Browns Modernization’ or some such (good luck with that).” Looks like that exec has earned his paycheck.

But are there really just “a few hardcore teams,” as Bobby put it, holding out against the Death Star? Here’s a list of teams that, in my opinion, are unlikely to go for the full-on Nike treatment anytime soon:


(I included the Bills because they went for a retro redesign just a few years ago, so it’s hard to imagine them suddenly following that up with a Nike-style redesign. And I included the Eagles out of a possibly naïve sense of optimism.)

I’m not saying that these teams will have zero uni changes over the next decade, but I don’t think they’ve have radical, Nike-style changes. Add it up and you have 14 teams — close to half the league — that I think are fairly Nike-proof, at least for now.

Meanwhile, many of the other teams that Nike could “pick off” already look like crap. Seriously, how much worse could Nike make the Bengals? Or the Falcons? Or the Ravens? Or the Cardinals? If those teams get the Nike treatment, big deal — it’ll just be trading one shitty look for another. In some cases it might even be an upgrade.

I agree that Nike could do real damage to teams like the Saints, or the Rams, or the Jets, or the Texans (all of which have looks that I would describe as “could be better but could be much, much worse”), and they’ll likely do serious damage to the Browns as well. But it’s also worth remembering that Nike mostly improved the Vikings (I say “mostly” because of that incredibly annoying number font). They also improved the Jags’ logo (although they ruined everything else about the team’s look). And I can think of at least one team — the Lions — that would probably benefit from the full-on Nike treatment.

In other words, I think this situation, like most situations, is complicated.

One thing that’s becoming apparent is that the Nike is doing particularly bad work in the realm of typography. The number fonts for the Bucs, Jags, Vikes, and Dolphins have all been dreadful (although it’s easy to overlook the Jags’ font because the rest of the uni is even worse). Nike loves custom fonts because they “tell a story” — and, as commenter Mike Engle pointed out yesterday, because they’re hard for jersey counterfeiters to copy — but most of their custom fonts really, really suck, and it’s hard to have a good jersey when you have crummy typeface front and center.

Meanwhile, here’s something worth considering: One of the biggest constraints on Nike right now is the NFL’s “one helmet shell per player” rule. You might think it’s silly, you might think it’s just a case of the league covering its ass, and you might be pissed off that it cuts down on throwback games, but it’s also doing a good job of reigning in the Swooshkateers’ worst excesses because it keeps them from playing mix-and-match with multiple helmet designs like they do in the NCAA. We should all be grateful for that.

+ + + + +

Attention NYC-area readers: I’m involved in two very cool events over the next couple of days. Dig:

• Tomorrow, 7pm, at the Bergino Baseball Clubhouse in Manhattan, several other writers and I will be telling baseball-related stories to benefit the Photo ID Foundation, which works to put cameras and other media tools in the hands of critically ill children. Further info and tickets are available here.

• The City Reliquary, the small Brooklyn museum that I’ve long been involved with, is about to open a new exhibit of original drawings by the sports cartoonist Burris Jenkins Jr., whose work was very much in the style of Willard Mullins. I wrote one of the caption placards for the exhibit, and I plan to attend the opening reception this Saturday evening. Hope to see you there.

+ + + + +

Tick-tock: Today’s Ticker was compiled and written by Mike Chamernik, except for ’Skins Watch, which was handled by Paul.

’Skins Watch: Someone is selling a “Keep Chief Wahoo” T-shirt (from Jake Baechle). … The Cleveland Plain Dealer’s recent call for the Indians to retire Wahoo led to a fair amount of pushback (from Jody Michael). … Back in the 1970s, The Washington Post’s sports section apparently thought it was hilarious to show a “redskin” tossing back a mug of beer (thanks, Phil). … The Saskatoon Public School Board voted last night to retire the team name “Redmen” from one of its schools. “As the fourth generation of my family to attend that school, this is obviously coming as quite a shock,” says Joey Tkachuk. “But I do see both sides of the argument.”

Baseball News: Rajai Davis normally wore stirrups before joining the Tigers, but he might not wear them anymore (from Jeffrey Sak). ”¦ Todd Radom wrote about the history of the Yankees’ top hat logo. ”¦ David Firestone scored some cool pendants made from game-used baseballs on eBay. ”¦ Rage Against The Machine’s Tom Morello wore a modified Cubs jersey backstage last week (from Gordon Blau). ”¦ Here’s a piece on the best and worst items in the White Sox online shop. Great stuff, truly recommended. (Okay, fine, I wrote it.)

NFL News: A zinc recycling company in Pennsylvania is using the Broncos’ logo. Fitting, because they’re into recycling and all (from Andrew Greenwood). ”¦ What if the Giants, Jets, and Eagles got Buccaneers-esque makeovers? (From Phil).

College Football News: Bill Cosby wore an Oregon jersey the other day. ”¦ In case you didn’t know, LSU got its purple and gold color scheme from Mardi Gras. ”¦ Speaking of LSU, the school is phasing out its cartoon tiger logo (from Christopher LaHaye). ”¦ Western Kentucky has a new end zone paint scheme (from Josh Claywell).

Hockey News: On Tuesday night’s episode of How I Met Your Mother, Robin Scherbatsky (played by Cobie Smulders) wore a logo-less Atlanta Thrashers jersey. “It seems odd as there’s no connection to Atlanta on the show (as far as I know) and Robin has already been established as a Canucks fan (Robin is Canadian — as is Cobie, for that matter),” says Michael Rich. ”¦ Brian Codagnone saw this still from Wayne’s World and noticed the font on Wayne’s Blackhawks jersey was incorrect. The “2” should look like this. “You’d think a Canadian boy would know better!” he says.

Soccer News: Lots of MLS stuff, beginning with the Chicago Fire, who have (has?) a new home kit. ”¦ The New England Revolution revealed their 2014 kit. ”¦ Real Salt Lake has new kits. ”¦ Sporting KC has a new secondary kit (Here’s a shot of the slogan on the inside of the shirt and Sporting KC’s full jersey set). ”¦ Portugal has a new “100 Years of the Portuguese Football Federation” kit. ”¦ Here’s pretty much every kit that will be worn at the World Cup this year (thanks, Phil). ”¦ Related: Some Redditor has already redesigned all 32 World Cup teams’ jerseys. ”¦ This is what the interweb is for: Photoshops of dogs wearing national team soccer shirts (from Brinke). ”¦ Trevor Williams was wondering about the story behind Scotland’s jersey colors and he found this explanation: The pink and amber are “the racing colours of racehorse owner Archibald Philip Primrose, Lord Roseberry, who was an early patron of the game north of the border in the late 1880s.”

NBA News: The Raptors are indeed bringing back purple into their 20th-season logo. ”¦ The Nuggets will wear 1994 throwback jerseys March 17. ”¦ Clippers’ forward Danny Granger is wearing a Photoshopped 76ers jersey in his ESPN profile pic. Compare the pic to his actual Pacers photo and to what the Clippers and Sixers jersey collars look like. Granger was traded to the Sixers at the trade deadline, but he was bought out and joined the Clips (thanks, Clifford Baxter).

Grab Bag: Olive Garden changed its logo (from Jason Hillyer). ”¦ The Lowndes County High School (GA) teams are known as the Vikings, but the girls’ basketball team is the Vikettes. “I’ve seen ”˜Lady’ Cats or Vols or Tigers a million times but not sure if I have seen something like ”˜Vikettes,’” says Mike Raymer. ”¦ Lost Letterman counted down the best old college sports team logos (from Chris Mahr). ”¦ The Michigan Panthers are the newest team to join the A11FL, and they took their name, logo. and color scheme from the USFL team of the same name (from Eric Wright). ”¦ Adidas will provide the US golf team’s uniforms in the 2016 Olympics (from Phil). ”¦ The Military Channel has changed its name to the American Heroes Channel (from Hugh McBride). ”¦ A site that Brinke writes for has a new design.

+ + + + +

What Paul did last night: Last couple of days have been really frantic, work-wise and otherwise, so last night the New Girl and I went out for a much-needed beer at the exceedingly wonderful Jimmy’s Corner, one of the few remaining non-loathsome taverns in NYC’s increasingly douchebaggified bar scene. And who should we bump into but Miles Seligman, who was the sports editor of The Village Voice back when Uni Watch debuted there in 1999. As I had been explaining to an interviewer just a few hours earlier, Miles embraced the idea of Uni Watch and gave it a chance when other sports editors I’d approached were scratching their heads and saying, “You want to write a column about what?” Fifteen years later, it’s no exaggeration to say that everything Uni Watch has become can be traced back to the day Miles took a cold call from me, heard me out, and said, “Yeah, I like that — let’s try it.”

Miles did a great job of shepherding Uni Watch through its first two years. He then got out of the media/journalism game and moved on to other things, but he’ll always been Uni Watch’s editor emeritus. It was great to bump into him last night. Here’s to you, buddy!

172 comments to So What Will the NFL Look Like in 10 Years?

  • name redacted | March 5, 2014 at 7:37 am |

    I cant decide if the Sporting KC argyle kit is cool, stupid or maybe both.

  • Frank from Bmore | March 5, 2014 at 7:51 am |

    Although I know the Ravens are not a “traditional” uniform team, I don’t think they will accept the full Nike treatment any time soon. Since the logo debacle, the only changes to the uni have been the addition of black leotards and a black jersey. I believe they will keep their current uni design as they have won 2 SB in it.

    • The Jeff | March 5, 2014 at 8:13 am |

      Agreed. I think I’d swap the Ravens for the Redskins (if the name changes, I guarantee they go with a full redesign), and I’d add the Panthers since they’ve already had the chance and chose to only tweak the logo.

    • Ben Fortney | March 5, 2014 at 10:59 am |

      If not Baltimore, which of the “bird” teams will be the first to get the “feathers” treatment? You know Nike will get at least one to bite: Falcons? Cardinals? Ravens? Eagles?

      • Frank from Bmore | March 5, 2014 at 12:22 pm |

        Either the Falcons or the Cardinals since they let Reebok add all those panels to their unis.

      • inkracer | March 5, 2014 at 7:44 pm |

        Can’t really see the Eagles making any major changes, since they are one of the teams that has avoided the Nikelace. I wouldn’t mind seeing a permanent switch back to Kelly Green, and more fans are calling for it with Chip Kelly at the helm.

  • The Jeff | March 5, 2014 at 7:59 am |

    Can we really blame Nike for continuing what’s already been going on for more than a decade? The Cardinals, Vikings, Bengals, Bills, Falcons & Jaguars all changed from traditional to so-called “cutting edge” uniforms while Reebok was the league’s supplier. Maybe it would have been different teams now, but I think we’d still be seeing this even if Nike hadn’t taken over.

    • Robby Z | March 5, 2014 at 11:56 am |

      Agree 100%.

  • Jim Gregg | March 5, 2014 at 8:00 am |

    I have a personal strike against all things Nike. I will not buy Nike anything. Not shoes, not apparel, not anything. Of course, to be consistent, I have to apply this to adidas and Under Armour as well since they are just as bad as Nike now. For sports shoes, I choose Mizuno and for most my sports apparel too. Has nothing to do with anything other than despising the uniform outfitters have taken over sports. Just my own personal boycott and probably not worth anything.

    That aside, the Nike treatment will be seen as cool by some and abhorrent by others as they advance it in the NFL. The problem for the NFL is coming across as cartoonish and a cheaper product if you will. Already have the XFL comparisons on the new Bucs uniform set. But, in the end, all this is about for Nike is selling more stuff to the fans with the updated look. For instance, how many Buc fans will now run out and buy the new Nike jersey or some other apparel in the new color scheme and logo scheme?

    • Bobby Fenton | March 5, 2014 at 11:08 am |

      I, too, boycott all things Nike. I do it because I want to do something, and I want to fight back, and I don’t know what else I can do.

      The worst part about Nike is just how beyond the margins of good taste that they go. Most of us here may have little things we disagree on, or design elements that bother one person that don’t bother another all that much. None of it is extreme, though, and good taste seems to run fairly strong in this place.

      Then you’ve got Nike with their bull in a china shop, over the top, completely disrespectful stunt-pulling, and one day the owners of your favorite team suddenly go along with it, and it feels bad, man.

  • Joe Owen | March 5, 2014 at 8:05 am |

    Two days ago I would have had the Browns firmly at the top of your list of teams immune from Nike influence. If the Browns can fall, anybody can fall. I’m seriously bummed out about this news.

    • Judy A | March 5, 2014 at 12:52 pm |

      As am I. When Paul/ESPN did the uni rankings for the big 4 leagues a few months back, I decided to do my own list for the NFL and MLB, and I was surprised to discover that the Browns uni was in my top 5. I’d hate to see it get the same treatment the Buccaneers’ unis got.

  • Dumb Guy | March 5, 2014 at 8:17 am |

    RE college logos…..

    Yes the old Illini logo is great (even if not by some folks’ standards of today).

    the UNLV logo reminds of this fella:

  • Dumb Guy | March 5, 2014 at 8:18 am |

    The new Olive Garden logo looks like the title card for some PBS show that comes on Saturday mornings at 8:30.

    Not a fan.

    • Jerg | March 5, 2014 at 8:43 am |

      Agreed. I always chuckle when see something like “Italian Kitchen”. I’m going out to eat – not to cook!

    • leo strawn jr | March 5, 2014 at 10:23 am |

      i thought it looked like a logo for a market that specializes in fresh produce…

    • Ben Fortney | March 5, 2014 at 11:01 am |

      “Generic salad dressing”

  • Dumb Guy | March 5, 2014 at 8:20 am |

    Shouldn’t it be “Viqueens”?

    just thinking out loud

    • Trimalchio1922 | March 5, 2014 at 9:19 am |

      Strange that you should say that. I grew up in ND, and when the tiny hamlet of Starkweather had its own school teams (now combined with several regional schools), they were the Vikings and Viqueens, respectively. I don’t have picture proof of that.

    • Turtle12 | March 5, 2014 at 9:59 am |

      Pickens County, GA has the “Dragonettes.” The jerseys just say “‘Nettes.”

    • El Duderino | March 5, 2014 at 11:03 am |

      I don’t think “Viking” is a royal reference. I think the proper alternative would be Vikingettes.

    • hugh.c.mcbride | March 5, 2014 at 3:30 pm |

      I went to high school in Ohio in the mid-1980s, & our mascot was the Eagles. Through the 1970s, the boys’ teams were the Eagles & the girls’ teams were the Eaglettes. Sometime around 1980, I believe, the girls teams were changed to the “Lady Eagles” — from what I heard, it was because the girls’ basketball coach said that “Eaglettes” referred to baby birds, and he thought that was demeaning to his squad.

      (As evidence of the less-than-stellar state of gender sensitivity in those times, through at least the mid-1980s, the cheerleaders for the wrestling team were referred to as the “Eagle Chicks.” I’m guessing that’s changed sometime since I graduated …)

      Unless teams mascots have clearly masculine mascots (aka the old “Orangemen” of Syracuse University, which necessitated “Orangewomen”), I always find it odd when schools add a “Lady” to their nicknames.

      Eagles, Bears, Tigers, Pretzels, Banana Slugs, etc. are gender-neutral terms, and can be applied to boys’, girls’, men’s, and women’s teams. To me, to do otherwise implies that the boys’/men’s teams are the “real” ones and the girls’/women’s are the “others.” (There’s a reason terms like “female doctor” and “male nurse” have thankfully faded away.)

  • Hodges14 | March 5, 2014 at 8:21 am |

    Look, as long as the Jets don’t fall for the Nike bullshit, I’m fine. I’ll admit I’m sad that great designs like Tampa Bay and Cleveland are being jettisoned, but unfortunately, as the older players are being hauled out, the newer players, those who came in during the Nike-fication of the NCAA, are making up the majority of team rosters. Tradition means nothing to them, so unless you want to curb this by raising the minimum age to 30, good luck halting what Nike calls “progress”.

    • Paul Lukas | March 5, 2014 at 9:32 am |

      I fail to see what the players have to do with it. This isn’t about them — they’re just vehicles for selling $250 polyester shirts. That’s what this is about.

      • hodges14 | March 5, 2014 at 10:15 am |

        PL, what I’m trying to say is that it’s simple demographics. Younger fans and/or players generally want more bells and whistles. Older fans generally are more tradition-oriented. I’ll admit that even though I like tradition (Jets), I am somewhat attracted to the Seahawks uni redesign from 2012. Maybe it’s because I’m a younger fan.

        Remember when the Marlins underwent that uni overhaul? How many big name free agents signed with that team? Yes, there is a certain degree of influence on players.

        Remember when the Bills rebranded? How they somehow shocked the world by signing Mario Williams?

        How about the Nets and their big free agency/trade splashes?

        The point here is that players are intrigued by uniforms and they may not know it.

        Again, simple demographics.

        • Paul Lukas | March 5, 2014 at 10:55 am |

          younger fans and/or players generally want more bells and whistles.

          What the players want matters exactly 0%. For every example you cite, I can cite countless counter-examples of players who signed with teams that *didn’t* have new uniforms.

          If you think uniforms factor into free agent signings (except maybe for players who dream about wearing Yankee pinstripes), you’re living in a fantasy land. All they care about is the most money for the most years, with maybe the city and ballpark factoring in a teeny bit (and, for Mike Hampton, the local school district, cough-cough).

          Moreoever, free agents — and especially premium free agents — represent a small fraction of any team’s roster. Most players are acquired via the draft, via trade, or via “I’ll sign with you because I need a job and have no other options.” Uniforms don’t factor into any of that either.

        • Phil Hecken | March 5, 2014 at 2:37 pm |

          “Younger fans and/or players generally want more bells and whistles”



          How many players sign with the Yankees because of their bells and whistles?

          Exactly. They go where the money is, not the unis. College may be another story, but we’re talking pros here.

    • John Zajac | March 5, 2014 at 11:35 am |

      I would say that the “Nike-fication” of the NCAA is to generate buzz among high school prospects who then could possibly get the chance to help design uniforms while they’re playing. The college designs are there to be another recruiting tool to bring kids in to play. In the pros, it’s the dollars that take over and not having the possibility of a new uniform every year (or every week- here’s looking at you, Oregon…) that will attract players to teams. The buzz machine in the pros isn’t for the guys wearing the uniform. It’s for the fans who will always root for the laundry no matter how crappy the clothes may be, as well as for the national media to focus on teams like the Jags and Bucs if only for a few fleeting moments, even if it’s for what they’re wearing instead of how poorly they are playing.

      • hodges14 | March 5, 2014 at 1:15 pm |

        So you’re saying that it’s a coincidence that the players chose to go to Miami, Brooklyn, etc? I guess that also could make sense. Still, I think that demographics do play a role in uniforms. You see just by the Bucs posts that fans there are pining for the creamsicles, while somewhat younger fans are more in favor of the pewter look. Pretty soon a third demographic will come up that finds the third era of uniforms to be their favorites.

        • John Zajac | March 6, 2014 at 7:54 am |

          I’m saying that I don’t think it is a coincidence that teams with some of the league’s most popular names on their roster crank out seven different uniform combinations including some with sleeves in a league where jersey sales are declining. Thinking the players care about that is putting the cart before the horse. It makes no difference as long as they get paid for it. I don’t recall anyone ever saying “I can’t wait to wear all the different jerseys we have here”, only things like “I’m so excited for the opportunity to put on the pinstripes” when certain teams who have lots of tradition behind them are involved.

    • Rob H. | March 5, 2014 at 4:55 pm |

      I’m sad that great designs like Tampa Bay … [have been] jettisoned

      I was sad about that in 1997.

  • Mike D. | March 5, 2014 at 8:25 am |

    The problems with these modern NFL uni updates is that some of the unis will look dated in 3-4 years. The Broncos are a prime example.

    It works great in college because the teams get new uni designed every 2-3 years.The non-traditional dressed teams that is.

    • The Jeff | March 5, 2014 at 8:32 am |

      There’s a very fine line between “dated” and “classic”. People thought the Bengals striped helmets were insane in 1981, now they’re the best part of the uniform.

      • Paul Lukas | March 5, 2014 at 9:33 am |

        Some of us still think that helmet is insane. Just sayin’.

        • Alex Parisi | March 5, 2014 at 2:07 pm |

          Paul, I’m actually surprised you hate the Bengals helmet as much as you do. I’m not a fan of the team, and my tastes are mostly inline with the simple-elegant-clean designs, but at the same time I really love that helmet.

        • Wheels | March 5, 2014 at 3:57 pm |

          That helmet is where it all started going wrong.

        • NickV | March 6, 2014 at 1:52 am |

          The Bengals’ helmets ARE insane, and still the best part of their current uniform ….

    • GoTerriers | March 5, 2014 at 8:36 am |

      Isn’t that the whole point, from a marketing (not branding) side? The uniform looks outdated in 4 years so that in 5 years Nike (or Under Armour or Addidas or Reebok) can spin out a new version. The team can trumpet itself as progressive and revolutionary. The fans can plunk down millions of dollars to update their fan wardrobe.

      Everyone wins?????

      • andyharry | March 5, 2014 at 1:50 pm |

        Everyone wins except the overall health of the brand.

        So, yes, it is the point from a short term business perspective, but it also dilutes the brand of the team and roadbocks long term growth and stability. If you’re Oregon, then that’s your thing, you’ve become known for it and found success with it. Good. More power to you. If everyone is doing that to try and stand out, however, no one is standing out anymore.

  • pboss | March 5, 2014 at 8:27 am |

    I wouldn’t count out the Chargers. The helmets might stay the same so they can easily go with the throwbacks, but I can see the uniforms changing.

    • Ben Fortney | March 5, 2014 at 11:06 am |


    • Ben D | March 5, 2014 at 12:37 pm |

      I hope not…but with talk of a possible move to LA, I could see them getting the full Nike treatment. Given Nike’s track record with feathers, I’d hate to see what they’d do with lightning bolts. I’m picturing something akin to the “bowling ball” helmets Arizona State trotted out this year using lighting instead of flames. Uggggggh. It’s a shame too, as I feel that they were able to “modernize” their look and still keep it recognizable as an NFL uniform with their update of a few years ago. If they’d bring back the gold pants (since they weren’t metallic to start with Nike should be able to make that look decent), move the bolts back to the shoulders, and put the numbers back on the helmet my wish list for them would be complete.

    • Judy A | March 5, 2014 at 12:55 pm |

      I don’t trust the Chargers. Any team that has that gorgeous powder blue jersey but doesn’t make it their primary look clearly can’t be trusted to know right from wrong.

  • Sj-Jeff | March 5, 2014 at 8:30 am |

    This may or may not have been covered but the Philadelphia Union new home kits were revealed last night.

  • Jim Gregg | March 5, 2014 at 8:31 am |

    Maybe Olive Garden would be better off serving better food than changing the logo. The one where I live is god awful and the place is freaking filthy looking. Hasn’t had an interior makeover since it opened some 25 years ago.

    • Dumb Guy | March 5, 2014 at 8:40 am |


    • terriblehuman | March 5, 2014 at 10:43 am |

      That’s actually the idea – the new logo is just a part of a major revamping of the menu, floor space design and identity (check the embedded PDF for the rebrand). They’re trying to improve food and service, make the dining area look less 80s and introduce small plates of theoretically good food instead of bottomless bowls of crap.

      Whether any of that would change the restaurant’s fortune or improve the experience, but for once, this isn’t a new visual identity for the sake of a new visual identity.

    • Chris Holder | March 5, 2014 at 11:22 am |

      Maybe over the years I’ve just become more of a food snob, but it seems like chains such as OG have really slipped in quality over the past decade or so. And while I mostly prefer local places over the chains, but I will call a spade a spade. There are chains that are doing good things. OG, in my last few experiences, is not one of them.

  • Rad | March 5, 2014 at 8:32 am |

    As a consumer of sporting apparel, I mostly buy MLB & NHL gear now, since the NFL looks the way they look. That’s all I can do; my opinion is worthless, but my credit card isn’t!

    If this is a painful economic lesson that the NFL needs learn, then let them learn it. If these modern designs continue to sell like hotcakes, fuck it anyway; I’m not buying any of it.

    Never sacrifice a good customer relationship just to make uninterested people notice you. They won’t buy enough gear to cover the loss of a good customer.

  • Marek | March 5, 2014 at 8:32 am |

    Pekka Rinne has a new mask for Nashville Predators. He wore it in his rehab games with Milwaukee Admirals first.

  • Jake Kennedy | March 5, 2014 at 8:58 am |

    I’d sure hate to see the Rams go to a Nike look. The current uniforms and colors are pretty good in my opinion. The thing that I miss is the gold pants. BRING BACK THE GOLD PANTS!

    Why Nike scares me so much is that they seem to think the Rams retro colors include “highlighter yellow” which isn’t what the rams used to wear! They always had a darker shade to be closer to goldish in a way. If they get this little thing wrong (possibly on purpose) that doesn’t bode well for a redux.

  • DJ | March 5, 2014 at 9:01 am |

    Even a bad uniform can have decent elements. For the Fire, the navy Adidas striping on the red is not bad at all. But the blue sleeves, and … whatever that is on the front simply ruin it. Yet another blunder by a tone-deaf front office.

  • Rob S | March 5, 2014 at 9:03 am |

    How I Met Your Mother airs Monday nights, not Tuesdays.

    • Tony C. | March 5, 2014 at 9:20 am |

      classic schmosby

  • Not THE Jeff | March 5, 2014 at 9:04 am |
    • David | March 5, 2014 at 9:23 am |

      If you enjoy the idea of Vanishing NY… This might be of interest.

      I’m sure most of it has vanished, but Meyer was my Great Uncle. His stories will have an impact on your view of the city.

    • Ben Fortney | March 5, 2014 at 10:57 am |

      Another fan of Jimmy’s Corner.

      I direct anybody intent on heading to Times Square to grab a drink there afterwords to get the consumerism off them.

  • TumblingMustard | March 5, 2014 at 9:09 am |

    My wife works for the company now sponsoring the Real Salt Lake kit. When we saw them a couple months ago, we deemed them the mustard stain due to the yellow smear strip across the front.

  • walter | March 5, 2014 at 9:16 am |

    Thrilled to see the revival of the Michigan Panthers. Most USFL teams had iconography the NFL should copy instead of gargling the Nike mayonnaise. I cant wait to see new Oakland Invaders, Jacksonville Bulls and Oklahoma Outlaws!

    • TIm | March 5, 2014 at 12:54 pm |

      “Gargling the Nike Mayonnaise”. Hysterical.

      I always loved the MI Panthers unis. I also thought the Boston/New Orleans/Portland Breakers had great helmets. Ditto on the Invaders!

  • Rob S | March 5, 2014 at 9:18 am |

    I can somewhat excuse Wayne’s jersey a little bit, because it’s personalized for his character. The only two Campbells who’d played for the Blackhawks before the movie came out did not wear 22 (Bryan wore 14 in the early 70s, and Don wore 9 back in the 40s). Numbers aside, at least the jersey itself is pretty accurate. (And bonus points to Garth for wearing a Tony Esposito jersey.)

    That mess of a jersey John Candy wore in Summer Rental, on the other hand…

  • Jim Mason | March 5, 2014 at 9:26 am |

    No shit, I remember clearly when Uni Watch came out in The Voice, and thinking “Wow, someone else besides me cares about this stuff.” Cheers to Miles Seligman. (I also remember Jimmy’s Corner, albeit a bit less clearly.)

  • Graf Zeppelin | March 5, 2014 at 9:30 am |

    Paul, you really think the Jets are in danger of being Nike-fied?

    Two reasons why I think they’re safe for now:

    1. As long as Fat Bastard is still the head coach, I don’t see them changing the look. FB is way too into Jets history, his dad’s connection to the Super Bowl III team, and in just being the HC of the NYJ to let that happen.

    2. New York teams typically don’t go for radical design changes. The notable exception being the Islanders, and we all know how that turned out. Even the Mets’ ill-considered BFBS wasn’t a radical change in design, just an execution of the same design with an extra color.

    In a vacuum, one could argue that the Jets are screaming for a design change, as nothing about their current uniform or logo actually evokes, you know, jets. There are a lot of design possibilities there. But this is New York, and the Jets have to compete (and play in the same stadium) with a storied, tradition-rich franchise that has its own neo-classic look which is not going away anytime soon. It may not be a coincidence that the last two times the Jets changed their uniforms significantly, 1978 and 1998, the Giants weren’t any good, and in the former case had fairly hideous non-classic uniforms. (Compare how busy and overwrought the Giants’ mid-70s uniforms were with the stark over-simplicity of the Jets’ 1978 redesign.)

    The Jets’ current uniforms would be fine if they’d (1) get the shade of green right and consistent, (2) ditch the green-over-green combo, (3) wear the proper socks with the white-over-white; they could also (4) reverse the striping on the shoulder inserts and (5) make the sleeve numbers a wee bit larger. Right now I don’t think the organization — or the New York fans — would want or abide a radical change.

    • Graf Zeppelin | March 5, 2014 at 9:40 am |

      I should further note that the Rangers also made an ill-considered and short-lived radical design change to which the New York fans did not take kindly.

      And let’s not forget that this town also has the Yankees, the epitome of the classic and immutable uniform aesthetic.

      When you think about it, every team in New York right now is sporting practically the same look that it had in 1965 (except the Islanders and Nets, who didn’t exist then; the former has the same look it had in its expansion year, 1972). I don’t see the Jets breaking that mold anytime soon.

    • Rob S | March 5, 2014 at 10:04 am |

      You and I have some really differing opinions on the term “hideous”. Okay, yeah, not a fan of the blue pants at all, but I actually like the jerseys of that era better than their current solid-blue-at-home, red-centric-on-the-road jerseys.

      • Graf Zeppelin | March 5, 2014 at 10:19 am |

        Well, I did say “fairly hideous.” It’s really not that bad, especially compared to today’s monstrosities, and the home blue-over-white looked much better than the road white-over-blue. It kind of looks like a WFL or USFL uni, which is hardly a bad thing. But it’s easily the worst uni the Giants have ever worn, IMHO.

        I happen to like the current design, and I especially like the red-centric road unis, even though I’m about the only one; I think they look great with the blue helmet and gray pants.

        My only major complaint with the home unis is that they should move the TV numerals down to the sleeves; having them on the shoulders with nothing on the sleeves makes the jerseys look too much like sleeveless vests. The Raiders use that template (plain jersey, no stripes, TV numbers on sleeves) and it looks much better.

        I also wish they’d lose the metallic paint sheen on the helmets, but that’s a minor nit.

      • Graf Zeppelin | March 5, 2014 at 10:29 am |

        My only point was that in the ’70s the Giants took a simple design and made it more complicated, and then the Jets did the opposite.

    • terriblehuman | March 5, 2014 at 10:39 am |

      I’m with GZ on this – it’s hard to imagine either New York team getting Nike-fied. If you look at all the ugly uniforms across the major leagues, they don’t happen to the “crown jewel” teams like the Yankees, Cowboys or the Celtics. It’s the little guys like Jacksonville and Tampa that get the shit stick.

      • Chance Michaels | March 5, 2014 at 12:54 pm |

        I could definitely see the Jets considering a Nike-fied change, if they continue to struggle on the field.

        • terriblehuman | March 5, 2014 at 1:23 pm |

          I don’t think the performance on the field has too much to do with it. The Jets have been Jets for the overwhelming majority of their existence, but their season ticket waiting list is still miles long (to the point that they can charge fans good money to be on the list).

          It’s like the ‘Skins and the Cowboys – they each have one playoff win this century, but they both remain two of the most valuable franchises in all of sports, and more importantly, they have large, vocal fanbases and media contingents they could potentially alienate with a major uniform change.

        • Graf Zeppelin | March 5, 2014 at 1:41 pm |
        • Graf Zeppelin | March 5, 2014 at 1:44 pm |

          [fixed; this board really needs an edit function]

          I doubt it. The Islanders were struggling on the ice and had been for years, save for one miraculous playoff run, when they did this. From the moment it appeared the fans demanded it be repealed, and they got their way in relatively short order.

          The Jets, even being the Jets, are too smart to make a mistake like that. For that matter the NFL probably wouldn’t that either.

    • Ben D | March 5, 2014 at 12:46 pm |

      One thing that makes New York different from other markets is the sheer number of VOCAL FANS! Tampa screws up the uniforms, it pisses off some folks, but eventually the uproar dies. You do that to a New York team and it’s the top story every day until it’s fixed.

  • Newt | March 5, 2014 at 9:47 am |

    the Jets need a new uniform set

    • Rob S | March 5, 2014 at 10:44 am |

      I disagree. They don’t need wholesale changes, just little tweaks: they need to go back to their original, lighter green, and lengthen their shoulder loops like on these LSU unis so we don’t have that jarring color cut (and, really, they can get rid of the extraneous jersey logo as well).

      • Graf Zeppelin | March 5, 2014 at 11:01 am |

        They could attenuate the “color cut” by simply reversing the colors of the shoulder inserts.

        I have to give Nike credit; they do a much better job with the Jets’ shoulder/sleeve treatment than Reebok ever did. But Reebok at least got the forest-green shade right, which Nike hasn’t.

        • andyharry | March 5, 2014 at 1:57 pm |

          I disagree. I think the way the first green stripe flows into the green sleeve to create a solid green line is much more elegant than the way it’s done now, with the green stripe extending into the shoulder and ruining that continuous line.

        • Graf Zeppelin | March 5, 2014 at 3:03 pm |

          The problem I had with the Reebok treatment was not so much the striping but the fact that the shoulder inserts were vertical rather than angled; i.e., there was too much white on the sleeves of the green jerseys and vice-versa. It made the jersey look like a green sleeveless vest with a white t-shirt underneath, rather than simply a green jersey with white sleeves.

          The 1998 Starter jerseys were the best, IMHO.

      • hodges14 | March 5, 2014 at 1:34 pm |

        But that front logo is what makes the uniform so unique! Really, there’s only one other uniform in the NFL that has that front logo, Pittsburgh. I feel that if that part of the uniform is eliminated, people will be upset.

        • Graf Zeppelin | March 5, 2014 at 1:46 pm |

          Yea, I think the front logo is fine (I like it on the shoulder rather than below the neck where it pushes the numerals down), but I don’t think many people would miss it.

        • Mark in Shiga | March 6, 2014 at 7:33 am |

          Seconded, Graf. Any element that pushes the numbers downward is a bad thing. I still remember when the Giants first got their current look and the numbers moved down an inch or so; it’s subtle but you can’t un-see it. A newspaper reporter called them “gut numbers” because they weren’t on the guys’ chests anymore.

  • Mike V. | March 5, 2014 at 9:51 am |

    Not surprised about the Browns getting a uni change/update. Didn’t they just go through a uni change back in 1996?

    Sorry. Couldn’t help myself.

    • The Jeff | March 5, 2014 at 9:54 am |

      We’re talking about Browns 2.0. Browns 1.0 have a successful identity established and probably won’t be changing for a while.

  • Chance Michaels | March 5, 2014 at 9:54 am |

    Re: the Vikettes, my favorite is still Pius XI High School in western Milwaukee. Their boys’ athletic teams were known as the “Popes”. The girls’ teams were the “Lady Popes.”

    I was always tickled by the cognitive dissonance, since in my experience those parents who sent their kids there would be among the most horrified by the possibility of an actual Lady Pope.

    • Valjean | March 5, 2014 at 3:33 pm |

      Wow — that’s seriously odd. I don’t know what’s weirder: the ‘Ladies’ or that the men’s mascot implies *multiple* Holy Sees. I seem to recall there’s only one at a time (well, since the 15th century or so) — rather strictly enforced.

      Still, beats “Nuns”, I s’pose.

  • Connie DC | March 5, 2014 at 9:54 am |


    Yes, I know I’m shouting, but this is so so big. As our point of departure, let’s take the awesome items from today’s ticker:

    “Here’s pretty much every kit that will be worn at the World Cup this year (thanks, Phil). … Related: Some Redditor has already redesigned all 32 World Cup teams’ jerseys. … This is what the interweb is for: Photoshops of dogs wearing national team soccer shirts (from Brinke)”

    The dogs are awesome, of course, and it would be fun to provoke Uni Watch reader talent into rendering fabulous redesigns (weekenders’ assignment?), but for now, let me try to provoke the commentariat here to assign grades to the official World Cup unis as portrayed on the site recommended by Phil.

    I propose that you — and you know who you is — follow the Group A to Group E order of national unis as they’re presented on that website. Assign a grade to both the Home and Away kits, from A to F. I’ll post my report card in about a half hour or so. You goes first if you can do it quicker, and then we can all nest our report cards under yours. Kinda like spooning.

    • terriblehuman | March 5, 2014 at 10:57 am |

      re: the redesigns

      They’re almost all awful, but the Croatian one is an exception.

  • Rob S | March 5, 2014 at 10:11 am |

    Can’t say I’m surprised that the Nuggets would be breaking out 1994 unis. This year is the 20th anniversary of becoming the first 8 seed to upset a 1 seed in NBA history.

  • jon | March 5, 2014 at 10:14 am |

    As a lifelong Browns fan and season ticket holder, I’m really going to have a hard time if we get the full Nike treatment. I can say with a great deal of confidence, that a majority of fans feel the same way. I think we all accept that our classic uniform will change, but it needs to be subtle. We are very proud of our traditions, and love the simplicity.

    • Graf Zeppelin | March 5, 2014 at 10:26 am |

      Even though it was almost 20 years ago, the Cleveland Browns name, brand, history and legacy — including the uniform — were important enough to that city and its fans that the NFL had to make an unprecedented move in “allowing” them to keep it all when the former franchise relocated, so they could be endowed intact upon a future expansion team. It’s distressing to think that now, after all that, they’re preparing to abandon it.

  • Kevin | March 5, 2014 at 10:16 am |

    i bet the browns get a shiny chrome helmet

    • Paul Lukas | March 5, 2014 at 10:34 am |

      I think that’s a very plausible scenario — an orange chrome lid, maybe with a chrome facemask.

    • Tony C. | March 5, 2014 at 11:25 am |

      here’s a mock up what a chrome Browns helmet would look like..

      i like what the guy did with the unis

      • David | March 5, 2014 at 12:24 pm |

        Kind of looks like the 49ers

      • Chris Holder | March 5, 2014 at 12:51 pm |

        I can dig that. Looks good.

      • andyharry | March 5, 2014 at 2:02 pm |

        I could live with that if the pant stripe matched the helmet stripe, or vice versa. The other one I love is this. I think block numerals would be better, but I like that the look is still traditional and very simple. It’s even more simple than their current look.

        • Chuck | March 5, 2014 at 8:39 pm |

          My biggest concern is what they are going to do with the numbers and the jersey. I do not want a look similar to the Bengals, Falcons or Cardinals.

  • Al Gruwell | March 5, 2014 at 10:17 am |

    Vinton-Shellsburg (Iowa) has the Vikings and Vikettes, also. Two other Iowa teams spring to mind: Belle Plaine Plainsmen and Lady Plainsmen, and West Liberty Comets and Belles.

  • Jeff | March 5, 2014 at 10:28 am |

    This whole Nikefication of the NFL is extremely interesting and believe it or not, I am going to somehhow tie it into the MLS unveiling week.

    I went to the Revolution jersey unveiling last night and they made a huge deal about how this was “18 months worth of work” with Adidas to create this jersey.

    The jersey is just a plain blue basic Adidas template with red stripes and the flag of new england on the back collar. There’s no bizarre piping, argyle, cross-faded colors like in some of the other MLS kits this week.

    I’m wondering how much of this 18 month period was the Revolution telling Adidas “No” and trying to avoid the tail from wagging the dog.

    • terriblehuman | March 5, 2014 at 10:52 am |

      “18 months of work” is just press release filler – all new uniform designs are going to take a couple of years and 18 months is probably on the short end.

      • The Jeff | March 5, 2014 at 11:33 am |

        All new uniform designs are going to take a couple of years and 18 months is probably on the short end.

        Maybe that’s the real problem with uniform design today.

        The Bucs put out this new uniform and freaking EVERYONE instantly laughs at the digital alarm clock font. How does a professional design team not notice that and realize everyone is going to hate it… unless they’ve just been working on it for so long that it’s basically “their baby” and they can’t see the flaws any more.

        • terriblehuman | March 5, 2014 at 12:02 pm |

          Having been through design projects, chances are, the designers started with something decent, but through multiple rounds of revisions, they ended up with a something that reflects everyone’s input but no one’s really excited about.

  • leo strawn jr | March 5, 2014 at 10:29 am |

    “We’ll have cutting-edge uniforms that link back to our history.”

    wouldn’t it be interesting if they did a nod to the original browns and came out with plain white domes…?

    i always wondered why they didn’t do that with their “throwbacks”…aside from bringing the brownie back and slapping him on the sides of their current helmets, there’s not much else they can do to “link back to our history” with their helmets…

    • Tony C. | March 5, 2014 at 1:30 pm |

      The owner has said that the helmets are to be left alone. so the quote has no baring on the helmets. The “link back to our history” could mean the return of the number drop shadows(hope not), orange pants ( i kinda hope so), smaller sleeve stripes(meh)or a few other things

  • Connie DC | March 5, 2014 at 11:08 am |

    World Cup Uni Grades / Sister Mary Queen of Angels, Holy Family Elementary School.

    (h=home / a=away)

    Brazil….(h) A- / (a) B-
    Home would be completely perfect with green socks. Away is OK, but why not yellow socks?

    Croatia…. (h) A / (a) A-
    Love the checkerboard, and makes for a nice trim for the Away uni.

    Mexico …. (h) C / (a) D
    What was once my all-time fave uni – solid green shirt, white shorts, red socks – has degenerated into a superhero shirt. Relampago Man!

    Cameroon…. (h) A- / (a) A-
    Very cool! Would have been straight A if there weren’t one too many logos.

    Spain …. (h) B / (a) F
    OK to jettison the blue shorts, but bold yellow would have been much better than Old Gold. Away kit downright insulting.

    Netherlands … (h) A / (a) B+
    Home kit understated perfection.

    Chile …. (h) B / (a) B+
    Like everything but those white darts.

    Australia …. (h) F / (a) NA
    Uni looks good, actually, but it’s bad manners to wear that shirt in Brazil.

    Colombia … (h) C- / (a) B-
    Such come-downs from previous years,

    Greece …. (h) A / (a) A-
    That Greece looks “classic” is perfect. Also my favorite national logo. Go Hellenes!

    Cote d’Ivoire …. (h) A / (a) A
    Beautiful, arresting, distinctive colors on both shirts, and wonderfully un-festooned except for that awesome trumpeting elephant. On y va!

    Japan …. (h) C- / (a) C
    Dear Japan: I don’t care that you like to wear blue. You have one of the coolest flags ever, and stick with it and its awesome minimalism. That JFA logo is ugly, too.

    Uruguay … (h) B / (a) A-
    The Away shirt is sweet.

    Costa Rica …. (h) C- / (a) C-
    Dumb darts and diagonals. Another example of a country that should follow the look of its very cool national flag. Fun fact: I lived in CR for two years.

    Italy …. Expulsion for Heresy.
    The new Pope is cool, sure, but why in the name of God would you monkey around with what was once the finest, coolest, cleanest uni in the world.

    Switzerland … (h) C+ / (a) B-

    Ecuador… (h) B+ / (a) NA
    Not bad tricolor referencing.

    France … (h) A / (a) NA
    Understated bloody perfection. Love the blue/white/red progression and le coq gaulois.

    Honduras.. (h) B / (a) B
    Love the big H, especially since it’s a silent letter in Spanish pronunciation, but don’t like the name-of-country-on-back. Watch, it’ll become a trend.

    Argentina… (h) B+ / (a) C
    What are those little diagonal darts doing in the middle of the Home shirt?!

    Bosnia-Herzegovina … (h) C / (a) C
    Would have preferred some graphic representation of the 100th Anniversary of the assassination of Grand Duke Franz Ferdinand.

    Iran …. (h) B+ / (a) B+
    Good job, Persians! Definitely earned the right to ramp up centrifuge production.

    Nigeria … (h) A- / (a) A-
    Green-lovers delight. What the Irish should have worn if they had only qualified.

    Germany …. Expulsion for Heresy.
    White shirt, black shorts or white shirts, white shorts. Only black and white and never eye-catching. Those are rules.

    Portugal…. (h) D+ / (a) F
    Beyond sad.

    Sorry, got go to work… I’ll start at Ghana sometime later.

    Big Kiss, Connie

    • terriblehuman | March 5, 2014 at 11:14 am |

      Uni looks good, actually, but it’s bad manners to wear that shirt in Brazil.

      The cut of your jib is to my liking.

    • Thresh8 | March 5, 2014 at 12:08 pm |

      Good stuff.

      A la Cameroon, Algeria and Switzerland both also have “three logos” at the top, and are by Puma. I don’t know if I’d picked up on that if you hadn’t menntioned the Indomitable Lions first.

      I think all three of them seem overdone in this regard.

    • DenverGregg | March 5, 2014 at 1:11 pm |

      Started at the bottom and worked my way up

      Group H

      South Korea home: C+ could use a lighter color for contrast

      Russia away: A love the gradient blue and the crest
      Russia home: B- not a fan of the tire tracks, but the gold stripes are nifty

      Algeria away: A great use of a different shade
      Algeria home: A- a wee bit too plain

      Belgium 3d: B- too many bumperstickers
      Belgium away: B+ would be an A if they dropped the goofy piping down the left front
      Belgium home: D it would take quite a few Chimays or Corsendonks to make this look tolerable

      Group G

      US home: D lame crest times 2 with little else to recommend

      Ghana away: C- a black star would look better than the repetitive text
      Ghana home: A nice blend of a simple base with some highly stylized accents

      Portugal away: F as in WTF
      Portugal home: C- take awy the crest and swooshes and it looks like a costume from an early season of ST:TNG

      Deutschland away: B+ replacing the center black stripe with gold would put this over the hump
      Deutschland home: C- Maroon, red and orange? Really? Is this the Virginia Tech of Mitteleuropa?

      Group F

      Nigeria away: A uncluttered yet distinctive
      Nigeria home:B+ not a fan of the awkwardness where the pinstripes terminate nor of the weird white strip on the sleeve

      Iran away: B — good use of national colors, but seems a little flat
      Iran home:C? hard to see but looks like there could be a wacky pattern

      Bosnia-Herzegovina away: D looks like a flight attendant on a budget airline
      Bosnia-Herzegovina home: C- maps aren’t good crests

      Argentina away: C just a little too much going on with the cross-hatching and the fading contrast stripes
      Argentina home: D for wrecking one of the finest looks in sports

      Group E

      Honduras away: C Glad to see what letters/numbers will look like, but “H” is a weak crest
      Honduras home: C- all the problems of the away kit, yet less pizazz

      France away: B- like the Henley effect, but could use at least a wee bit of red on the outside
      France home: A that’s how les Bleus should look

      Ecuador away: C great crest and use of colors, but the lego blotches and wacky shoulders degract

      Helvetia away: C probably as good as they can be with current crest
      Helvetia home: C- sublimated cross is too subtle

      Group D

      Italia away: D wacky stripes make a world class athlete look like he’s got a beerbelly
      Italia home: B- the thoracic stripes that Puma is pushing detract from what would be an A

      Costa Rica away: C+ might be a higher grade when more of the uni is visible
      Costa Rica home: C the stripe pattern is interesting, it would benefit from more blue

      Uruguay away: B due to Puma piping otherwise an A
      Uruguay home: A- even with Puma piping because of the brilliant treatment of the crest

      Group C

      Japan away: D highlighter jerseys are beneath the dignity of the event
      Japan home: B+ nice nods to a few traditions

      Ivory Coast Away: B- due to front sublimations else an A (love the non-map elements of the crest!)
      Ivory Coast home: same as above

      Greece away: A no quibbles at all, love the placket
      Greece home: A+ looks like a sunny day on the Aegean

      Colombia away: C nondescript and wastes plenty of great color opportunities
      Colombia home: A good contemporary twist on the baldric stripe!

      Group B

      Australia home: D nice design, but a bad misunderstanding of “when in Rome”

      Chile away:B getting tired of the Puma template
      Chile home: B- funny that the collar looks so much like the Texas longhorn when the Chilean flag bears some resemblance to that of the Lone Star state

      Nederlands away: B- for big blue disco ball
      Nederlands home: A yet another team that looks like it should

      Espana away: B could use more contrast to the red
      Espana home: D- hate the highlighter

      Group A
      Cameroon away: B both crests work well, good use of color,
      Cameroon home: A quite indomitable

      Mexico away: D El Tri goes BFBS
      Mexico home: A+ this is just plain fun

      Croatia away: A+ dialing down the check actually helps it
      Croatia home: A a great distinctive look

      Brasil 3d: C green is too dark and shorts stripes are a waste
      Brasil away: B+ could benefit from echoing the home kit’s collar
      Brasil home: A it’s a classic


      A+ 3
      A 11
      A- 2
      B+ 5
      B 4
      B- 9
      C+ 2
      C 8
      C- 6
      D 9
      F 1

    • Padday | March 5, 2014 at 1:31 pm |

      As long as we’re allowed to do some now and the rest later, here are my group A and B grades.

      Group A
      h=A+ Not even the worst Nike templates have been able to kill that look.
      a=B- Could use some contrast on the sleeve cuffs (like the home) to keep it interesting.

      h=A A lot like Brazil-too distinctive not to love. Contrasting sleeves prove that there are ways of making a classic look subtly new.
      a=A+ Usually interesting to see how they’ll incorporate the checker motif in there and sleeve raglan is always a winner in my book.

      h=B- Interesting individual elements but doesn’t really all fit together.
      a=D No idea why they would even take the colour out of the crest. Far too flat altogether.

      h=C I’m not sure, but if this is actually supposed to be a subversive parody of kitschy ethnic motifs on jerseys then I may upgrade this to an A+.
      a=B Motif not as noticeable so an automatic improvement.

      Group B
      h=C- Boring. Beneath all that just-a-reminder-they’re-world-champions-gold, it’s just a plain red shirt. Double boring for monochrome.
      a=D The less said the better.

      h=B Perhaps a little bare, but when you’re orange there’s no shame flaunting it.
      a=B I was in the minority as a fan of Liverpool’s blocky alternates this year. I get the same vibe from these.

      h=C+ Templatey but otherwise harmless.
      a=B I’m a fan of working in two contrasting colours for the trim elements.

      h=C+ I think I’d love it if their rugby team went this route.

      • Padday | March 5, 2014 at 5:28 pm |

        And the rest.

        Group C
        h=C Nothing particularly special.
        a=C- The template strikes again.

        Part of the reason I finished my first batch after group B was because I could think of absolutely nothing to say about these.

        Côte d’Ivoire
        h=A- That crest is obviously the best in the competition. Just don’t mess with that and they’ll always look good.
        a=B+ It loses one grade point only because the green isn’t quite distinctive as the orange.

        h=A- I’ve always liked Japan’s jersey and this one is no different.
        a=C+ Really not a fan of how ubiquitous Day-Glo jerseys are becoming but that looks a little paler than the typical so maybe it’ll be alright.

        Group D
        h=C+ Another classic look. Unfortunately, liberal use of gold and the Puma template have taken their toll
        a=B The light blue on white works a lot better with the pattern. Would like the stripe pattern on the sleeve cuff to be used a bit more extensively.

        Costa Rica
        I’m really struggling to understand what Lotto were trying to do with these.

        h=A- Any time that Italy don’t go monochrome blue I’m happy.
        a=B The pinstripes are really nice, except that they highlight how stupid those side panels are.

        Group E
        Switzerland, for as long as I can remember, has been saddled with whatever the current Puma pattern is done in red. No change there then.

        h=A- Normally I’d want something extra to help it pop, but the minimalist approach just seems suited to France.
        a=A A subtler version of the sailor look from a couple of years ago. That was perhaps a little jarring, this seems just right.

        h=A Would it be greedy of me to want that H to be just a smidge larger?
        a=A+ It looks great in white, but it looks even better in blue. Bravo Joma.

        Group F
        h=A I love what they are doing with the navy blue contrasting with the distinctive sky blue stripes.
        a=D Looks like a training top. Also, why is the crest so faded (on the home jersey too)?

        Not much going on here though they do get a minus on their Cs for those bizarre collars.

        h=B+ Contrasting the green collar with the red stripe is a simple but effective touch.
        a=B- The sublimated leopard image is more prominent on the red. Slightly bizarre but I’m going to go with bizarre in a good way.

        h=A It stands out without having to do too much. It’s mostly the colours that help it stand out and the pinstripes are the cherry on top.
        a=A Again, just some great use of the colours.

        Group G
        h=C+ I think I’m ok with the jersey, but the full white is going to take some getting used to
        a=B+ It’s a bit strange but I am kind of looking forward to seeing this in action. Reminds me of an old fashioned rugby jersey.

        h=D Portugal need to rediscover green rather than further explore the red end of the colour wheel.
        a=F This has to be some kind of a “fashion top” or something right?

        h=C- A contrasting shoulder yoke that I doubt even Paul could defend.
        a=C+ The colour is nice, but again is that weird pattern really necessary?

        h=C The problem with Nike’s minimalist ethic this World Cup is that it has been applied universally despite it really not suiting teams like the US and (as mentioned earlier) Greece.

        Group H
        They all kind of look like cycling jerseys which is appropriate for the road cycling capital of the world. Regardless, I’m a fan.

        h=C+ I hope it’s paired with green shorts.
        a=B- Simple and classy.

        h=C Better than Spain, but not by much.
        a=A- I think this is actually a pretty cool look for Russia.

        South Korea
        h=A The shoulder stripes are perfect.

    • terriblehuman | March 5, 2014 at 2:04 pm |
  • Alex35332 | March 5, 2014 at 11:13 am |

    Browns get a similar look to the Skins ’37 throwback?

  • doan | March 5, 2014 at 11:33 am |

    for what its worth, browns owner jimmy haslam said the one stipulation was that the helmet will not be changed. im sure nike will had some sort of texture/material effect, but the overall design should remain the same.

  • J | March 5, 2014 at 11:33 am |

    I never cease to be amazed that the best uniforms are the originals for 90% (if not more) of teams. The best-looking threads were from the 1960s and 70s.

    Paul, do you think the modern process (hundreds of potential looks, outside consultants) makes it more difficult to come up with a good design? I just find it interesting that most people, even younger fans to a good degree, seem to like throwback looks better.

    I’d like to read a comparison between how uniforms were designed back then and how they are designed today. I’m guessing that a simpler process made for a simpler and therefore better design in most instances.

    • Paul Lukas | March 5, 2014 at 11:44 am |

      Paul, do you think the modern process (hundreds of potential looks, outside consultants) makes it more difficult to come up with a good design?

      I’d say it has less to do with the process than with the goals of the process. The goal these days is rarely to come up with a good design; it is simply to come up with a design that is salable to a certain subset of the fan base (i.e., the subset that’s willing to spend $250 on a polyester shirt).

      Form follows function, and in this case the function is to sell a bunch of crap to people who’ll jump at the sight of the shiniest object.

  • dutchterp7 | March 5, 2014 at 11:38 am |

    That picture of Tom Morello was taken backstage at an Eddie Vedder show in Australia. Morello is currently touring as a member of the E St. Band in Australia/New Zealand.

    • JTH | March 5, 2014 at 11:57 am |

      Wow. You are one super sleuth. I’m astonished by your ability to dig up that information.

      Backstage after fantastic Eddie Vedder show in Brisbane wearing his shirt which may be greatest shirt of all time

  • kjseek | March 5, 2014 at 11:44 am |

    I am a Clevelander and a Browns fan. I am terrified about what Nike is going to do my team. That is what disturbs me the most, that the idea of a certain company being involved in a uniform change for one of my teams causes such a severe negative reaction. What does that say about that company? That its more important for them to bastardize a uniform set to make it “theirs”, than it is to respect the actual team and it’s fans? What does that say about myself? (shudder)

    Full disclosure: I am also an Ohio State fan and dont want anything to happen to that uniform either. I am definitely in the traditionalist (boring?) category. I don’t want to see changes in any classic look teams like: Green Bay, Oakland, New Orleans, Pittsburgh, Penn State, NY Yankees etc.

    Im not saying all changes are bad. I liked the Vikings tweaks on their new design, so i guess there is hope that the new SwooshBrowns wont be completely deplorable, right? ….RIGHT?

  • CWac19 | March 5, 2014 at 11:49 am |

    Have to agree with the commenter who suggested the Chargers should not be on this list. Especially in the event of a move or a new stadium, I’m confident they get the “full Nike treatment” within the next 5 years.
    (And, like the Lions, I’m not so sure that would be a bad thing. Other than the white helmet that most folks seem to like, I sorta view their current set as “Patriots West” — basically a “Meh” with customized number font.)

    • Alex Parisi | March 5, 2014 at 2:01 pm |

      The Chargers should refine their uniform. Too many strokes on top of borders on top of outlines. Plus the number font is gross. It needs to be simplified.

  • Steve Silva | March 5, 2014 at 11:53 am |

    Dig that Keep the Chief shirt – just purchased one for Spring Training next week! Thanks Uni-Watch! For once “‘Skins Watch” has paid off for me. But I am curious as to how Paul and others feel about the “Keep the Chief” tshirt design offensive or not I think it has an aesthetic appeal.

    • terriblehuman | March 5, 2014 at 12:11 pm |

      I don’t like the message, but it’s an attractive shirt. I’ve seen the type treatment before, but it’s well done.

      • Steve Silva | March 6, 2014 at 11:11 am |

        Yeah I love that retro look – given than I purchased on with the intent to wear it I probably would be better served by your username haha

  • Kyle Allebach | March 5, 2014 at 11:58 am |

    “And I included the Eagles out of a possibly naïve sense of optimism.”

    I knew there was a reason I like you. Also, we point to the Jags, Seahawks, and Bucs as a Nikeification of the NFL, but on the same hand, the Dolphins and Vikings had some pretty tame reduxes of their unis, showing Nike doesn’t have to be “cutting edge” all the damn time.

    But the use of the term “cutting edge” in uniform design probably indicates the Jags/Bucs line of uni-thought as opposed to the Vikes/Phins. That is one phrase I hope I don’t hear with the Eagles new uniforms, if and when they come.

  • Kyle Allebach | March 5, 2014 at 12:04 pm |

    And Chris Creamers’ Twitter had a nice mock-up of the new Bucs unis with less embarrassing numbers. I would like the uniform better.

    • Graf Zeppelin | March 5, 2014 at 12:13 pm |

      Yes, that’s much better. Shrink the helmet decal down to normal size and it’s fine.

  • terriblehuman | March 5, 2014 at 12:21 pm |

    South Africa and Brazil are playing right now. I don’t have pictures, but the Bafana Bafana are wearing jerseys with Nelson Mandela’s prison number printed, while Brazil will be changing from their home kit to away kit at half time.

    • Rob H. | March 5, 2014 at 5:12 pm |

      Spain and Italy are on now — since when does Spain wear Baylor colors, black & highlighter green?

      • terriblehuman | March 5, 2014 at 9:49 pm |

        They’re just trying to look like the Seattle Sounders.

  • Allan Chandler | March 5, 2014 at 12:42 pm |

    Stop with the Bengal bashing. I agree the uniforms are fairly dreadful, but the helmet is unique. It’s stood the test of time (1981 – present), which is longer than the Patriots, Chargers, Eagles, Giants and 49ers helmet designs.

    • Paul Lukas | March 5, 2014 at 12:51 pm |

      I’m not “bashing” the Bengals. I simply don’t care for their uniforms, and that definitely includes the helmet, which I have never liked.

      • jean delisi | March 5, 2014 at 1:40 pm |

        I wish the Bengals would go back to the unis they had in the 70’s with the Bengals written on the helmet. Or go with a Bengal head on the helmet. The stripes are too much for me.

    • Alex Parisi | March 5, 2014 at 1:58 pm |

      I agree, the Bengals helmet should never change.

    • Mainspark | March 5, 2014 at 3:28 pm |

      The Bengals uniform (particularly the helmet) is so awful that it’s become iconic. I wouldn’t change a thing.

      • CWac19 | March 5, 2014 at 8:07 pm |

        All due respect, but the helmet alone is iconic. The rest of the uniform is garbage. The Anderson/Esiason era look was restraint exercised to near perfection.

    • walter | March 5, 2014 at 10:30 pm |

      Put me in the “aye” column for the striped Bengals’ helmet. They could do better, but it’s an improvement on the old one. The plain word typed out on the orange dome just looks dissonant and out-of-place.

  • hodges14 | March 5, 2014 at 1:19 pm |

    So, anyone want to see the college baseball uniforms I have to as part of my preseaseon internship assignment with the Danbury Westerners? I’ve already got Richmond and Seton Hall:

    • hodges14 | March 5, 2014 at 1:21 pm |

      Ok, apparently I can’t show them through my email for whatever reason. Anyone know a way to share a downloaded image via ymail?

  • Anonymous This Time | March 5, 2014 at 1:22 pm |

    It’s always fascinating to me when you bring up resistance to Native American logo changes, such as today’s link about those resisting the Chief Wahoo change. It’s interesting, in part, because I feel like those on the opposite sides are often speaking different languages and not necessarily addressing each other’s talking points.

    The Indians debate seems to echo a lot of what we saw in the piece you ran on Marquette and their fans’ continual want to be Warriors. The pro-Warriors crowd doesn’t seem to care whether its an insult or if it ever was insulting or not, preferring instead to focus on how their own and the team’s greatest moments, and majority of team history, are/is attached to being ‘Warriors’, native imagery and all. The pro-Golden Eagles crowd tends to gloss over how to stay attached to the history, but does point out the respectfulness factor.

    With the Redskins debate, there’s seemingly more of a dialog. But I still generally don’t see the pro-Redskins crowd addressing the topic of the word being a slur. A lot of the time, I think a lot of fans’ internal dialog is, “I don’t know any [Native Americans] and I only think about them when I go to the casino. But I did know Ryp & the Fun Bunch, who were Redskins and not anything else, and I do know my family and my bank account, which can’t afford new gear for my family, so screw the [Native Americans], I want us to be Redskins.” Which is rather insensitive, but seemingly plausible.

    Part of the reason I take your side is that the pro-change side usually at least attempts to address the issue of respecting the team’s history, trying to come up with a way to maintain the colors, uniforms, imagery, whatever. It’s what’s best for everyone rather than “better for just me and my ilk.”

    Reading about the “Save Chief Wahoo” effort made me kind of feel the same way as the Marquette thing.

    In many ways, I feel like the debate on native imagery kind of reflects our general way of handling politics these days: Shout what we believe, address the other side only if pointing out weaknesses, and put our fingers in our ears when they want to state their case. That’s sad to me. And because it’s both so easy to create online content now, and so easy to ignore what we don’t want to see/hear, I’m not sure how it’s going to get better.

    Paul: I’d kind of like to see you have interview, or perhaps a Nye/Ham-esque debate, with the organizers of a site like Save Chief Wahoo. It’d be uncomfortable for everyone, but it seems like it has a better chance of everyone getting closer to being on the same page than, well, everyone being on different [Facebook] pages.

    I’d like to see if they have a way of addressing your concerns about the imagery being insulting other than “No, I don’t think so,” and I’d like to see how you respond to their feelings. I’d like to see everyone think this out rather than go knee-jerk — something I know you would do, because you’re quite thoughtful, but others might not.

    Of course, that would kind of force Opinion Paul to step up and Reporter Paul to step back, which is why I could see you being hesitant. But I think it would be interesting.

  • Alex Parisi | March 5, 2014 at 1:51 pm |

    The Buc’s new uniform is really terrible. Unforgivable. Unredeemable. It actually makes me hate their team. lol

  • Alex Parisi | March 5, 2014 at 1:57 pm |

    I agree, we have to judge Nike on a case-by-case basis. However if there is one bad characteristic with every new Nike uniform (including college), it’s the number font. The numerals on the Vikings, Jags, Dolphins, Buccaneers all look like shit. Seahawks have the only decent typeface.

  • Alex Parisi | March 5, 2014 at 2:11 pm |

    With all the great work Nike has been doing on these new soccer kits you would think that would get carried over to “American” football.

  • hugh.c.mcbride | March 5, 2014 at 3:37 pm |

    Just when you think there’s no way the Browns can disappoint you any more than they have for the past decade-plus, they talk about Nikefying those classic unis.

    All I can say is this had really better help with recruiting.

  • Michael | March 5, 2014 at 3:37 pm |

    I think that as long as Jerry Richardson owns the Panthers, Nike isn’t going to be allowed major (and perhaps even minor) changes to their uniforms either. I’d put them on the list you have for the hardcore holdouts.

    • Paul Lukas | March 5, 2014 at 3:40 pm |

      I’d put them on the list of teams most in need of a makeover. Such a terrible, dated look….

  • Connie DC | March 5, 2014 at 4:44 pm |

    Terrific response to the World Cup uni grading exercise… More tomorrow, Am at meeting pretending to be serious…

  • Christopher F. | March 5, 2014 at 5:04 pm |

    No WAY the Saints get Nike-fied. There would be a riot down here.

  • Rob H. | March 5, 2014 at 5:22 pm |

    Maybe we can kill two birds with one stone. Have Nike screw up the Redskins’ unis. Then maybe everyone who is so emotionally attached to the racist slur name will let go of it.

    I know I’m feeling pretty indifferent about the Bucs right now.

  • DenverGregg | March 5, 2014 at 6:04 pm |

    It had been years since I watched any basketball, however yesterday afternoon circumstances put the Michigan/Illinois game in front of my eyes for a while. The Illini got their butts thoroughly kicked, but they were quite nicely dressed for the occasion.

  • Tom | March 5, 2014 at 6:09 pm |

    How are the Patriots considered a “Nike resistant” team. Look are there current set of uniforms, those are pretty radical (and not a whole lot different than the old Vikings uniforms….) especially given their release time. Now compared to some they seem normal-ish, but then they were a pretty big deal. So why wouldn’t we expect the Patriots to get Nike-ized?

    On a different note (numbers aside) the Bucs uniforms were designed really well from a design standpoint. Things really coincide well. I am a sucker for consistency. For instance the orange in the yokes is similar in shape and color to the orange in the pants, and matches the number style. I am not saying the uniform is neccesarily a great design I personally think the orange would be outstanding in thinner form, it would work similar to the lime green on the Seahawks. It would make the uniform pop without taking away from the main colors of pewter and red. To me the orange in its current thickness just makes the uniform busier. Imagine if they changed the leg stripe to be less like the Jaguars, and more like Michigan State’s with the 3/4 stripe with an orange border at the top. (

    • Paul Lukas | March 5, 2014 at 6:52 pm |

      How are the Patriots considered a “Nike resistant” team.

      You’re countering an argument I never made. I didn’t say they have an old-school look; I just said I don’t see them doing a major redesign anytime soon. Can *you* imagine them doing a redesign in the Belichick era? No fucking way.

      Meanwhile, about this:

      the Bucs uniforms were designed really well from a design standpoint. … I am not saying the uniform is neccesarily a great design…

      Um, right.

      • Tom | March 5, 2014 at 9:18 pm |

        Yea, bad verbage on my part. Engineers don’t write much goodly.

  • Clevelandsportsfan | March 5, 2014 at 6:09 pm |

    I’m 14 years old, and I know uniforms can gain fans with teenagers and young players. Oregon is one of the most liked teams at my school, but I’m sure they would be ignored if not for their Nike hypiforms. That said, I’d like to see Nike redo about 1/3 of the NFL. Most uniforms are neither classic nor flashy, or a mixture of both (which is ideal). The Patriots, Cardinals, Falcons, Ravens, Redskins, Panthers, Rams, Broncos, and Eagles would be greatly improved by some Nikeness. At least then they’d look professional, instead of wearing a “cutting edge” reebok-style uniform thats 7 years behind Nike.

    • Paul Lukas | March 5, 2014 at 6:55 pm |

      I don’t know about your taste in uniforms, but any 14-year-old who can properly invoke a “neither/nor” construction is always welcome here.

  • P Hoelter | March 5, 2014 at 6:11 pm |

    If anyone buys a White Sox $998.99 “classic” sofa please let us know what, “An advanced radio frequency vinyl team logo [that] highlights the sofa,” is. Sounds more space age than classic.

    • Mike Chamernik | March 5, 2014 at 7:45 pm |

      Exactly. I also have no idea what Teflon-coated clips do and why it’s important that they are sound-less.

  • MHDyson | March 5, 2014 at 6:27 pm |

    Someday we’re going to look back at this era of NFL uniforms the same way we look at the excesses of the mid-’90s NBA(see the Atlanta Hawks, Vancouver Grizzlies, Detroit Pistons, etc.).

  • Norm | March 5, 2014 at 6:48 pm |

    Louisiana Tech women’s basketball team won championships as the Lady Techsters because female Bulldogs are Bitches

  • El Duderino | March 5, 2014 at 6:51 pm |
    • Mark in Shiga | March 6, 2014 at 7:42 am |

      Oh, my God. This is the sign of the apocalypse:

      The thinking on the part of soccer’s international governing body, is that television feeds are comprised of tiny red/green/blue pixels, which darken/lighten to produce the images you see on your TV. When a television camera picks up a wider variety of colors (i.e. a uniform with more colors) the feed has to transmit a more complicated signal, which can alter bandwidth when you’re talking about something being streamed to literally billions of televisions.

      Simpler uniforms will produce simpler signals, which will help you get your money’s worth out of that Samsung you stupidly bought before the Super Bowl.

      Well, if that’s how it is, why not also remove numbers from the jerseys and save a few more multi-colored pixels? Could we also demand that every player be of the same race? fewer skin colors would save some more bandwidth, right?

      Between the Nike-enforced overgarishness and FIFA’s mandatory simplicity, I’m left not knowing who to despise more.

  • KT | March 5, 2014 at 7:03 pm |

    Semantic/pedantic point:

    A team has A kit, which is comprised of a collection of strips. A team does not have “kits.”

    If you have several teams, you have several kits and several strips within those kits.

    But one team doesn’t have a home kit and an away kit and a third kit, they have a home strip and an away strip and maybe a third strip as part of their kit.

    • Mike Chamernik | March 5, 2014 at 7:44 pm |

      I’m going to copy/paste this and keep this as a note. I have little idea what terminology to use when discussing soccer – I’ve seen “kit,” “jersey” and “shirt” but never “uniform.”

    • Rob H. | March 5, 2014 at 9:22 pm |

      I thought “kit” could also refer to one of their uniforms, as in “wearing their home kit” or “wearing their change kit”?

    • terriblehuman | March 5, 2014 at 9:45 pm |

      I don’t know, a quick Google search for “home kit”, “away kit”, tells me that British newspaper don’t know how to write in British English.

  • Tom | March 5, 2014 at 9:19 pm |

    So how come Nike didn’t use Oregon’s new “Mach Speed” Template?

  • brinke | March 5, 2014 at 9:31 pm |

    Patriots (half-nike; looking long in the tooth)
    Steelers (half-nike; looking long in the tooth)
    Chiefs (half-nike; looking long in the tooth)
    Chargers (half-nike; looking long in the tooth)
    Raiders FULL DEAL
    Cowboys FULL DEAL
    49ers (half-nike; looking long in the tooth)

    I actually could see these teams doing the full-Nike or ‘half-Nike’ thing, The Raiders have looked the same for so long, and I could see them loving the new matte helmet or chrome facemask. The Niners maybe not full-Nike; but the jerseys need help. The Cowboys need to unify the color scheme. The Chargers are already glitzy with the bolts; Nike would love to get their paws on ’em.

    • Paul Lukas | March 5, 2014 at 10:05 pm |

      Nike would no doubt “love to get their paws” on *every* team. But that’s not the issue. The issue is whether certain teams are simply not interested in getting a Nike-style makeover. I’m fairly certain the Raiders won’t do it. When Nike took over the NFL contract in 2012, the Raiders were one of the teams that didn’t adopt ANY of Nike’s “innovations” — they even stuck with the old fabric and the old tailoring pattern. They’re just not interested in changing.

      • Phil Hecken | March 5, 2014 at 10:48 pm |

        “They’re just not interested in changing.”


        Or winning.

  • NickV | March 6, 2014 at 2:05 am |


    Congrats to 15 years-plus! Special Kudos to the sharp editor that gave the column it’s break! I too have been following the UW olumn since it’s inception as a New Orleans subscriber to the Village Voice throughout the 1980s-1990s. Absolutely loved the VV’s sometimes on-again, off-again Sports Section. Really good stuff through the years.

    15 years on, and the Mets’ “Uniform Carnival” continues …. Now, if only those hard-headed NJ Devils would go back to their rightful “Ketchup & Pickle” uniform colors!

  • Jet | March 6, 2014 at 10:04 am |

    Those 1962 Mets relievers aren’t shivering under those blankets because of the cold weather

    they’re shivering at the thought of having to face Mays, Cepeda, McCovey and Alou!


  • Jet | March 6, 2014 at 10:05 am |

    Never mind all this uni chatter.

    At what point is the “new girl” no longer “new”, and merely “the girl”?


  • Chubbs | March 6, 2014 at 12:48 pm |

    Nike def has done some damage to the NFL Uniform Landscape. I think the Bucs and Jags unis just look terrible for obvious reasons. But since they took over in 2012, I think most of the rest look a lot better than they did during the Reebok era. The quality of the Nike Jerseys are head and shoulder above Reebok.

    Also In my opinion the Seahawks and Vikings uniform changes we major upgrades!