The BAFL instituted a new rule for the 2006 playoffs whereby all playoff teams must be in fully matching uniforms. So come the National Final between the same teams, the helmet irregularities had been removed – as can be seen by the bad paint job in back. Also – the BAFL said that all non-BAFL logos/names must be removed which explains this less than flattering patch on the Olympians.

BAFL introduced a rule this year that each team must have a place name at the start of their name not just a sponsor.

So I went to the London Olympians website, and it looks like they wear old Mississippi State uniforms, some even have the SEC patches.

I emailed the team to ask them about it but have yet to get any response from them.

They purchase their equipment from collegejersey.com – pre owned kits from NCAA teams

I emailed the team to ask them about it but have yet to get any response from them.

My point probably would have been clearer if the first link worked, but the second one does and this one should too.

matt said:

Jim said:

Ton of Logo Creep in this picture:

Reebok logo on pants.
Reebok and NFL Equipment logos on jersey.
Riddell logo on helmet.
NFL Equipment logo on wristband.
NFL Equipment and Wilson logos on towel.

Thats 7 logos on five pieces of the uniform.

Why is it logo creep when companies put THEIR logo on THEIR product? Quit complaining about nothing!
PS – I love NIKE. They make the best uniforms and have the best quality. From shoes to shorts, and everything else, NIKE products are great, and the SWOOSH makes uniforms look better!!

I’ve bitten my tongue so far, but I agree with you–I don’t understand the fuss about a company putting its logo on a product it makes. To me, a manufacturer’s logo on a piece of sporting equipment is NOT logo creep; it’s free enterprise. I also agree with your comments on Nike making quality products. Big companies are usually big for a reason.

Since Paul hasn’t said anything and I seem to be the only one with insomnia tonight, here’s what the Uni Watch response to that would be: There is absolutely nothing wrong with a company putting it’s logo on one of it’s products. The problem people here have with Nike (and increasingly Reebok, Adidas, and Underarmour) is HOW they put they’re logo on the product. All of those companies make fine products (well the verdict is still out on UA baseball cleats, but I digress), but when they flood all of the teams they supply with EXACTLY the same uniform template it destroys any notion of originality and uniqueness (that’s a word, right?) that a uniform posseses. And were not uniforms invented so that spectators could tell teams apart?

Furthermore, putting a small ’swoosh’ on a uniform is one thing, but fitting it everywhere possible so that any viewer is deluged with your company logo is quite another. A great example of this would be the bicep and leg sweatbands that Nike makes: while I’m sure they do their job, the sweatbands have been widened in one section for no other reason but to show the Nike ’swoosh’. I believe Paul would call this an example of fashion dictating form (which is not always practical in the sports world).

Finally, I think Paul would say that uniforms and team logos are how fans connect with their team. And because of this, there should be as little non team graphics on the uniform as is possible. A small manufacturer logo is fine, but lines have to be drawn or else your team will end up looking like this: http://oilerfan64.tr...

I rest my case and my head.

—-

No – Lajoie’s collar is just a regular dead ball era collar turned up, a common practice on cold days.

On the subject of MLB jersey collars, note that the Cubs have never won a WS unless they were wearing collars.