Skip to content

The Luck of the Irish: Saint Patrick’s Day Roundup

[Editor’s Note: Today’s lead entry and Ticker were both written by intern Garrett McGrath. Please join me in congratulating him on his first proper Uni Watch byline. ”” PL]

By Garrett McGrath

E.B. White said in Here Is New York: “The city makes up for its hazards and its deficiencies by supplying its citizens with massive doses of a supplementary vitamin — the sense of belonging to something unique, cosmopolitan, mighty and unparalleled.” I trust that he never took part in a Saint Patrick’s Day parade in New York City.

I attended and marched in the parade with my father. We marched with the Cork County Association and had good crack. As a prideful, respectful, and knowledgeable Irishman, I do have an overall problem with the parade itself and what it has come to represent but not with the exposure it gives Ireland and the Irish in America as a whole. Participating in a historic event that is over 250 years old and being able to march — something my parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents have all done — is special. And at least New York doesn’t dye its rivers green.

Sports teams don’t dye their rivers green either, but that’s only because they don’t have any rivers. There were plenty of green uniforms yesterday, though. Here’s a rundown:

• The Red Sox/Cardinals game found both teams wearing green to varying degrees, although the Cards’ catcher cheated by wearing his regular BP cap under his mask. Maybe he didn’t want to deal with the adjusta-strap on his forehead. Here’s a better look at the shamrock-emblazoned bases.

• I am in 100% agreement with our own Phil Hecken when he says, the Angels had the best Saint Patrick’s jerseys. The shamrock on the sleeve and green halo were subtle and fantastic. Their opponents yesterday, the Giants, went with green caps.

• The Pirates would have worn green caps yesterday, but their game was rained out.

• The Los Mets decided to honor their patron saint (not Bill Buckner’s legs) by wearing these hats yesterday.

• The Royals went with full green uniforms and Tim Collins went the extra mile by using a green glove.

• The Reds wore these uniforms yesterday.

• Green caps for the Cubs.

• Green caps for the Padres, too.

•  And also for the Rockies.

•  And for the Astros.

• The Tigers had green uniforms and even green-clad grounds crew workers.

• Green jerseys and caps for the Brew Crew, too.

• In the NBA, the Chicago O’Bulls (see that) wore sleeved green jerseys in tribute to Saint Patrick. The O’Bulls also had a sleeved Joakim Noah bobble head giveaway yesterday

• The Celtics continued their extended celebration of the holiday, wearing their sleeved gold-trimmed uniforms for the third game in a row.

• Turning to hockey, several teams wore green warm-ups on Sunday, including the Sabres, Blackhawks, and Penguins.

• And there was also plenty of green on the soccer field.

So that’s a good sampling of green in the sports world. If that’s too much green for you, there’s one category of professionals who can’t wear green on Saint Patrick’s Day (or any other day): meteorologists.

(Thanks to Phil, Jimbo Huening, and Trevor Williams for their contributions.)

+ + + + +

Baseball News: Headwear shocker: Matt Peachey noticed that longtime double-flapper Shin-Soo Choo was single-flapped the other day. A Rangers spokesman confirms that Choo is experimenting with the single-flappage during spring training, although it’s not yet clear what he’ll do when the regular season starts. … The Diamondbacks airplane has a logo for the season-opening series in Australia (from Matthew Gunderson). … Nick Swisher ‘s New Balance cleats honor the Cleveland area code 216 (thanks, Phil). … Lots of Red Sox uni discussion in the first few minutes of this podcast (from Dennis Alpert).

NFL News: The Eagles played a charity basketball game over the weekend. At first Paul thought the very Nike-ish number font might be a hint of things to come on the gridiron, but it turns out that the numbers on last year’s charity hoops uni didn’t match the football jersey font either, so it probably doesn’t mean anything (from Jonathan Temple and Sean-Patrick McAllister). … Two from Phil: Steve Smith will keep No. 89 with Ravens but will wear SrOB because of a baby Smith son on the way, and the Patriots are already selling Darrelle Revis jerseys even though he doesn’t yet have a uni.

Hockey News: Some Flyers fans had their custom modified hockey jerseys censored at a Penguins game (from Alan Kreit). … What does everyone think of this list of the Best NHL Alternate Jerseys from the 1990s? Any missing sweaters that should be in consideration?

Basketball News: The Denver Nuggets honored their 1994 team by wearing ’94 throwbacks last night. Further info here (thanks, Phil). … The NCAA Division 1 Tournament “Big Dance” is more of a corporate dance-off between Nike and Adidas (thanks, Phil). Here is a bracket by uniform manufacturer to see the match-ups of the brands (from Christopher Hall). … The Minnesota Lynx unveiled their new primary uniform sponsor: the Mayo Clinic (thanks again, Phil).

Grab Bag: The Loyola Lacrosse team wears six different kinds of gloves on their team (from Connor Wilson). … “The football stadium at Woodbridge (NJ) High School was demolished today, and someone posted a photo of it to Facebook,” says Gregory Koch. “Since my dad and aunt went there, it showed up on my wall, and I noticed the logo is a complete ripoff of the Wisconson Badgers’ logo.” … “Change the way you look at logos,” says Brinke Guthrie. … What’s up with the raised plate on the back of this arena QB’s helmet? “Is it a mic box? An impact meter?” asks Nik Streng.

+ + + + +

NCAA Bracket Pool: Paul here. Big thanks to Garrett for handling all of today’s content — good stuff!

Now then: I have literally never filled out an NCAA bracket (doesn’t interest me), but I know lots of you like to get in on that, so we’re once again going to have a bracket pool here on the site. Reader Will Rausch has generously volunteered to set up the pool and tabulate the results, just as he did last year. Take it away, Will:

Hello, lovers of athletics aesthetics. Over the next three weeks, the NCAA will hold a tournament to determine the D-I men’s basketball champion. Perhaps you have heard of it? In honor of this, the annual Uni Watch March Madness bracket is back. You can join here (password: stirrups), and if that group fills up as in previous years, you can join the second group here (same password).

Scoring and rules are the same as the past: 1 point for correct picks in the first round, 2 points in the second, 4 in the sweet 16, 8 in the elite eight, 16 in the semis, and 32 for picking the champion. One entry per person, please.

Thanks, Will. The winner will get a prize from my swag bag and a free Uni Watch membership card.

Comments (125)

    Not sure if this happens frequently in Spring Training but during yesterday’s Angels/Cubs game the Angels had a #00 and a #0 in the same lineup.

    I hate “Jr.” or “Sr.” on a jersey. Unless you are the Griffeys, it is not needed or correct.

    Neither did the Ripkens (at least from what Bing Images shows me this morning) . . .

    So much “THIS” on your post Dumb Guy!

    I’ve tweeted many times during games the Jr/Sr and/or Roman Numeral are so unnecessary. Unless your son, father, brother is on the team, then knock it off.

    I’m with you, but suffixes are only reasonable for fathers and sons, not brothers. In the case of brothers, first initials, not suffixes, would be used, just as with two unrelated players with the same surname.

    “I hate ‘Jr.’ or ‘Sr.’ on a jersey.”


    If only there were some other way of telling the players apart…

    “If only there were some other way of telling the players apart…”

    Each player could wear a different corporate sponsor logo!

    Maybe they could holler their name as they come to bat or touch/hit/kick/throw the ball/puck.

    “Change the way you look at logos”:

    I’ve seen all those before. But I think the guy whiffed when he removed the back wheel from the Tour de France bicycle!!

    Since when has Yahoo required sending me an SMS code to participate? I’d prefer to not give them my cell number.

    I guess this means someone else gets to win this year! ;)

    “Since when has Yahoo required sending me an SMS code to participate?”


    Think this is the first time (and it’s bullshit). I debated not giving it, but fuck it…it’s not like the NSA doesn’t have it.

    It’s not just to verify, it’s that they will send you unlimited text messages… (authorize Yahoo to send me automated, marketing text messages.) Couldn’t it be moved to ESPN this year?

    Anyone without an American Cell Phone number unfortunately can’t participate in the $1B dance bracket. But I’d like to compete with you fellow Athletics Aesthetics.

    So I created a group on

    Name: Uni-Watch (Passwd stirrups)

    Hope to see you there

    best, Mat from Hamburg, Germany

    I was always a fan of the Blackhawks black alternate that they started wearing in 1996, and the Canucks alternate they wore from 95-97.

    Re the raised section on the arena QB’s helmet – I wouldn’t be surprised if it is some form of GPS tracker. They are used in rugby union a lot, stitched into the back of the jersey just below the neck: link

    “Where the hell is Jones?!”
    “I don’t know. I’ll track him with the GPS.”
    “GPS? That’s awesome!”
    “He’s at the other end of the bench, Coach.”

    I don’t get it.

    The black Capitals alternate was always a favorite of mine that should be on that list


    I mean look at the customization that had to go into those names!!!! They changed it back to regular letters eventually, but that style was really slick.

    I love the site and the forum it has brought to topic such as Chief Wahoo and the Washington Football Team.

    I’d like others to consider Irish Heritage as being proud as well. I felt the Mets could have chosen differently rather than stick a belt buckle hat and a red beard on Mr. Met – imagine celebrating say Cinco De Mayo or Chinese Heritage Night in a similar way.

    Also, the choice of the graphic in the main section today is the sort of thing I hope to encourage folks to avoid.

    This is not a rant. I continue to love the site and Paul. In the spirit of the discussions here I merely wish to initiate a discussion of the Irish stereotype and why it is somehow acceptable in American culture.

    “…Also, the choice of the graphic in the main section today is the sort of thing I hope to encourage folks to avoid…”

    Comon, he’s throwing up Lucky Charms!

    Exactly. The leprechaun in the lead isn’t depicting Irish culture, it’s mocking stereotypes (and specifically, the commercialization of stereotypes) of Irish-American culture. As a proud and sometimes culturally defensive Irish-American, I wholeheartedly approve of the vomiting leprechaun!

    “leprechauns aren’t people.”


    You just went there, didn’t you?

    The Mets used a leprechaun — what would be the Chinese or Mexican equivalent?

    Realistically? A poorly made dragon costume or an over-sized sombrero.

    All 3 could be seen by some as poor representations of each culture, regardless of not being depictions of real people.

    Uncle Sam: culturally insensitive figure or not? Go.

    Well, he’s an old white guy telling us to go die for our country. So, the answer to that question depends on your view of politicians.

    Because Irish Americans already have a considerable stake in American society and wield a considerable amount of power. These stereotypes aren’t preventing people from getting out of poverty, they aren’t influencing people to think of the Irish as a lesser people and (perhaps even most importantly) they aren’t in any way racially motivated.

    There are examples of Irish stereotypes which do fit these criteria – the works of Thomas Nast for one heavily link the immigrant Irish with the explicit goal of alienating and “othering” them. In light of link I hope you’ll understand that modern day paddywhackery is not just benign but a testament to the connection between power and cultural depiction within society.

    Would you care to explain how a mascot or logo like Chief Wahoo or the Redskins prevent Native Americans from getting out of poverty?

    I’ll hang up and listen to your answer on the air.

    Because perceptions and identity matter, both for those who are doing the perceiving and those who are being perceived. Reducing an entire class of people to mascots and stereotyped cartoons prevents (or at least inhibits) or society from perceiving them as real people, and the way society perceives people affects the way they perceive themselves.

    Will eliminating Wahoo and the ’Skins name automatically lift Natives out of poverty? Of course not. But it will be a step toward perceiving them as real human beings, not cartoon caricatures. And that’s a long-overdue step.

    Respectfully disagree. It’s one thing to believe the imagery is racist, offensive, etc. I think it’s drawing a pretty big conclusion that it’s actually keeping a group of people down.

    I mean, look, the NCAA has done a ton to get rid of a lot of American Indian imagery. Every “RED HAWKS”, “RED STORM”, etc, type of name you seen now has its roots in an American Indian nickname and/or mascot and has been changed. Can you definitively say this has helped the plight of Native Americans current day?

    I didn’t say it was racist. But now that you’ve said it, do you honestly think the mainstream presence of racist imagery doesn’t have a negative cultural effect on the target of that racism?

    @Paul, i have never looked at my many Chief Wahoo hats and thought.. the Native American people aren’t real people.

    Don’t you think that their poverty level has to do with more with their isolation on their reservations and the unwillingness to move to find better employment opportunities elsewhere? it just seems you’re trying to connect two things that aren’t really connected in the grand scheme of things.

    There are psychological studies that suggest negative Native American imagery does affect native people in not insignificant ways.

    Tony, I think the oversimplified reasoning you give for the extant poverty exemplifies exactly the point Paul’s making. You don’t have to explicitely think they’re inhuman to be able to assume stereotypes to them (stubborn primitives).

    @Paul, i have never looked at my many Chief Wahoo hats and thought.. the Native American people aren’t real people.

    Of course you haven’t.

    No offense, Tony, but the cultural effects of visual stereotypes don’t happen on the “I see [x] and immediately think [y]” level. They happen on the subliminal, implicit level.

    Enjoy this site, and hope the policy of anonymity will continue, it was always my understanding not publishing the email of people extended to not using last names either. A mistake was made using my last name and I’d appreciate remaining “masked”, if you will.

    Regarding the Redskin controversy, if we go with the concept of slurs and racist imagery as the negatives of a nickname, could someone please show me an historically black college which does the same? I can’t think of any, but Red Mesa High School, located on an Navajo reservation, has been the Redskins for many years.

    So wouldn’t a school located in an Indian reservation be absolutely the last place to use the Redskins nickname? If the nickname was as harmful as suggested, why expose the young students to this for years?

    Wait… you DON’T think it’s racist? What’s the purpose of this campaign/cause then? I’m so confused, it seems the goal posts keep moving.

    Tony, it’s not a matter of whether you think Native Americans are “real people.” Thank goodness you apparently do, because otherwise there would be no point in even having this debate. The question is whether stereotypical depictions of a group of people perpetuate belief that they and their culture are inherently inferior – worthy of little more than amused mockery rather than respect.

    Candidly, the examples you use to support your position point to the likelihood that Chief Wahoo may very well be having that affect on you. The issue of poverty on Indian reservations is so much more complex than your proposed solution of “why don’t they just move and get a job?”. The very suggestion implies a belief in the inherent inferiority of the reservation’s residents for being incapable of “pulling themselves up their bootstraps.”

    i am saying the two are not directly related. my moving and looking for employment else where is a more realistic solution to the Native American poverty than the “hey maybe if we get rid of a few more logos, it might help their self confidence in the long run approach”. Sure there are steps need to be taken to better the rest of the country’s relationship with the native american population, but changing a few names and logs would be drops in an ocean in terms of fixing the problem


    I’m pretty sure personal, micro issues can exist in the same time and place as larger, inter-generational macro issues.


    I’m pretty sure personal, micro issues can exist in the same time and place as larger, inter-generational macro issues.

    Sure, making mascots and nicknames more respectful and less assholish might not do a whole lot in the short term, but it’s a step in the right direction and it would be a nice start, and a highly visible one at that, to changing the culture.

    my moving and looking for employment else where is a more realistic solution to the Native American poverty than the “hey maybe if we get rid of a few more logos, it might help their self confidence in the long run approach”.

    Actually, it’s not. Your “solution” places the entire burden for affecting societal change on the people who were marginalized and relegated to reservations in the first place. It absolves the government and prevailing culture of any responsibility in correcting a problem that they created and continue to perpetuate. That’s no solution at all.

    Also, the “solution” assumes everyone has the same level of social capital and support systems as Tony C. It’s a basketful of privilege.

    @terriblehuman, you assume i speak from a privileged background and not one from that had to pick up and move because the local region’s economy was/is dying.

    You’re confusing my use of the term “privilege” here. It’s less about wealth than social capital and the overall benefits that come from not being part of a marginalized group.

    I know American Indians are people. And, I wondered if I could come up with the name of a single person who may not know that Native Americans are real people – and I failed not think of a single person. I googled “American Indians are not real people” and struck out again. I failed to think of or locate a single person who didn’t think that Native Americans are real people – let alone an entire society.

    This has been covered before (like the green dot). Paul believes the imagery is “offensive” and does not deny that it is “racist” – and there is a tag category for “Racist/Offensive Logos or Imagery” on the site

    Richard, in response to your first comment, had you been bothered to read the thread you will have noticed that such facetiousness had already been addressed:

    “the cultural effects of visual stereotypes don’t happen on the “I see [x] and immediately think [y]” level. They happen on the subliminal, implicit level.” – Paul at 10:56

    As for your second comment, if you knew anything about the debate you’ll know that Paul has in fact explicitly stated that this debate is NOT about what imagery is “offensive” and not. Also, that “Racist/Offensive Logos or Imagery” tag has exactly one post under it and it’s by Phil and not Paul.

    I know you just wanted to be a big tough guy and act like a smart arse on the internet but please, do two seconds of research before you next get the urge, thanks

    “Because Irish Americans already have a considerable stake in American society and wield a considerable amount of power.”

    Why should this matter? Offensive is offensive.

    “(perhaps even most importantly) they aren’t in any way racially motivated.”

    Why is this “most” important?

    Offensive is offensive, but at least there’s a balance between the negative/cartoonish and the positive/respectful. Also, because of the stake Irish-Americans have in society, they have enough power to push back on negative imagery – a lot of the cartoonish images are self-mockery, not the mainstream stereotyping a marginalized group.

    Having your pride in your “heritage” (whatever such a term actually means) dented by a blow-up tricolour hammer and being “offended” by the Redskins name or Wahoo aren’t good enough reasons to oppose something. People’s personal hang-ups, their linguistic and genealogical fetishes, are purely parenthetical. The reasons to oppose imagery should come from a consideration of whether there are any actual tangible victims.

    I think the Irish example demonstrates distinctly how the ability to attach a racial aspect to a negative depiction is something that was very much sought after as a means of legitimizing opposition to a certain people. The Irish example furthermore shows that the failure to make a racial aspect stick was a distinctly important aspect of how the Irish were able to empower themselves.

    Best part is, while the original post in this thread decried the depiction of Irish stereotypes in a calm and measured manner, the downstream responses strain to defend them on the grounds “but it’s not as objectionable as/like Chief Wahoo is,” which was neither claimed nor is relevant. Funny stuff.

    A) The original poster made it clear that he was raising the question at least with a passing regard for the ongoing Wahoo and Redskins debate, as well as with regard other cultural stereotyping of Chinese and Hispanic communities.

    B) When did anybody make such a ridiculous binary comparison as the one you have assumed upon us? I think you’ll find in general that the point being made is that judging what cultural imagery is or isn’t acceptable in society should be determined not by arbitrary notions of how much it honours or dishonours the “pride” of the given heritage being depicted but should rather be based on whether it actually, tangibly victimizes anybody. Wahoo and the Redskins are very relevant to this topic.

    Why should this matter? Offensive is offensive.

    This is a huge problem with the discussion of this issue: People try to assert universally applicable, context-free rules. Life ain’t like that, and no valid (that is to say, virtuous) system of morality is like that either. Context matters. Context always matters.

    To take an extreme but true illustration. One man spends weeks carefully planning how he will subdue a woman, render her unconscious, then cut her repeatedly with a knife. One day, he finds the woman alone, subdues her and cuts her just as he planned, and she dies. Did a crime just happen? First-degree murder, right? We’ve got premeditation and the predictable death of the victim. Unless the man is a surgeon, the woman is a patient, and she sought the surgeon’s treatment for a tumor. Context is everything.

    So yes, the context of an established, culturally and politically powerful majority group (my own!) making fun of itself is different from a majority group making fun of a culturally and politically marginalized minority group. Status matters; that’s why the phrase “pick on someone your own size” carries weight. It’s why we call the man who stands up to a raging mob a hero and the man who joins a mob to attack an individual a coward.

    When I check out Uni Watch, usually late morning, and find 80+ comments I know that race is the primary topic of the day.

    RE: The Woodbridge High School W. Yea, that’s been their logo for as long as I can remember. If I’m not mistaken, it was on their 50 yard line too. They are known as the Barons. So not even toooo far off from the Badgers

    The Woodbridge High School in the Northern Virginia town of Woodbridge where I live is the Vikings, and they use as logos the Badgers’ motion-W and the Vikings’ Norseman-head, rendered in Packers’ green and gold. I’m pretty sure every native Minnesotan and Wisconsinite dies a little inside whenever we see a Woodbridge Vikings bumper sticker on the back of a car.

    I don’t have a picture, but the mask bumper on those Arena League helmets looked huge too.
    I wonder if it has to do with some kind of concussion monitoring system.

    If you’re dumb enough to get a rival team’s star player’s name and number (even if it does have “sucks” after it) on your hockey jersey, then I have no issue with said rival team not allowing you to wear it.

    Yknow, because it’s a monumentally dumb idea to begin with.

    I do. Teams serve as, to some degree, civic enterprises. They shouldn’t be censoring fan expression, provided that expression is within the bounds of the notorious “community standards”.

    But they’re definitely NOT government entities. These putzes think their right to self-expression trumps all. In fact, it does not.

    Going to see sports in person has become a tedious endeavour. The drunken, profane fans are everywhere. I drink and swear as much as anyone, but I have a sense of civil behavior when in public settings. It makes it difficult to enjoy an event that I’ve paid a substantial sum to attend. It also makes it nearly impossible to take my young kids to these games. I’m tired of the continual decline in public behavior and the team was well within its rights to remove the shirts from view.

    100% agree with GreenBow10. The debate here isn’t about censorship, this is a debate about common decency and the the lack of social dignity. The arena is not a public space, it’s a private building. End of story on the freedom of speech angle.

    Just another example of our “Hey look at me” society and how nobody seems to take others into consideration anymore, or how you come off as an individual. As long as we are getting attention, that’s all that matters. Unfortunately the arena HAS to have policy’s in place because of people like this.

    The arena is not a public space, it’s a private building.

    Actually, it’s owned by the Sports & Exhibition Authority of Pittsburgh and Allegheny County, so it’s not private at all.

    I have little sympathy for boorish yahoos who wear provocative statements, and I think a case can be made that these jerseys crossed the line into the realm of “fighting words,” which are not protected. But it’s important to remember that free expression still exists at a sporting event, including for those who choose to wear the jersey of the visiting team, or who choose not to stand during the national anthem, or many other forms of quiet expression that the authorities might not approve of but should nonetheless tolerate.

    Not defending these particular jerseys. Just pointing out that free expression doesn’t stop at the turnstile.

    That’s what happens when I say something without an ounce of research. I took a shot and missed.

    I get your points and they are all responsible ways of self-expression. Chances are neither of your points will incite a riot/violence or boarder on profanity. Though it seems these days you can’t even wear the jersey of the opposing team to some venues without being attacked, but that’s a different issue.

    But once again, like I said, it’s not about censorship to me, it comes down to common decency and the lack there of in order to get attention. These guys knew what they were doing. It had to of dawned on them at one point that, “hey, wearing these at a Pens game could have negative consequences”. I am all for self-expression and freedom of speech, and all that jazz. But I would also like to take my kids to events without fear of them seeing something inappropriate or less than tasteful at the least. Isn’t that my right as a ticket holder?

    If I am not mistaken, the Clippers wore green St. Patrick’s Day t-shirts during warm-ups during last night’s game.

    BTW – any word if the MLB will be selling the Mets St. Patrick’s Day hats? I thought they were really neat.

    Nike’s number font on the Eagles basketball jerseys may not be a portent of things to come in the near term, but might be a non-official testing ground for a change. Let’s see how the fans like it. Let’s see how the players like it. Let’s see how ownership likes it. Maybe not today or tomorrow but it’s coming.

    As a follow up to the Clippers/Nuggets game last night, the two teams went color on color. The Clippers in the red jerseys and the Nuggets in the dark blue.

    BTW – I found a pic of the Clippers wearing their green warm-up t-shirts.

    Don’t be a hater, you could dye your tidal estuary if you wanted. Dying the Chicago is a link going back fifty plus years.

    I never understood why anyone would be against a city dying a river green. Numerous cities practice the tradition, not just Chicago.

    Is someone making you look at the green river? Is it somehow negatively impacting your life in some way? My city dyed the river on Saturday and it brought out a considerable crowd to witness it. It was a fair-like atmosphere with food vendors, bands, and fun. The immediate commercial area benefited from having this simple little event.

    I wasn’t at the event this year, but it was pretty cool driving across the river and seeing it colored a Kelly Green.

    Is someone making you look at the green river? Is it somehow negatively impacting your life in some way?

    One could argue (although I’m not necessarily doing so myself) that dying a natural resource is tacky, undignified, disrespectful to nature, and almost certainly injurious to wildlife on some level, and therefore demeans us all by pandering to a base level of kitsch.

    You know, sort of how tacky uniforms make a mockery of sports.

    I wouldn’t think that anyone would view dying the Chicago River green would be disrespectful to nature. Well, not any more disrespectful than the condition the river is kept in year-round.

    Important to remember that the idea to dye the river green was born when they saw the effects of a plumber using green tracer dye to see which raw sewage line was feeding directly into the river. Yuck.

    Paul, I thought the NBA demonstrated that there was nothing better you could do for the environment than dying everything in sight green?

    Considering that the Chicago River link, I suspect that being respectful to nature isn’t too high on the city’s priority list.

    Chicago O’Bulls?

    Is that a typo by any chance? maybe was supposed to be “Chicag O’Bulls”?

    I am thinking that is not Tim Collin’s glove, since he is a lefty, but still a cool item.

    I’ve always found the baseball observance of St.Pat’s Day with unis/caps to exist in some kind of weird netherworld because it will always happen during pre-season when nothing really “counts.”

    At least in hockey, when they make a special jersey just for one game (i.e. Winter Classics), it seems to have a lot more significance because the game “counts.”


    File under “two-sport athletes”: A number of <a href="link Roughriders laced up the skates for hockey, in special Roughrider unis.

    I don’t if anyone else is seeing this, but on my screen an ad popped up at the right of this page that promised a list of “link” This certainly sounds interesting — I don’t remember any athletes that kept playing after they were dead, much less 20 of them.

    “There have probably been some brief examples among race-car drivers.”

    Oooh! That’s morbid!

    Athletes sometimes live for many years after they retire, others die BEFORE they retire thereby qualifying them for dying before their careers are over.

    Yeah. But then I thought better of it.

    As most readers are aware by now, rankings and brackets and such don’t much interest me. I know lots of you like them, and I’m sorry I don’t share your enthusiasm for them. Just not my thing.

    As far as I know, and after consulting with multiple dictionaries and linguistics sites, the two words appear to be interchangeable. “Prideful” does seem to carry a more negative connotation (i.e. “pride” as one of the seven deadly sins), but it’s not by definition.

    My favorite Anaheim Ducks/Mighty Ducks of Anaheim alternate jersey was the home (white) alternate they wore from 1997 to 2000:

    I’m not very fond of the away (teal) version though:

    The raised bumper on the back of the Arena Ball helmet is either a storage or battery pack for mini camera located on the nose bumper. Schutt is the manufacturer, despite what looks like an exclusive sponsorship of the AFL.

    We’ve seen photos of the nose bumper and imbedded camera from Texas Tech and Clemson, but, we haven’t seen the back side.

    link: link

    Didn’t expect this to be posted today, but here’s my latest ESPN column, which is about the history of tucked and untucked jerseys:

    Just sent Paul a long email about my experiences with soccer jersey tucking and realized it might make for some good discussion.

    The part most relevant to group talk:

    In the 80s and early 90s, many soccer shorts came with a sort of underwear liner already in them (kind of like men’s swimsuits do). That also made tucking incredibly difficult. Obviously a guy can speak more to this than I can – being both female and a kid at that time, I have no idea if grown men actually wore those shorts without other underwear in them. I’d guess some did, or it wouldn’t have been a thing. Also because those were small, short shorts at times and I can’t imagine there was room for more under them, you know? But that underwear liner really prevented you from being able to have much of your jersey in your pants. For instance, in the pic linked of Glen Hoddle – his jersey is longer than his shorts. If those shorts had an underwear liner, can you imagine how/where that jersey would have gone? And how bulky it would have been in those tiny shorts?

    As a kid, where you just got assigned a shirt that didn’t necessarily fit the best, it was a BIG problem. And the uniform was issued to you, so no modifications could happen. As I got older and was buying my own stuff, I’d just cut the liner out.

    re: being assigned a shirt vs getting your own

    prime example is link, who wears his uniform so tight, he probably couldn’t tuck if he wanted to.

    And yeah, a lot of it is the uniform construction. In the late 90s, uniforms were baggy, with sleeves flailing everywhere. Now the jerseys are snugger, even if they’re not exactly form-fitting.

    For historical purposes:

    The Reds photo linked in the article shows them with red batting helmets.

    Although they didn’t change the color of their batting helmets, the Reds did wear green caps the rest of the day.



    The Spokane Indians will be using the Salish language to spell out their name on their alternate jerseys this year:


    The usually blue-clad Schalke is wearing green against Real Madrid. Doesn’t have anything to do with St. Patrick’s Day, I’m sure.

    White Sox untucked jersey looks awful.

    Watched grapefruit league today and I saw a Boston player with a #3 isn’t that number retired?

    Has it occurred to you that in the time it took you to post that comment, you could have googled the words “Red Sox retired numbers”?


    I was at work.
    My work does not involve computers but humans, so in between clients I quickly went on my android.

    you went on your android to post here rather than just googling “red sox retired numbers”?

    yeah, that makes perfect sense.

    The Fighting Illini have quite a cool looking hockey uniform (the Illini are a club team). There’s a bit of Boston Bruin in it, albeit with the colors changed to dark blue and orange


Comments are closed.