This real money site caters to all players, with reviews on mobile games you can play, including slots, blackjack, and roulette.

Under Armour Unveils New Under Armour Uniform for Under Armour (special thanks to Under Armour)

I’ve been saying for many years now that the uni-verse’s client/vendor relationship in way out of whack, especially in college sports. There’s the impression — and, in some cases, the reality — that the vendors are calling the shots and that manufacturers like Nike, Under Armour, and Adidas are more important than the schools they outfit. The manufacturers happily fuel this narrative by using templated designs for the teams and schools in their stable, making it look like a bunch of schools are all playing for Team Nike, or Team Adidas, or whatever. Media outlets make things worse by using headlines like “Commodores Unveil New Nike Alternate Uniform,” as if the fact that Vanderbilt’s new alt uni is made by Nike — just like all of Vandy’s other uniforms — is somehow newsworthy.

Longtime reader R. Scott Rogers succinctly summed up the current state of affairs in a comment he posted on the site yesterday. He was talking about the Nike and the NFL, but his analysis applies just as well to the other outfitters and to college sports: “Nike does not do design. Nike does brand-promotional merchandising (that is, Nike exploits its clients to promote and merchandise the Nike brand).”

A few hours after Scott posted that comment, I saw something I’d never seen before. It came out of Cincinnati, where the Bearcats will be wearing a new uniform design this weekend to commemorate homecoming and the 100th anniversary of Nippert Stadium. We’ve known about this uniform for a month and a half now. But with the game coming up in a few days, there’s a new promotional push, and it includes — well, see for yourself:

It’s amazing what people are capable of when their shame gland has been surgically removed, isn’t it?

It’s common practice, of course, for promotional photos of college jerseys to include placeholder NOBs, because they don’t want to run afoul of NCAA rules about using the players’ names for commercial purposes. The placeholder is usually the name of the school or the name of the team. But I think this is the first time I’ve seen the manufacturer’s name used as the placeholder. It reeks of brazen corporate hubris, and it’s particularly inappropriate in this case, since the uniform is supposedly honoring the school’s homecoming and the stadium’s centennial. Why not use “Homecoming” or “Nippert”? Putting “Under Armour” on there is like baking a cake for someone’s birthday and putting your name on it instead of the friend’s. It’s saying, “HEY EVERYONE, HERE I AM, LOOK AT ME! IT’S ALL ABOUT MEEEEE!!”

Interestingly, an earlier round of photos from last month showed “Cincy” on the back. So the Under Armour folks had to go out of their way to create another promo jersey with the self-aggrandizing NOB. Douchebags.

The placeholder NOB won’t be worn in the game, of course. And some of you may be thinking, “It’s just for display — what’s the big deal?” That’s a good question, but here are some better ones: Why would you want a display uniform that glorifies the outfitter instead of the team? What kind of corporate ego does it take to come up with the idea of putting your company’s name on the jersey to begin with? What kind of people think like that? Is it really so hard to realize that the NOB should be team-related, not outfitter-related? Given that the UA logo already appears on the jersey, pants, and other accessories, isn’t that more than enough? Is there any other industry where a vendor could get away with (or would even consider) touting itself at the expense of the client?

I suppose there’s also the possibility that this jersey was lettered up by the Cincy equipment staff, not the Under Armour staff, which would qualify as a particularly depressing case of Stockholm Syndrome. Either way, though, this episode contributes to the steady drip-drip-drip of developments that have increasingly turned college teams into little more than marketing arms of their outfitters. That state of affairs is utter bullshit and completely unacceptable, and deserves to be called out as such.

•  •  •  •  •

The Ticker
By Paul

Baseball News: Word I’m hearing is that the Angels will drop the “of Anaheim” suffix next season and be known as the Los Angeles Angels, period. Of course, they still play in Anaheim, and their stadium’s name (this week, at least) is Angel Stadium of Anaheim. No word on what the team name change will mean for the stadium name.

NFL News: The Bills play the Jags in London this Sunday. Will they wear these Union Jack socks? Doubt it, but that would be pretty funny (from Blake Moushon). ”¦ Here’s a breakdown of NFL violations and fines. Almost all of the players are multi-millionaires and the fines therefore mean nothing to them, so the fascination with fines eludes me (from Peter Schultz). ”¦ State Farm’s latest commercial featuring Aaron Rodgers has a uni-related twist (from Kary Klismet). ”¦Good critique of the NFL’s Pinktober initiative here (from Andrew Koenig). ”¦ An unsourced report, the veracity of which I’m in no position to assess, claims that the reason the Lions are wearing the William Clay Ford memorial patch for a second season is that Ford’s widow insisted on it (from Christopher Pirrone). ”¦ After a chat with league honchos, Steelers DL Cam Heyward has decided to stop wearing the eye black honoring his late father. Here’s his full statement on the matter (from Jerry Wolper).

College Football News: Texas A&M’s glow-in-the-dark BFBS uniforms won’t be worn in the dark. ”¦ Matte black helmet apparently the works for Memphis. ”¦ Arkansas State pandered to the U! S! A! crowd last night. ”¦ In that same game, Louisiana- Lafayette wore helmets with a giant fleur de lis on one side and a uni number on the other. ”¦ Whiteout helmet for Georgia TechChris Wheeler). ”¦ The Big Ten Network’s website has a recurring uni-centric feature called “Clothes Call,” which includes some basketball coverage but is mostly about B1G college football (from Kary Klismet). ”¦ Nebraska’s miserable black alts will be worn this weekend.

Hockey News: Rangers G Antti Raanta, who’s from Finland, has begun wearing a new mask adorned with Moomin characters. “Moomins are fantasy characters by a Finnish writer and illustrator, Tove Jansson. They first appeared in comic strips in the ’40s but remain highly popular today, mainly in northern Europe but also in Japan,” explains Mira Muikku. ”¦ Love this 1936 shot of NHL goalie Tiny Thompson posing with four pee-wee goalies wearing kid-sized NHL uniforms of that era (nice find by Will Scheibler). ”¦ Star Wars jerseys upcoming for the Cincinnati Cyclones (from @labflyer).

Basketball News: Halifax’s new NBL team will be called the Hurricanes. ”¦ Here’s the Heat’s alternate jersey sked for the upcoming season. It includes references to some alternate designs that haven’t yet been officially unveiled, although we know about them via the torrent of recent leaks (thanks, Phil). … Pink-accented uniforms for Georgetown. ”¦ New uniforms for LaSalle.

Soccer News: The National Women’s Soccer League has added its 10th team, the Orlando Pride, which will begin play next year. The logo design shows the Lake Eola water fountain in downtown Orlando (from @DaveDoop). ”¦ Possible badge change in the works for DC United (from John Muir).

Grab Bag: As I’ve mentioned many times here on the site, I give blood as often as they’ll let me and am a big supporter of blood donation in general. But this thing that’s been going on in Alabama is seriously fucked up.

144 comments to Under Armour Unveils New Under Armour Uniform for Under Armour (special thanks to Under Armour)

  • Dumb Guy | October 21, 2015 at 8:18 am |

    Do Union Jack socks fall into the Flag Desecration category?

    Or do we only care about the U.S. flag?

    • Paul Lukas | October 21, 2015 at 8:36 am |

      It depends. Is there a strong culture of UK sports teams using the Union Jack for cheap rah-rah faux-patriotism?

      When we did the July shirts for the Uni Watch T-Shirt Club, we put “Pandering” on the back of the stars/stripes design because that was/is an accurate description of what stars/stripes uniforms have become. But we simply put “Canada Day” on the Canada Day design, because there’s no corresponding flag-based rah-rah culture in Canadian sports.

      Case-by-case basis.

      Also, in this particular case, wearing a foreign country’s flag while playing in that country seems more like a sign of being a respectful guest, not mindless rah-rah-ism.

      • Stumpy | October 21, 2015 at 8:56 am |

        Nope no sports teams over here use the Union Flag (It’s only the Union Jack if it is at sea) for “rah-rah faux-patriotism”

        • DJ | October 21, 2015 at 10:51 am |

          In many sports, you have the Home Nations (England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland), who mostly use national colors, floral symbols, or other designs as opposed to the flag.

          The Union Flag seems to be reserved for Team GB, the team that represents “Great Britain” in Olympic Sport competition. I recall reading a recent story about the World Track & Field Championships, where there was some outrage about the Union Flag NOT being on the uniforms this time.

        • Chance Michaels | October 21, 2015 at 11:37 am |

          Ironic, considering that the Union Flag represents the United Kingdom, not Great Britain.

        • diz | October 21, 2015 at 12:19 pm |

          not really ironic at all, the athletics team has the full name of Great Britain & Northern Ireland, which annoys some in NI when it gets shortened to GB

        • Chance Michaels | October 21, 2015 at 12:49 pm |

          I was talking about the designation “Team GB.” There have been some advocating that they adopt “Team UK” instead, which would at least fit the flag.

      • KC | October 21, 2015 at 11:18 am |

        ” wearing a foreign country’s flag while playing in that country seems more like a sign of being a respectful guest”

        Does that still apply if you’re wearing it on your feet (i.e., walking all over it)?

      • Chris Cruz | October 21, 2015 at 12:42 pm |

        While the Union Jack may not really be worn much on uniforms, both the St. George’s Cross and Union Jack have been adapted into soccer/football flags (and for political messages) for years – something that does not happen with Old Glory.

        http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/ODEwWDE0NDA=/z/CUgAAOSwyQtVo5Xw/$_35.JPG
        https://leaveitfella.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/edl-flags.jpg

        • Chance Michaels | October 21, 2015 at 12:54 pm |

          In his book Fever Pitch, Nick Hornby talks about how the England national football team rescued the flag of England from the racist fringe who were using it as a racial symbol.

          You’re right that we don’t have the same history of altering the American flag, but that appears to be changing.

        • mike 2 | October 21, 2015 at 6:19 pm |

          What the hell does the flag of England and the national football team have to do with a book about the Boston Red Sox

          (I kid)

    • mike 2 | October 21, 2015 at 11:51 am |

      There’s absolutely a rah-rah culture around the Canadian flag in sports.

      What we don’t have is an obsession with treating it like a religious relic. We’re capable of using it in celebration without having somebody quote the Flag Code at us like its the lost final chapter of the Old Testament.

      Whether or not any English or UK teams use their flag in uniforms, I think they still have a joyfulness about their national symbols.

      • Chance Michaels | October 21, 2015 at 12:57 pm |

        There’s a difference between joyfulness and crass commercialization. The United States long since passed across that Mendoza Line, I’ll trust others to determine where Canada falls.

  • Tony C | October 21, 2015 at 8:18 am |

    Anaheim is going to pissed if the Angels finally drop Anaheim for good https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Anaheim_v._Angels_Baseball_LP

    • Dumb Guy | October 21, 2015 at 8:36 am |

      I still call them the California Angels.

    • walter | October 21, 2015 at 9:11 am |

      So it was okay for the L.A. Rams to use that nomenclature in Anaheim but not the Angels?

      • Kirby | October 21, 2015 at 9:30 am |

        It probably was OK since the Rams probably did not have an agreement to use “Anaheim” in the team’s name. The Angels agreed to call themselves Anaheim in exchange for City funding.

        • Rob S | October 21, 2015 at 9:33 am |

          And that arrangement didn’t happen until 1996, after the Rams had already left for St. Louis.

      • TBone | October 21, 2015 at 9:34 am |

        I’d say the difference is the Rams never called themselves Anaheim and then reverted to LA. The Angels were originally the LA Angels before moving out to Orange County, and any of their names (LA, California, Anaheim) were fine for what they were. It was only after they went from being the Anaheim Angels to the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim that they completely failed the “is it good or is it stupid” test.

        • Chance Michaels | October 21, 2015 at 9:41 am |

          They only went to “Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim” because the team wanted out from the naming sponsorship agreement and the city attorneys who drafted it were so laughably bad as to allow the gaping loophole.

          Now that the contract has expired, the team is free to take back the name they’ve wanted for years.

        • Le Cracquere | October 21, 2015 at 9:46 am |

          If I understand correctly, the Los Angeles Angels played their entire first season in Anaheim (at the confusingly-named Wrigley Field). In other words, there’s already solid precedent for a team called the “Los Angeles Angels” playing in Anaheim. That’s why I never had a problem with the 2005 name change, and why I don’t have a problem with the proposed one.

        • Chance Michaels | October 21, 2015 at 10:05 am |

          Wrigley Field wasn’t in Anaheim – it was south of downtown, near USC.

          But Anaheim is part of the Los Angeles metro area (as much as Orange County has lamented that in the past), so LA Angels is just fine.

        • Chance Michaels | October 21, 2015 at 10:09 am |

          I remembered correctly – here’s an arial view of Wrigley looking west towards the Coliseum.

        • TBone | October 21, 2015 at 12:21 pm |

          I get that teams in a metro area take the name of the dominant city, even if they don’t play inside that city’s limits. That’s why we still have the Dallas Cowboys and the New York Jets/Giants. Those don’t bother me, because they have always had those names. But to me, once you go to the name Anaheim, you’re establishing that as the area you represent. Going back to Los Angeles Angels while still staying in Anaheim is dumb, although not as dumb as the “Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim” name was. No name could be dumber than that one.

        • Chance Michaels | October 21, 2015 at 12:59 pm |

          But what they’ve learned is that Anaheim alone is not enough.

    • walter | October 21, 2015 at 10:51 am |

      I agree with the owner’s contention that “Los Angeles” has more ka-ching! than “Anaheim”.

    • Michael Emody | October 21, 2015 at 3:14 pm |

      Using the metropolitan area for the team’s name is fine – preferable to using the state as the location.

  • J | October 21, 2015 at 8:22 am |

    Apparently somebody is in a pissy mood this morning

    • Paul Lukas | October 21, 2015 at 8:25 am |

      I’m in a fucking awesome mood! My team is one win away from the World Series, my broken arm feels sooooo much better than it did 24 hrs ago, the weather in NYC is ridiculously nice at the moment, and I’m typing this from an extremely comfy bed.

      But the Under Armour NOB is still a classic case of corporate douchebaggery.

  • Hodges14 | October 21, 2015 at 8:24 am |

    YouTube video of State Farm commercial has been removed.

  • Rob S | October 21, 2015 at 8:41 am |

    If that Lions story is true, then it just further demonstrates that Martha Ford is even more out-of-touch with this fanbase than her late husband was.

    Makes me wonder if Senior always intended to leave the team to his wife, or if he changed it after Junior was basically the one who forced the firing of Matt Millen.

    • mild bill | October 21, 2015 at 12:24 pm |

      One-percenters are interesting. Especially those who own professional sports teams (particularly NFL teams).

  • Chris | October 21, 2015 at 8:41 am |

    MLB should enforce their uniform policy or at least take note of the NFL’s #4 &5 rule on the above mentioned list.

  • marc | October 21, 2015 at 8:55 am |

    “Texas A&M’s glow-in-the-dark BFBS uniforms won’t be worn in the dark”

    BWAHAHA? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! I love when a stupid stunt backfires before it even gets off the launchpad.

    • marc | October 21, 2015 at 8:56 am |

      Oops… that should read “BWAHAHA!” with an exclamation, not a question. Stupid caffeine hasn’t kicked in yet.

      • quarlie | October 21, 2015 at 1:34 pm |

        I like it with the question mark. It reads like a moment of incredulity before the laughter fully kicks in.

    • Rob S | October 21, 2015 at 9:54 am |

      Yeah, you’d think they’d want to do a better job coordinating with their conference.

      Though, I have to question their schedule choices. Tennessee at Kentucky? Really? This is a game you want in prime time?

      • Bill | October 21, 2015 at 4:22 pm |

        The tv networks set the schedule, not the conference.

        • Rob S. | October 21, 2015 at 6:38 pm |

          Even worse then.

  • K | October 21, 2015 at 8:58 am |

    Somewhere along the way, you made this blog more about your hard-wired stances on a few overarching topics (NA mascots, flag use, black alternates) and less about the uniforms and logos that we all love to discuss. It’s sad, really, that you’ve become such a predictable, sour voice.

    • Paul Lukas | October 21, 2015 at 9:17 am |

      Correction: From Day One, Uni Watch has *always* been driven by my sensibilities, the end. If people enjoy that, that’s great; if not, that’s fine too. I couldn’t please everyone even if I wanted to, so I just follow my nose and do what makes sense to me. The rest is up to you.

      It’s interesting that you presume to speak for “we all.” You must be very tuned into the larger Uni Watch community. Me, I’m not so presumptuous — I speak only for myself.

      As for me being “predictable,” you’re essentially accusing me of being consistent. That is a compliment — thank you.

      And as for me “sour,” I simply call bullshit when/where I see bullshit. And, unfortunately, there’s soooooo much bullshit out there.

      • Chance Michaels | October 21, 2015 at 9:43 am |

        Speaking only for myself, I love it when the bullshit gets called for what it is.

        Wouldn’t be here if I didn’t. It’s a big internets.

        • ThePonchat | October 21, 2015 at 11:00 am |

          I’m with Chance on this one. I am a ranter myself…so, reading other rants is fun for me. I get a bigger kick out of them when they are legitimate, as I believe many of Paul’s are. Don’t have to read OR reply if you don’t like the post of the day.

          When I became a Uni-Watch reader/replier/slight-submitter, I was well aware of what Paul used this blog for. It opened my eyes to a lot more (Native American imagery, namely) and made me think more on how I am able to incorporate tradition, creativity, and other elements when I design shirts or kits for teams I’m affiliated with.

          I get tired of the seemingly daily comments of people telling Paul they’re tired of his mood, post, tone, etc. It’s his blog, many give feedback to add to the blog. No one is forced to be here. Start your own blog and don’t be the sour voice on this one.

    • Le Cracquere | October 21, 2015 at 9:50 am |

      I frequently disagree with Paul on what counts as “bullshit,” but this site would be far less interesting and rewarding if he only stuck to the fonts, seams, and piping. What I’m saying is, kindly watch it with this “we” business, K(emo Sabe).

    • TIm | October 21, 2015 at 11:33 am |

      K, if only you offered some hard-wired, overarching, predictably sour commentary (that’s telling him). BTW, if Paul’s site is making you sad, there are lots of blogs out there dude.

    • Lee | October 21, 2015 at 12:58 pm |

      we all”?

      Nah brah.

      Lee

  • Dootie Bubble | October 21, 2015 at 9:30 am |

    Lots of schools in the SEC have been going to the baseball sized conference patch on their shoulder. Only two hold-outs, I think, are Florida and LSU which wear a much smaller logo at the neck. Is this school preference? If so why would a school choose to put such a big conference logo on their jersey?

  • DP | October 21, 2015 at 9:31 am |

    During the Denver/Cleveland game this weekend, Broncos punter Britton Colquitt was wearing a “hoodie” under his pads — I saw it during the winning OT kick so he was wearing it for the actual game:

    bit.ly/1GmieEh

  • arrScott | October 21, 2015 at 9:54 am |

    To be fair to the people who work for Nike (and others lifestyle athletic brands, though Nike is both the worst offender and the market driver), I don’t believe that the people who call themselves “designers” at Nike are hacks or sellouts or untalented. I just believe they’re not engaged in design. Nike employs many talented and creative materials engineers, who engineer materials. But that is engineering, not design. And Nike employs an even greater number of talented and creative commercial artists, who engage in commercial art. Bu that is art, not design.

    The commercial artists at Nike, most of whom seem to have the word “designer” on their business cards, seem mainly to be engaged in creating, collating, and curating embellishment and adornment – making and applying decoration. They sometimes produce beautiful uniforms, and often produce interesting uniforms. But that process is not design; it is art. Design is about crafting forms to fulfill functional needs, and in the commercial realm it is about doing so in a way that satisfies the client’s needs and serves the client’s brand identity. That’s simply not what Nike appears to do, ever. Art is about expressing things about oneself, and it’s about telling stories. That is not only what Nike appears to do in almost all cases, it is what Nike officially claims to be doing in most cases. So when I say that Nike does not do design, I am not maligning the talents or integrity of the Nike employees who have the word “designer” on their business cards. I am simply taking their employer at its word about what job they actually do.

    • The Jeff | October 21, 2015 at 12:18 pm |

      I think you may have just a bit too narrow of a definition for design. The function of a football jersey is to identify the player on a team, which is done with a number and/or name. So, the basic football jersey was already “designed” decades ago, at least by your apparent standards.

      Are you saying there’s truly a distinction between “designing” a font and “creating” one? Should we be calling them Uniform Creators instead of Designers?

      • arrScott | October 21, 2015 at 3:44 pm |

        You say my standards are “narrow,” I say my standards are high. I don’t actually think that’s a difference. I think design matters, and is important. That’s all. If one thinks my standards are too high, that just means that one doesn’t think design, as a discipline, has as much value as I do. Fair enough; that is, by definition, a values judgment, and there’s really no right or wrong.

        Anyway, to the specific example: It is objectively wrong to say that a football jersey’s only function is to identify the player on a team. A football uniform has a number of functional purposes, each of which must fundamentally inform any actual design:

        Identifying a player as a member of a particular team;
        Distinguishing one team from another;
        Identifying individual players on a team from one another;
        Accommodating a player’s protective equipment;
        Enabling the player to play the game with maximal comfort.

        One could go on; it’s trivially easy to list at least a couple more. But it is simply false that a number and a name satisfies any one or two of those functional demands, much less the full list. Imagine: Two football teams, each wearing white jerseys, each with numbers of a different color. Successful uniform design? Obviously not, yet that would fully satisfy The’s stated standards for a football jersey’s function. In fact, as we’ve seen over the course of almost a century of organized football, numbers and names are by far the least functionally important elements of a uniform design. Yet the numbers are where Nike’s commercial artists devote the preponderance of their efforts. Not because it makes design sense – if does not – but because it makes commercial sense for Nike. A company cannot necessarily trademark the things that have been proven to contribute to effective football uniform design – colors, general patterns, and so forth – but they can trademark newly created fonts.

        You can’t trademark quality tailoring and stitching, but you can trademark useless, or even function-inhibiting inventions like the Flywire collar. So guess where Nike’s commercial artists and materials engineers devote their efforts. And so forth; we see this distinction between what a designer would do and what Nike actually does in everything the company touches. Some of Nike’s work is attractive! But that doesn’t mean it is well designed; it just means it’s good art.

  • Chance Michaels | October 21, 2015 at 9:54 am |

    Oh, man, if moving from this to this is the new DC United badge we were told about, I’m going to be very disappointed.

    Not only could they benefit from a more dramatic redesign (hate those letters), but this isn’t even a small upgrade. The black star on a black background makes the design muddier.

    • ThePonchat | October 21, 2015 at 10:50 am |

      100% agree. Such a disappointing “change.”

    • Rolf | October 21, 2015 at 12:53 pm |

      I think it’s the first of several changes; I’d venture there will be a change of the ball (to reflect the current one being used in MLS), a change in the shape of the shield, a change in the typeface, and perhaps even a change in the species of bird. An ornithologically correct bald eagle, perhaps?

    • 716 Scott | October 21, 2015 at 1:06 pm |

      My guess is they’re phasing out red and going with a black/white color scheme. Red has really always been an accent color for them and their most iconic kits were black with the 3 adidas stripes. With Atlanta already cribbing “United” and the black/red scheme and LAFC poised to use that color scheme themselves it would make sense to solidify the black and white.

  • Chance Michaels | October 21, 2015 at 10:02 am |

    Re: enforced blood drives in Alabama, it’s both sad and outrageous that people in positions of authority feel free to so casually assert ownership of people less powerful than themselves.

    • Attila Szendrodi | October 21, 2015 at 10:48 am |

      I do see the point of the argument against it but as someone who has had law troubles in the past while living paycheck to paycheck I wish I had that option. Seriously, if my choice is give a pint of blood or pay money I’m going with blood. Every. Single. Time.

      • ThePonchat | October 21, 2015 at 10:52 am |

        This was one of my thoughts too. Some options are nice — although everyone has the option of breaking the law or not.

        If it helps garner more blood donations, and it’s a safe practice…I’m all for it. Never know, it may lead to some individuals becoming more regular donors (not necessarily related to breaking the law more so they can donate blood to get out of it).

        • Chance Michaels | October 21, 2015 at 11:14 am |

          everyone has the option of breaking the law or not

          Unfortunately, when we’re talking about the very poor, having been convicted of a crime does not necessarily mean they indeed broke the law.

        • Paul Lukas | October 21, 2015 at 11:20 am |

          Leaving aside the ethical issues (which are massive), does this really seem like a “safe practice” to you?

          Or to put it another way: If you were hospitalized and needed a blood transfusion, would you want blood that had been collected from indigent criminal defendants outside a rural courthouse? Would you feel confident that all the standard medical safeguards and screenings had taken place?

          Right, me neither.

          More importantly, I wouldn’t want blood that had been extorted from someone simply because he/she was poor. Blood money, indeed.

        • Attila Szendrodi | October 21, 2015 at 11:21 am |

          Exactly. Without going into details my case was wrong place, wrong time. I didnt ACTUALLY do anything myself and it cost me dearly for years. Giving blood would have been preferable to living out of my car because I had no money. Just sayin.

        • Phil Hecken | October 21, 2015 at 11:39 am |

          “…although everyone has the option of breaking the law or not.”

          ~~~

          You’d think that would be the case, wouldn’t you. But it’s not always the case in America.

          It’s nice to see things as so cut and dried though.

        • Attila Szendrodi | October 21, 2015 at 11:57 am |

          Believe me, I have serious moral qualms about the whole thing as well. But you’re a smart guy. If the shoe was on the other foot would you still feel as strong? I’m simply looking at it from a view of personal experience.

          As for safety concerns if it’s one of those trucks you often see outside most blood drives then yeah, I’m going to presume it’s just as safe. But the thought of EVER getting someone elses blood put into me sketches me out in any case.

        • ThePonchat | October 21, 2015 at 12:03 pm |

          Paul:
          I didn’t say it WAS a safe practice, I said I’m all for it “IF” it were to garner more donations AND it was a safe practice. Definitely not a fan of forcing it on anyone.

          That said, IF I needed a blood transfusion, I’ll take it wherever it may come from. It’s not like we know where the blood is coming from when we get the transfusions anyway. Should I ask to ensure that the blood comes from a gluten-free, grass fed, all-natural, GMO-free, middle aged white male? No. Give me blood and save my life. It’s not like blood donations aren’t regulated. They don’t just take anyone and everyone’s blood. Nor do they just give anyone and everyone’s blood to anyone and everyone.

          I’m sure there’s probably numerous people who have had their life saved by indigent people, criminals, and/or indigent criminals. On my death bed, I’m not going to be critical on who’s blood I’m given.

          Phil:
          More likely than not, people do have the option of breaking the law or not. Why wouldn’t they? Sure, there are instances where someone is wrongfully accused or “in the wrong place at the wrong time.” But those percentages are minute compared to making the “right” choice to abide by the law or not. Am I wrong here?

        • Phil Hecken | October 21, 2015 at 12:15 pm |

          “Phil:
          More likely than not, people do have the option of breaking the law or not. Why wouldn’t they? Sure, there are instances where someone is wrongfully accused or “in the wrong place at the wrong time.” But those percentages are minute compared to making the “right” choice to abide by the law or not. Am I wrong here?”

          ~~~

          The comments section isn’t the place to hash this all out, and generally speaking you’re correct.

          I’m simply saying that not every situation is as conveniently black and white as either you’re breaking the law willfully or you’re not. And while I’m not specifically talking about being wrongly accused or in the wrong place at the wrong time, that is a possible example.

          But to conveniently assume that everyone who has been accused/convicted of a crime has willingly and knowingly broken the law and that they defiantly and with full knowledge of the consequences did so isn’t necessarily correct. But again, here’s not the place to discuss such things (lets just stick to unis and/or the giving of blood for now).

  • Kelly Levy | October 21, 2015 at 10:04 am |

    Was baffled by the Tiny Thompson picture for awhile. That Amerks jersey confused me. I could only think of the Rochester Americans (Amerks) but that team started in 1956.

    For anyone who would like to know – from left to right the jerseys are Montreal Maroons, New York Americans, Chicago Blackhawks, and Toronto Maple Leafs

  • Rex (acctracker) | October 21, 2015 at 10:08 am |

    “The Heat’s alternate jersey ‘sked'”

    Really, guys?

    • Paul Lukas | October 21, 2015 at 10:12 am |

      Not sure why you added quotes to “sked.”

      We often use abbreviations in the Ticker, and “sked” is a common term for “schedule.” If you google, say, “Mets sked,” you will get their schedule. People who collect pocket schedules refers to them as “skeds,” and refer to themselves as “skedders.” One such collector has been interviewed on this site:
      http://www.uni-watch.com/2007/09/07/uni-watch-profiles-claude-jacques/

      • Mike Chamernik | October 21, 2015 at 12:12 pm |

        In my office, “sked” is used more often than “schedule.”

        Personally, I don’t mind typing it or reading it, but saying/hearing “sked” seems weird.

        • Chance Michaels | October 21, 2015 at 1:01 pm |

          But do the British say “shed”?

      • Rex (acctracker) | October 22, 2015 at 12:05 am |

        I’m behind the times or maybe I’ve just never seen it typed.

        It just looks odd, more like “asked” without the “a.”

  • Roger Faso | October 21, 2015 at 10:13 am |

    Orange County Angels has a nice ring to it.

    • walter | October 21, 2015 at 10:46 am |

      If by “nice”, you mean “Triple A”.

      • Mike Chamernik | October 21, 2015 at 12:08 pm |

        Mmmm let’s get Independent League and name them the Orange CountyAngels.

    • Mira M | October 21, 2015 at 4:06 pm |

      Unlike Neil deGrasse Tyson, I myself think that the Angels’ name could use *even more* tautonomy!

      Die Les The Los Angeles Angels Anges Engel? Has a snappy feel to it, for sure.

  • Ryan M | October 21, 2015 at 11:27 am |

    As someone from well outside California, I never cared for the Angels’ names making use of the Anaheim, regardless of any monetary reasons or local political machinations behind it. When I was a kid, they were the California Angels. I understand that may seem a little presumptuous when there are four other MLB clubs in the state, so I’m okay with Los Angeles Angels (and I presumed that was the direction in which they were heading when they changed their designation a decade ago). From this outsider’s perspective (and the OMB’s, as well), Anaheim is part of LA. I know it’s not in LA County and, obviously, not the city, but I’m pretty certain the Braves aren’t going to be changing their name when they depart Turner Field in 2017, either.

    More importantly, I’d like to see the team return to the uniform design they wore from ’73-’92. I appreciate the unis they wore from their inception through ’70 (the all-lowercase style they used in ’71 & ’72 seems dated) and threw back to before becoming Anaheim, but there’s something about the halo over the ‘A’ on the jersey and cap that I really like.

  • Julie | October 21, 2015 at 11:30 am |

    Who was in charge of naming and designing the Orlando Pride team? Logo looks amateur and lazy. Maybe I’m just spoiled by Chicago having the best logo/uniform in the league?

    • ThePonchat | October 21, 2015 at 12:07 pm |

      Well, there’s a story behind it…which leads to this “corporate douchebaggery” notion. The whole “lion” imagery that Orlando City FC uses for their MLS franchise is owned by MLS and…adidas. Any other usage outside of MLS/adidas is barred (except for their USL team because it’s an affiliate of MLS too).

      So, the NWSL team was not permitted to use ANY similarities to a lion or its likeness. The NWSL also is sponsored by Nike. Naturally, “Pride” is a pack of lions. Orlando City gets to incorporate their lion…without necessarily incorporating it.

      Good stuff MLS, adidas, NWSL, Nike, and…US Soccer who continues to muddy the waters of soccer unification in this country.

      • Julie | October 21, 2015 at 1:00 pm |

        Thanks for the clarification on the ‘lion’ imagery being owned by Addidas/MLS. Did not consider that.

        When I think of “pride” I think of gay pride, and what’s the first link on google to come up when I search ‘Orlando Pride,’ yup.. their gay pride celebration home page. Definitely something they’ll have to contend with, or, if they’re smart, use to their advantage.

  • TIm | October 21, 2015 at 11:43 am |

    Hi Paul. I’m a few days late with this question/comment, but I read your Permanent Record entry (love that site by the way), and wonder if your reaction might say a little more about our current perceptions rather than the reality of the situation. You characterized George’s role as a “smiling darkie” and suggested the use of only his first name was condescending and perhaps racist. The first comments pretty much dispute that, as the elevator operators apparently all were know by their first names only, in an affectionate way. Also, had George been a white guy, would you be equally interested in his last name? Maybe George didn’t really want his last name used for some reason. I’m not accusing you of anything, and I think it’s understandable some might see the yearbook page and see racism right away, but I think it speaks volumes about how we perceive such things currently.

    • Paul Lukas | October 21, 2015 at 11:48 am |

      the elevator operators apparently all were know by their first names only, in an affectionate way.

      Which is condescending, which is what I said. Is it that hard to inquire to find someone’s last name?

      Yes, of course it reflected the attitudes of the times — that’s the whole point. And those attitudes were sometimes not so great.

      • TIm | October 21, 2015 at 11:57 am |

        I’m with you, just found your commentary interesting. Personally, had I been looking through that yearbook I most likely would not have thought twice about the first-name-only being there, much less perceived it as racist or condescending.

  • Doolin | October 21, 2015 at 11:51 am |

    All anyone could talk about following Sunday night’s Colts-Patriots game was the botched fake punt, but didn’t any of you notice NO ONE was wearing PINK on the Colts… I think the Pats were sans PINK too, but not 100% certain.

    • TIm | October 21, 2015 at 12:01 pm |

      Bastards! Why do they hate breasts? If true, that is interesting since we are knee-deep in Pinktober.

    • Rob S | October 21, 2015 at 4:37 pm |

      Sorry, Doolin, but I have to disprove you: here’s an image of Mike Adams with a pink towel from that game.

      By the way, why does ESPN make it harder to find NFL game photos now? Used to be, there was a link to photos right in the recap/box score pages (this can still be seen on MLB, NHL, and NBA box score pages, as they haven’t completely transitioned to the crappy new tablet format), but now, to find NFL game photos, you have to go to “More” under the main NFL menu bar? That’s bullshit.

      • Rob S | October 21, 2015 at 4:43 pm |

        Though, I didn’t see any evidence of any Pats with pink accessories. Could be tough to spot, as red seemed to be the color of choice for gloves and shoes.

  • Jim Vilk | October 21, 2015 at 11:52 am |

    Hopefully the LA Angels will go back to their original uniforms as well.

  • K | October 21, 2015 at 12:01 pm |

    Plenty of bullshit indeed, especially yours.

    Thanks for the canned answer and mob of group think commenters coming to defend you.

    I love uniforms and the discussion of them. What I cannot stand is you getting up on your high horse weekly about one of your hot button issues. You used to really provide value. Now, it’s significantly less than before.

    That’s fine. Go ahead and brush off the criticism. You’re never wrong, of course.

    • TIm | October 21, 2015 at 12:04 pm |

      Perhaps you need a new blog to read…

    • Paul Lukas | October 21, 2015 at 12:05 pm |

      I see. So if someone agrees with you, it’s “we all.” But if someone agrees with me, it’s a “group think mob.”

      Yup.

      And you don’t feel you’re getting “value”? Gee, if I were you I’d demand a refund.

      Uni Watch is not a service I provide to please you; it’s a personal creative project I engage in to please ME. If you like it, great; if not, no problem. Either way, the world keeps on spinning.

    • Adam N. | October 21, 2015 at 12:55 pm |

      K – are you just now realizing that Uni Watch is a blog and Lukas is a critic?
      If you are looking for reporting/news – I’m sure there are other sites that will offer uniform updates without the commentary.

    • Keith S. | October 21, 2015 at 2:02 pm |

      What, exactly, was said that is incorrect?

      Also, maybe you should consider spending your hard earned money on another website membership….oh, wait…

    • scottrj | October 21, 2015 at 2:06 pm |

      Can see K’s annoyance at having his words twisted around (apologies if I have the gender wrong). He said “we all” solely in the context of his assumption that folks visit this site out of a mutual affinity for uni-related esoterica – hardly a bold assumption (and more likely than not a correct one, I’d wager). He never claimed to speak “for the community” when articulating his criticisms (with those words or any other), so yeah, I can see why it’d be frustrating to have them thrown in his face and invested with a different meaning than he gave them.

      • Paul Lukas | October 21, 2015 at 2:54 pm |

        I twisted nothing, and he absolutely *did* imply that he was speaking for the larger community, or at least a significant subset of it. He was too cowardly to speak for himself, so he tried to imply that he was speaking for many, that his argument was amplified by force of collective numbers. That’s bullshit, and deserves to be called out as such. So I did.

        A good argument is a good argument (and a bad one is a bad one) even if only one person voices it. If you believe in your point, have the courage to speak for yourself and don’t try to falsely amplify your voice with the power of a phantom collective.

  • Brett Alan | October 21, 2015 at 12:08 pm |

    In the hockey ticker, I believe “four-wee goalies” is supposed to be “four pee-wee goalies”.

    • Paul Lukas | October 21, 2015 at 12:19 pm |

      Thanks. Fixed.

    • TBone | October 21, 2015 at 12:26 pm |

      I love the imagery that “four-wee goalies” conjures up though.

    • Chance Michaels | October 21, 2015 at 1:04 pm |

      Never even occurred to me that was a typo, although I suppose those four boys aren’t really so wee.

  • Ramonmex10 | October 21, 2015 at 12:54 pm |

    My understanding is that Under Armour is doing the paying in the form of $ and equipment. It appears like Cincinnati (and other schools with similar deals) is really selling advertising space on their players and coaches. If the school is willing do this as part of their business plan for funding then I guess that is their choice.

    http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/blog/threads_and_laces/2015/04/university-of-cincinnati-discloses-details-of-47.html

    • Chance Michaels | October 21, 2015 at 1:05 pm |

      That’s exactly what they’re doing.

      And while it is indeed their choice, that doesn’t mean the choice is somehow above criticism.

    • Paul Lukas | October 21, 2015 at 1:15 pm |

      What you have presented is an accurate portrayal of the current state of affairs.

      That does not, however, make it an *acceptable* state of affairs.

  • DJ | October 21, 2015 at 1:32 pm |

    Not a good week for Michigan athletics: Texas reportedly gets the largest Nike contract;

    http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/10/21/report-texas-new-nike-deal-to-trump-michigans/

    • Rob S | October 21, 2015 at 4:52 pm |

      Because “Everything’s Bigger In Texas”â„¢.

      (And sure enough, there will be articles using that exact phrase referring to the deal, if there aren’t already.)

  • Gary-O | October 21, 2015 at 1:32 pm |

    Last Friday on Jeopardy! Final Jeopardy category: Major League Baseball Team Names. The answer: When translated, the full name of this Major League Baseball team gets you a double redundancy.
    The answer: Who are The Los Angeles Angels?

    None of the three contestants got the question right. #1 guessed the Minnesota Twins. #2, the Chicago Cubs. #3, the New York Metropolitans.

    • Chance Michaels | October 21, 2015 at 3:42 pm |

      Hey – maybe they could wear “Los Angeles” for their Hispanic Heritage games!

    • Dumb Guy | October 21, 2015 at 4:44 pm |

      Well actually, “The Town of Our Lady the Queen of the Angels of the (River) Porciuncula Angels” isn’t that redundant.

      They could just as easily be “The Town of Our Lady the Queen of the Angels of the (River) Porciuncula Bears” (or Lugnuts, or Blue Stockings, or….)

    • Chris K. | October 21, 2015 at 4:54 pm |

      My question (answer) playing along at home was “Who are the Philadelphia Phillies?” My 8-year old son gleefully pointed out that I was “wrong!”.

  • brinke | October 21, 2015 at 1:58 pm |

    “It’s amazing what people are capable of when their shame gland has been surgically removed, isn’t it?”

    I think that may be the line of the year.

  • Keith S. | October 21, 2015 at 2:00 pm |

    I feel like it’s only a matter of time before we see a college jersey that replaces the team name with the manufacturer. I’m sure there’s a corporate sales team already working to make it happen.

    • Dumb Guy | October 21, 2015 at 4:47 pm |

      “Ladies and gentlemen, your University of Cincinnati and Under Armour Bearcaaaaaaats!!!”

  • Michael Emody | October 21, 2015 at 3:14 pm |

    I occasionally wonder: at what level in each sport do the large uniform manufacturers stop paying the teams or schools to make (and market) their uniforms, and revert to the traditional model of simply selling the uniforms to the team/school? In other words, when does the money begin going from team to manufacturer instead of manufacturer to team/school/league?

    • Dumb Guy | October 21, 2015 at 4:48 pm |

      Sadly teams with the fewest dollars probably have to BUY their own uniforms, while those “rolling in the dough” get theirs for free.

      • Michael Emody | October 21, 2015 at 5:57 pm |

        I’m pretty sure the major schools don’t just get them for free. The manufacturer’s pay them millions of dollars for multi-year contracts. Big money seems to be flowing from Nike/Adidas/UnderArmour/etc. to the schools and professional teams/leagues. It’s hard to imagine that $300 fan jersey sales fund all those contracts.

    • dutchterp7 | October 21, 2015 at 8:37 pm |

      Kevin Plank, Under Armour CEO, is a Maryland alum, ex football player and a former member of the university’s Board of Regents. I’m sure most people are aware of their agreement to outfit the entire athletic department.
      It was rumored he was trying to influence them to hire Mike Leach as football coach after he was fired by Texas Tech. (At the time, Tech was 1 of only 3 UA schools)
      Certainly seems like a prime example of the “vendor/client relationship being out of whack.”

  • Rob S | October 21, 2015 at 4:55 pm |
    • Rob S | October 21, 2015 at 4:58 pm |

      I noticed the Uni Watch FB page caught that as well. (I’m trying to recall, I don’t believe Paul runs that page, is it Brinke that does?)

      • Paul Lukas | October 21, 2015 at 5:27 pm |

        The author is noted for each item on our FB page. (It’s almost always Brinke, but occasionally it’s me.)

        • Rob S. | October 21, 2015 at 6:48 pm |

          Is the author supposed to be displayed? Because I’m not seeing it on any of the posts I’m looking at on the page. Just curious.

  • Robert Eden | October 21, 2015 at 5:13 pm |

    As a Cornhusker in residence, I herewith apologize for my alma mater’s BFBS uniforms this weekend. Clearly, no one at the University asked for my opinion.

    • LarryB | October 21, 2015 at 7:21 pm |

      Yep, Golly gee more teams wearing the all black unis soon. How original huh?

      Thats why I didnt want Ohio State to do it. Now e have Baylor wearing gray so much.

  • frank | October 21, 2015 at 6:59 pm |
  • Dustin | October 21, 2015 at 9:00 pm |

    I understand that people don’t like the corporate influence in sports and specifically the uniform industry. I happen to be sick of the whole thing myself. What I don’t get is the denigrating of the people who are in those companies. Is it not their job to promote and expand their company for max profitability within legal bounds? It seems like what is often called for here at Uni-Watch (which I love by the way) is for a company such as Under Armour to work for the benevolent good of the universities. It seems to me that it is the job of the leadership of the university to have the good of the students and their university as their highest goal. it is their job to hold dear and protect their specific traditions and character. It may be that I am misunderstanding who the term deouchbaggery is referring to. If it is aimed at the Under Armour folks, to me, it doesn’t seem to apply. They are doing the job that they should be doing just maybe not in a way that I like. (Is everyone who does something we don’t like a douchbag?) If it is aimed at the universities who allow themselves to become nothing more than a corporate billboard at the expense of both their school tradition and student athletes than it does seem to apply. (this comment is my opinion only and I do not claim to represent anyone in the larger uni-verse.)

    • Paul Lukas | October 21, 2015 at 9:17 pm |

      You are suggesting that all business practices are self-justifying because “it’s just business,” and that all people engaged in said practices are therefore blameless. You’re also suggesting that legality trumps ethics, and that dignity and scruples are essentially irrelevant. All of these notions are false.

      Is there also plenty of blame to go around at the universities? Indeed.

      (And just to clarify: “Douchebags” is a term I reserve for corporate self-aggrandizement, usually related to corporate branding at the expense of team branding. Today’s entry was a textbook case.)

  • Dustin | October 22, 2015 at 12:13 am |

    Wow. I did not know that I had such extreme views. To be honest, the first paragraph of your reply is an extreme view of what i wrote and is, as you might say, bullshit. I think your original article is well written, I actually went back and read it a second time and I agree with it. But what Under Armour is doing, I expect Under Armour to be doing. It is their job. Even though I can’t stand the brand because of what they do. If the universities weren’t prostituting themselves and selling their souls to the likes of Under Armour then maybe Under Armour would not be doing what they are doing. So I guess I think the Universities don’t just share the blame but have more of the blame.

    • Paul Lukas | October 22, 2015 at 12:28 am |

      what Under Armour is doing, I expect Under Armour to be doing. It is their job.

      Again, you are saying that “it’s just business,” and that business practices are inherently self-justifying as long as they are legal, because hey, “it is their job.”

      That is a false notion. It is also a toxic notion. It implies that businesses have no social, moral, or ethical obligations beyond their balance sheets, and that they are therefore immune to cultural critique, because being engaged in any business practice that enhances the balance sheet, no matter how odious or pernicious or distasteful, “is their job.” While a distressingly large portion of our society apparently accepts this notion, it is a notion that this website has always rejected, and will continue to reject.

  • Neeko | October 22, 2015 at 12:23 am |

    Congrats uniwatch execs on the win – way better looking team then the last world series

  • Tom | October 22, 2015 at 12:59 am |

    Just a quick reply to this comment:
    “Or to put it another way: If you were hospitalized and needed a blood transfusion, would you want blood that had been collected from indigent criminal defendants outside a rural courthouse? Would you feel confident that all the standard medical safeguards and screenings had taken place? Right, me neither.”

    Are you under the belief that every pint of blood donated isn’t tested for any and all issues it may carry before it gets to a hospital? While that company appeared to have an adjudicated case of bad work, all donations are required to be tested. Tainted blood can come from many people other than “indigent criminal defendants”.

    • Paul Lukas | October 22, 2015 at 1:05 am |

      Are you under the belief that every pint of blood donated isn’t tested for any and all issues it may carry before it gets to a hospital?

      I am under the belief that an organization that accepts blood that’s been extorted from criminal defendants — something patently unethical on its face — is probably cutting other corners.

  • Kyle | October 22, 2015 at 5:57 am |

    I still don’t understand why this site bashes every alternate uni or anything that isn’t traditional. If nobody ever wore any alternates the your site would just be saying “ucla wearing their home unis this weekend” my point is what would be the point.

    • Paul Lukas | October 22, 2015 at 8:05 am |

      This site does not “bash” anything. This site likes good design and dislikes bad design, the end. If a design is good, I say, “That’s good”; if not, I say, “That sucks.” Simple.

      IF teams didn’t have alternate uniforms, there’d be no need for them to tweet their uni combos each week, and we wouldn’t need to link to those tweets. Again, simple.

  • Eddie | October 22, 2015 at 8:16 am |

    With sentences like ” Here’s the Heat’s alternate jersey sked for the upcoming season.”
    I feel like I’m reading a teenagers blog. Sked? Between that and many other nicknames and other stuff (Like just saying “this sucks” yea real professional) I lose respect for this blog more and more.

    • Paul Lukas | October 22, 2015 at 8:26 am |

      Scroll up to an earlier thread see an explanation for “sked.”

      Losing your respect is, of course, a huge blow, but somehow I’ll manage to persevere.

      Meanwhile, you misspelled “yeah” and left out the apostrophe for “teenager’s.” Real professional, Eddie.

      • Eddie | October 23, 2015 at 7:54 am |

        I don’t know why I was so cranky yesterday, but commentators of a blog site be professional? Surely you jest!
        Keep up the good work, its not like I’m gonna stop reading.