Well, there’s Guillaume Latendresse of Les Canadiens… Kidding aside, he’s the first NHL player to wear #84, meaning every uni number from 1 through 99 has been worn at least once by an NHL player. (#00 is banned by the league, but Frank “Mr. Zero” Brimsek wore #0 for an NHL All-Star Game in the days when teams only had one goalie, and that goalie always wore #1!)
Randy Grossman
Javon Walker
Shannon Sharpe
Sterling Sharpe
Webster Slaughter
Haywood Jeffires
Billy White Shoes Johnson
Ricky Nattiel
Gary Clark
Darryl Stingley
Joey Porter
Michael Lewis
Randy Moss
Jay Novacek
Chris Chambers
Herman Moore
Eric Moulds
TJ Houshyermama
Joey Galloway
Ben Watson
I can’t stand the whole “retiring the number” phenomenon, and I agree with schuby that it makes much more sense to retire a jersey than a number.
I don’t mind the number, but teams just retire FAR too many.
I think a guy has to be a nationally-known great. Heck, even some of the lower-tier hall of famers generally should not make the cut.
Or, at least, someone that completely “defined the team” to the rest of the world. And, no, not just because a guy died (Munson). And, no, not just because of one single-season record (Maris).
The Yankees, with all their greats, have some guys that just should not be in this class: Martin, Dickey, Maris, Rizzuto, Rizzuto, Mattingly, Howard (Ok, maybe for other reasons), Guidry.
I can’t stand the whole “retiring the number” phenomenon, and I agree with schuby that it makes much more sense to retire a jersey than a number.
I don’t mind the number, but teams just retire FAR too many.
I think a guy has to be a nationally-known great. Heck, even some of the lower-tier hall of famers generally should not make the cut.
Or, at least, someone that completely “defined the team” to the rest of the world. And, no, not just because a guy died (Munson). And, no, not just because of one single-season record (Maris).
The Yankees, with all their greats, have some guys that just should not be in this class: Martin, Dickey, Maris, Rizzuto, Rizzuto, Mattingly, Howard (Ok, maybe for other reasons), Guidry.
I would agree with you, with the exception of Maris and Guidry.
Except in football or hockey, high numbers (56+) on a player just look unatural.
I always thought the reason that basketball players’ numbers were never higher than 55 was so that when the ref identified a player for a foul he would show the scorer the player’s number using his fingers, (raising 2 fingers on one hand & 3 on the other for 23). This way the scorer could know the who the player was if the crowd was too loud hear the ref. Using this logic, players would not be allowed to have numbers higher that 55. Is there a rule to support this?
I believe the Toronto Maple Leafs do it best with their honouring of the Leaf greats, rather than retiring a number. Most of those guys were an idol to someone, and I’m sure someone grew up wearing those numbers as a tribute to that player. Why not let that tribute carry on in their respective sport on the biggest stage?
Also, since I know some of you probably skip over my hockey-related posts, I’ve decided to use a new outlet for my love of the game. I started my own blog for it. If you like, you can check it out here.
However, Paul’s blog will always be my “home away from home”. :o)
Except in football or hockey, high numbers (56+) on a player just look unatural.
I always thought the reason that basketball players’ numbers were never higher than 55 was so that when the ref identified a player for a foul he would show the scorer the player’s number using his fingers, (raising 2 fingers on one hand & 3 on the other for 23). This way the scorer could know the who the player was if the crowd was too loud hear the ref. Using this logic, players would not be allowed to have numbers higher that 55. Is there a rule to support this?
Except in football or hockey, high numbers (56+) on a player just look unatural.
I always thought the reason that basketball players’ numbers were never higher than 55 was so that when the ref identified a player for a foul he would show the scorer the player’s number using his fingers, (raising 2 fingers on one hand & 3 on the other for 23). This way the scorer could know the who the player was if the crowd was too loud hear the ref. Using this logic, players would not be allowed to have numbers higher that 55. Is there a rule to support this?
I believe the rule you mention is in effect for college basketball, but not the NBA. You’ll notice that in college there are no numbers larger than 55. However, the NBA is littered with numbers larger than 5 (e.g. – Kobe’s old #8)
Except in football or hockey, high numbers (56+) on a player just look unatural.
I always thought the reason that basketball players’ numbers were never higher than 55 was so that when the ref identified a player for a foul he would show the scorer the player’s number using his fingers, (raising 2 fingers on one hand & 3 on the other for 23). This way the scorer could know the who the player was if the crowd was too loud hear the ref. Using this logic, players would not be allowed to have numbers higher that 55. Is there a rule to support this?
I believe the rule you mention is in effect for college basketball, but not the NBA. You’ll notice that in college there are no numbers larger than 55. However, the NBA is littered with numbers larger than 5 (e.g. – Kobe’s old #8)
I believe it’s just in college (high school too, I think). The NBA has had:
6 – Julius Erving
7 – Toni Kukoc
8 – Kobe
9 – Ron Harper (Bulls)
16 – Bob Lanier
17 – Brent Barry (Spurs)
18 – ???
19 – Willis Reed
36 – Rasheed Wallace
49 – some guy on the Lakers back in the day
73 – Rodman (Lakers)
76 – Shawn Bradley
77 – George Muresan
91 – Rodman (Bulls)
93 – Artest
99 – Mikan
I can’t think of any others off the top of my head, but I’m sure there are some.
I was a big Carlton Fisk fan when he was on the White Sox. #72 always looked good on him.
He was a big guy. For some reason I think higher numbers look OK on a big guy. But on a skinny guy, it doesn’t. Is that strange?
I remember someone mentioning the reverse, especially for pitchers, to get a tubby one a “skinny” number with 1s and 4s and (in the right typeface) 7s. No round or wide square digits, just the slimming vertical stripes.
How does that sit with the new vogue for DBs and WRs to wear uniform numbers in the teens? Some of those “Smurf”-sized guys did look odd with 88, and I notice 86 hardly ever looked better than on Clint Didier, a tight end.
I just find that look on Chris Webber’s face priceless. Every sport that is not hockey or football should limit or restrict the use of high numbers because it is just moronic looking.
Am I the only person who doesn’t mind high numbered jerseys? Granted, I’ve not been really paying attention to jersey numbers until as of late, but I’d rather have a very high number than the quite lame, 1, 0, or even worse, 00.
During yesterday’s Pistons game, Webber mentioned that his nephew had a dream of him wearing number 84 for the Pistons. So that is why he chose that odd number for a basketball player.
Except in football or hockey, high numbers (56+) on a player just look unatural.
I always thought the reason that basketball players’ numbers were never higher than 55 was so that when the ref identified a player for a foul he would show the scorer the player’s number using his fingers, (raising 2 fingers on one hand & 3 on the other for 23). This way the scorer could know the who the player was if the crowd was too loud hear the ref. Using this logic, players would not be allowed to have numbers higher that 55. Is there a rule to support this?
In college and high school both digits are 0-5…as in 0-5, 10-15, 20-25, ect
Callback to the soccer article on Friday. Just noticed this afternoon watching Arsenal’s incredible 2-1 over Manchester United…Arsenal jerseys have a little gold cannon on the back collar of their jerseys. The cannon is the main picture in their main club logo shield on the front of the jersey. Thought it looked cool, along with Henry’s lightning header in the 93rd minute to win it!
Except in football or hockey, high numbers (56+) on a player just look unatural.
I always thought the reason that basketball players’ numbers were never higher than 55 was so that when the ref identified a player for a foul he would show the scorer the player’s number using his fingers, (raising 2 fingers on one hand & 3 on the other for 23). This way the scorer could know the who the player was if the crowd was too loud hear the ref. Using this logic, players would not be allowed to have numbers higher that 55. Is there a rule to support this?
True in NCAA play, but not in the NBA.
Even in the NBA, you need permission to wear a number higher than 55. At least you used to because there was a big deal about Shawn Bradley wearing 76 with Philly (he’s 7′6″ tall) and Muresan wearing 77 (he’s 7′7″ tall). Rodman needed permission to wear 73 (he chose that because his number was always 10, but that wasn’t available with either the Lakers or the Bulls [I think... Bulls fans probably know for sure]).
High numbers in basketball are dumb, in my opinion. Webber’s 84 is dumb. Francisco Elson used to wear 56 and that made me mad, too. And I don’t even like the Nuggets.
I’m a big fan of legal numbers (ie. 0-5 in each case) though I do like single digit numbers (6, 7, 8, and 9) now more than before. Other non-traditional numbers (16, 17, 29, 38, etc.) still annoy me.
Before everyone stops reading this, one last note: the NBA has apparently always allowed 00-55 because if you look at the Celtics’ retired numbers, Don Nelson’s 19 and Havlicek’s 17 are retired and have been retired since 1978.
#25: I remember reading an interview with Roy Williams (Lions WR) this season, and he said he liked wearing #11 for precicely that effect – according to him, it makes him look tall, skinny, and fast.
Callback to the soccer article on Friday. Just noticed this afternoon watching Arsenal’s incredible 2-1 over Manchester United…Arsenal jerseys have a little gold cannon on the back collar of their jerseys. The cannon is the main picture in their main club logo shield on the front of the jersey. Thought it looked cool, along with Henry’s lightning header in the 93rd minute to win it!
The gold cannon was mentioned in yesterdays comments also, someone posted a link to a picture of it. I love it when the Gunners beat Man U.
I believe that in international basketball, the players all have to wear numbers 4-15. I believe they reserve 1, 2, and 3 to indicate the number of free throws to be shot.
Saints are wearing their black pants, ugh.
Go Bears!
I don’t see what the big deal is with the Saints and black. It’s a part of their color scheme, so they have every right to wear it. And they are the only team with black, so i think it’s a nice change from other teams.
A number is a number–it is supposed to be a unique identifier for a player on a team. There was a time when, in baseball for instance, the numbers were instituted to indicate the position a player was assigned to, which explains why lower numbers are more traditional, but this is no longer the case.
I have no problem with players wearing higher numbers. It is actually kind of smart…if a player wears a number nobody has worn before, then it makes it easier to identify that number with that person. If we start seeing 3-digit numbers, that may be taking it too far.
Saints are wearing their black pants, ugh.
Go Bears!
I don’t see what the big deal is with the Saints and black. It’s a part of their color scheme, so they have every right to wear it. And they are the only team with black, so i think it’s a nice change from other teams.
They are the only team that wears a primary black jersey, but the Jags and the Ravens also wear black on a regular basis, though usually as a secondary color and on alternates.
As far as basketball uniform numbers go, in high school and college (NFHS and NCAA), players can only wear the digits 0-5. In those two plus the NBA, a team can have either #0 or #00, but not both. In international basketball, numbers are 1-15. In the US, there used to be a rule about not having numbers 1, 2, or 3 in order to avoid confusion between number of points or foul shots and jersey numbers. This rule was taken out a few years ago because it is easy to tell the difference.
Except in football or hockey, high numbers (56+) on a player just look unatural.
I always thought the reason that basketball players’ numbers were never higher than 55 was so that when the ref identified a player for a foul he would show the scorer the player’s number using his fingers, (raising 2 fingers on one hand & 3 on the other for 23). This way the scorer could know the who the player was if the crowd was too loud hear the ref. Using this logic, players would not be allowed to have numbers higher that 55. Is there a rule to support this?
True in NCAA play, but not in the NBA.
Even in the NBA, you need permission to wear a number higher than 55. At least you used to because there was a big deal about Shawn Bradley wearing 76 with Philly (he’s 7′6″ tall) and Muresan wearing 77 (he’s 7′7″ tall). Rodman needed permission to wear 73 (he chose that because his number was always 10, but that wasn’t available with either the Lakers or the Bulls [I think... Bulls fans probably know for sure]).
High numbers in basketball are dumb, in my opinion. Webber’s 84 is dumb. Francisco Elson used to wear 56 and that made me mad, too. And I don’t even like the Nuggets.
I’m a big fan of legal numbers (ie. 0-5 in each case) though I do like single digit numbers (6, 7, 8, and 9) now more than before. Other non-traditional numbers (16, 17, 29, 38, etc.) still annoy me.
Before everyone stops reading this, one last note: the NBA has apparently always allowed 00-55 because if you look at the Celtics’ retired numbers, Don Nelson’s 19 and Havlicek’s 17 are retired and have been retired since 1978.
What about Mikan’s #99?? And Rodman wore #91 w/ the Bulls.
Saints are wearing their black pants, ugh.
Go Bears!
The black pants do look bad, but do not look nearly as bad with the white tops as they do with the black tops.
Agree, with the white jerseys, the black pants are just fine–I think what most people don’t like is the black-on-black “unitard” look, which goes for all teams employing a color-on-color look (i.e. Seahawks)
Well, there’s Guillaume Latendresse of Les Canadiens… Kidding aside, he’s the first NHL player to wear #84, meaning every uni number from 1 through 99 has been worn at least once by an NHL player. (#00 is banned by the league, but Frank “Mr. Zero” Brimsek wore #0 for an NHL All-Star Game in the days when teams only had one goalie, and that goalie always wore #1!)
Marty Biron wore 00 for the Sabres when he first came up; the league banned it shortly thereafter. You can see a few shots of him in the double donut here.
Neil Sheehy of the Hartford Whalers wore #0 in the mid-to-late 1980s. There are precisely 0 pictures of this online that I can find; I went so far as to email the good Mr. Sheehy last year to see if he had any in digital form, and he did not.
Non-pro basketball sticks to digits 0-5 so that officials can identify players to the scorers table with one hand for each digit.
Since pro ball (and Olympic ball) didn’t employ that system from the start, allowed players to become historically remembered with a particular number, and with retirements thinning the lot, the pros have always strayed from that theory.
When I was a started following hockey in the early 80s just about every starting goalie wore #1 and every backup had a number in the low 30s. I suppose you can only do that for so long in the TV era, but I’d love to see a few #1 goalies again.
Saints are wearing their black pants, ugh.
Go Bears!
The black pants do look bad, but do not look nearly as bad with the white tops as they do with the black tops.
Agree, with the white jerseys, the black pants are just fine–I think what most people don’t like is the black-on-black “unitard” look, which goes for all teams employing a color-on-color look (i.e. Seahawks)
I can live with the Saints black pants (mainly because they’ve got a white top on), but the refs have the worst outfit on the field with their black pants.
I think the Saints are wearing their black pants because black attracts more heat than any other color and in chilly Chicago, they need as much heat as they can get.
i posted this in the comments section of another thread yesterday…
Eric said:
Bob said:
The NBA wants the officials to be able to signal player numbers to the Scorer’s Table more easily so the uniforms tend to stop at 55 since you can hold up your hands and show the scorer the number (”five-five”). Numbers higher than that require math on the part of the referee’s (What do you hold up for 8? two fours? a five and a three?) You can see where it might get complicated for a referee . . .
i’ve talked to a couple refs who said something similar. more specifically, no part of a jersey number is supposed to be higher than five making it easier to signal jersey numbers to the scorer’s table one-handed after a foul. the ref usually only has one hand available since the ball is in his other hand. signaling “five-five” one-handed is much easier than signaling “two-eight.”
the rule isn’t enforced as strictly as it used to be.
#53 by Brian from Short Island on 01.21.07 3:41 pm |
Jokie said:
Callback to the soccer article on Friday. Just noticed this afternoon watching Arsenal’s incredible 2-1 over Manchester United…Arsenal jerseys have a little gold cannon on the back collar of their jerseys. The cannon is the main picture in their main club logo shield on the front of the jersey. Thought it looked cool, along with Henry’s lightning header in the 93rd minute to win it!
Don’t talk to me. :-(
This happens whenever Man Ure wear their blue shirts :/
(Spurs supporter, for the record. We’ll get you this weekend!)
Something to notice last week… When Cardiff came to White Hart Land last week in their all-blue kits, Spurs rolled out their rare white shorts.
Saints are wearing their black pants, ugh.
Go Bears!
I don’t see what the big deal is with the Saints and black. It’s a part of their color scheme, so they have every right to wear it. And they are the only team with black, so i think it’s a nice change from other teams.
They are the only team that wears a primary black jersey, but the Jags and the Ravens also wear black on a regular basis, though usually as a secondary color and on alternates.
The Bengals also wear a black uni as their primary home jersey.
Saints are wearing their black pants, ugh.
Go Bears!
I don’t see what the big deal is with the Saints and black. It’s a part of their color scheme, so they have every right to wear it. And they are the only team with black, so i think it’s a nice change from other teams.
They are the only team that wears a primary black jersey, but the Jags and the Ravens also wear black on a regular basis, though usually as a secondary color and on alternates.
The Bengals also wear a black uni as their primary home jersey.
I think the Saints are wearing their black pants because black attracts more heat than any other color and in chilly Chicago, they need as much heat as they can get.
Black doesn’t attract heat. It absorbs light instead of reflecting it. And it isn’t sunny enough in Chicago for there to be any effect.
Saints are wearing their black pants, ugh.
Go Bears!
I don’t see what the big deal is with the Saints and black. It’s a part of their color scheme, so they have every right to wear it. And they are the only team with black, so i think it’s a nice change from other teams.
They are the only team that wears a primary black jersey, but the Jags and the Ravens also wear black on a regular basis, though usually as a secondary color and on alternates.
The Bengals also wear a black uni as their primary home jersey.
Well, there’s Guillaume Latendresse of Les Canadiens… Kidding aside, he’s the first NHL player to wear #84, meaning every uni number from 1 through 99 has been worn at least once by an NHL player. (#00 is banned by the league, but Frank “Mr. Zero” Brimsek wore #0 for an NHL All-Star Game in the days when teams only had one goalie, and that goalie always wore #1!)
I believe the Toronto Maple Leafs do it best with their honouring of the Leaf greats, rather than retiring a number. Most of those guys were an idol to someone, and I’m sure someone grew up wearing those numbers as a tribute to that player. Why not let that tribute carry on in their respective sport on the biggest stage?
The Leafs also only retire numbers if a player who has made a significant contribution to the Maple Leafs suffers a career-ending incident while a member of the Leafs. So only 2 numbers are retired 5, for Bill Barilko, who died in a plane crash the summer after scoring the Stanley Cup winning goal, the Leafs didn’t win another Cup until the year his body was discovered, 10 years later, and 6, for Ace Bailey, who suffered a career-ending head injury.
The Leafs have honoured 1, 4, 7, 9, 10, 21 and 27. Nos. 1 (Andrew Raycroft), 7 (Ian White), 9 (Aleksander Suglobov), 10 (Alex Steen), 21 (Johnny Pohl) and 27 (Mike Peca) are all being used this year.
I’m a fan of the NFL-style “Ring of Honor” for honoring players. For those unfamiliar with it, they put names of franchise greats along the facing of the upper deck where they remain for all time. I’m not sure if all teams do it, but I know the Redskins, Colts, and Cowboys have a Ring of Honor. With some of the newer stadium designs, it’s hard to keep honoring people this way.
I’m a fan of the NFL-style “Ring of Honor” for honoring players. For those unfamiliar with it, they put names of franchise greats along the facing of the upper deck where they remain for all time. I’m not sure if all teams do it, but I know the Redskins, Colts, and Cowboys have a Ring of Honor. With some of the newer stadium designs, it’s hard to keep honoring people this way.
Who in the heck is in the Indy Colts “ring of honor”, Eric Dickerson and Jeff George?
I like the idea of retiring jerseys instead of numbers, I mean the O’s already have 5 retired numbers (although the way they have been playing that may be it forever).
I’m a fan of the NFL-style “Ring of Honor” for honoring players. For those unfamiliar with it, they put names of franchise greats along the facing of the upper deck where they remain for all time. I’m not sure if all teams do it, but I know the Redskins, Colts, and Cowboys have a Ring of Honor. With some of the newer stadium designs, it’s hard to keep honoring people this way.
Who in the heck is in the Indy Colts “ring of honor”, Eric Dickerson and Jeff George?
I like the idea of retiring jerseys instead of numbers, I mean the O’s already have 5 retired numbers (although the way they have been playing that may be it forever).
Ted Marchibroda, Bob Irsay, and I think Jim Harbaugh. I guess it’s not that big because all of Indy’s best players are still on the field.
How many numbers have the Duke Blue Devils retired? I notice when they broadcast their games that at least half of the ceiling is filled up with various banners.
Anyone see that Nike commercial with Lebron and Steve Nash, etc playing basketball in an air force hangar. What caught my eye was their uniforms walking to the hangar. Typical Nike design, thin stripe coming from the shoulder blade and down the side and back around the stomach.
I’m a fan of the NFL-style “Ring of Honor” for honoring players. For those unfamiliar with it, they put names of franchise greats along the facing of the upper deck where they remain for all time. I’m not sure if all teams do it, but I know the Redskins, Colts, and Cowboys have a Ring of Honor. With some of the newer stadium designs, it’s hard to keep honoring people this way.
The Toronto Blue Jays have also done this, with a Level of Excellence at Rogers Centre. George Bell, Dave Stieb, Joe Carter, Cito Gaston, Tony Fernandez, former GM Pat Gillick and late radio broadcaster Tom Cheek, who broadcast 4,306 consecutive games, are honoured there.
Callback to the soccer article on Friday. Just noticed this afternoon watching Arsenal’s incredible 2-1 over Manchester United…Arsenal jerseys have a little gold cannon on the back collar of their jerseys. The cannon is the main picture in their main club logo shield on the front of the jersey. Thought it looked cool, along with Henry’s lightning header in the 93rd minute to win it!
did anyone notice that when Baptista came on teh pitch he was wearing a black armband? I looked at arsenal.com and didnt see anything, does anyone know what this was for?
Henry came through big (as usual) that assist on the RvP goal and his header for the win were both sweet.
Also, whats with the blue Man U kits? Are the Blue Devils when they wear them?
OK, I’ve been defending Rex Grossman all season, but he really is a moron.
Well, he’s been up and down, and he had a really stupid quote earlier; “I wasn’t prepared..it was New Years Eve…”——–but he’s in SBXLI in 10:52 seconds.
To make it more uni related, a couple questions. Did she pick that color of outfit to camoflouge the ball? What is up with those ear rings? How is that comfortable?
I’m a fan of the NFL-style “Ring of Honor” for honoring players. For those unfamiliar with it, they put names of franchise greats along the facing of the upper deck where they remain for all time. I’m not sure if all teams do it, but I know the Redskins, Colts, and Cowboys have a Ring of Honor. With some of the newer stadium designs, it’s hard to keep honoring people this way.
The Packer’s ring of honor does it right, listing NFL hall of famers (21) and then only retiring 5 numbers…
14 Don Hutson
3 Tony Canadeo
15 Bart Starr
66 Ray Nitschke
92 Reggie White
… why 1 (Curly Lambeau) and 5 (Paul Hornung) aren’t retired are beyond me
Saints are wearing their black pants, ugh.
Go Bears!
The black pants do look bad, but do not look nearly as bad with the white tops as they do with the black tops.
Agree, with the white jerseys, the black pants are just fine–I think what most people don’t like is the black-on-black “unitard” look, which goes for all teams employing a color-on-color look (i.e. Seahawks)
I think the problem is less with the pants and jerseys being the same color (which bothers me, but not that much) and more with the pants and the socks being the same color. Some guys like Bush wear the high whites which makes it more bearable.
Except in football or hockey, high numbers (56+) on a player just look unatural.
I always thought the reason that basketball players’ numbers were never higher than 55 was so that when the ref identified a player for a foul he would show the scorer the player’s number using his fingers, (raising 2 fingers on one hand & 3 on the other for 23). This way the scorer could know the who the player was if the crowd was too loud hear the ref. Using this logic, players would not be allowed to have numbers higher that 55. Is there a rule to support this?
If the refs would just spend a few hours learning how to use American Sign Language numbers they could signal any number 1-99 (and more) with just one hand.
I think it might have been on here that it was discussed, but there was an article last year about all the young Red Sox pitchers that wore high numbers.
54 Craig Breslow
56 Craig Hansen
58 Jonathan Papelbon
62 Jon Lester
On the 40 man roster they also have:
57 Manny Delcarmen
60 David Pauley
61 Kason Gabbard
68 Devern Hansack
12 – Twelfth man
80 – Steve Largent (Rice used it though)
Ring of Honor
22 Dave Brown
45 Kenny Easley
79 Jacob Green
Pete Gross, the “original” voice of the Seahawks, 1976 – 92, died in December, 1992 due to cancer (Inducted November, 1992 just two days before his passing)
96 Cortez Kennedy
Chuck Knox
17 Dave Krieg
80 Steve Largent
28 Curt Warner
10 Jim Zorn
Not uni related, but it’s always bugged me that after the players give their blood, sweat ad tears, then the trophies are handed to some geriatric that never broke a nail in their life.
I was watching a Futurama episode last week with my son. Leela, the one-eyed character, was hired by the New New York Mets. She wears number 7/8 because all the other numbers had been retired. There’s 3/4 and others as well.
Not exactly sports, but still funny.
By the way, in the year 3000, the Mets will have brought back blue in their color scheme. Looks like ditchtheblack.com worked after all :o)
Saints are wearing their black pants, ugh.
Go Bears!
I don’t see what the big deal is with the Saints and black. It’s a part of their color scheme, so they have every right to wear it. And they are the only team with black, so i think it’s a nice change from other teams.
They are the only team that wears a primary black jersey, but the Jags and the Ravens also wear black on a regular basis, though usually as a secondary color and on alternates.
The Bengals also wear a black uni as their primary home jersey.
The geriatric who recieved the NFC Trophy (The George Halas Trophy) is Virginia McCaskey, the daughter of George Halas. Show some respect for NFL royalty.
The Pistons definately overdid the retiring of numbers from the first 2 championships. Bill Laimbeer (40), Vinnie Johnson (15) and Chuck Daly (2) not really needing it. They also have honored the owner Bill Davidson with the ceremonial retiring but didn’t give him a fake number, just his name on the floor. I actually like the name on the floor idea but there shouldn’t be so many. I can only imagine who will be on the floor after this “generation” of players.
Saints are wearing their black pants, ugh.
Go Bears!
I don’t see what the big deal is with the Saints and black. It’s a part of their color scheme, so they have every right to wear it. And they are the only team with black, so i think it’s a nice change from other teams.
They are the only team that wears a primary black jersey, but the Jags and the Ravens also wear black on a regular basis, though usually as a secondary color and on alternates.
The Bengals also wear a black uni as their primary home jersey.
Also the Raiders and I think Falcons
And the Bengels too.
It’s been a long day–The Bengals just have too much going on with their uniforms for me to pay attention, but I can’t believe I missed Pittsburgh and Oakland!
Who in the heck is in the Indy Colts “ring of honor”, Eric Dickerson and Jeff George?
Johnny Unitas?
No, the Indy Colts don’t really recognize anything from Baltimore. You won’t see anything with Unitas or any mention of Super Bowl IV champs. Bill Brooks (early Indy Colts receiver) is there. So is Irsay, Marchibroda, Dickerson and Harbaugh. There may be one or two others.
Two hands around a neck may be appearing soon for Dungy and Manning, like the fedora for Landry.
I’m sorry, but that’s the lamest thing I’ve heard… I mean, if it was original it’d be lame enough, but it’s a rip-off of Texas A&M, and even Denver ripped off that term before Seattle did… laaaame
I thought I noticed the chain gang in Indy wearing the NFL official 2-stripe socks instead of NCAA/High School 3-stripe socks. Does the NFL use officals that didn’t get field playoff assignments for the chain gang in the playoffs? Or did the chain gang just get some 2-stripe socks?
I can’t really picture Ed Hochuli and his guns holding a down marker.
#91 by Brian from Short Island on 01.21.07 8:42 pm |
Brian from Short Island said:
Jokie said:
Callback to the soccer article on Friday. Just noticed this afternoon watching Arsenal’s incredible 2-1 over Manchester United…Arsenal jerseys have a little gold cannon on the back collar of their jerseys. The cannon is the main picture in their main club logo shield on the front of the jersey. Thought it looked cool, along with Henry’s lightning header in the 93rd minute to win it!
Don’t talk to me. :-(
This happens whenever Man Ure wear their blue shirts :/
(Spurs supporter, for the record. We’ll get you this weekend!)
Something to notice last week… When Cardiff came to White Hart Land last week in their all-blue kits, Spurs rolled out their rare white shorts.
Wow, so many typos…
“We’ll get you this week (it’s a Wednesday match”
“White Hart Lane”
The Buffalo Bills have a Ring of Honor as well. It’s been a while since I’ve been there, but as I recall it includes 15 Jack Kemp, 32 O.J. Simpson, 36 Cookie Gilchrist, 66 Billy Shaw, and some others.
Regarding the discussion of “undeserved” retired numbers, the N.Y. Islanders went through a period where they were retiring numbers just to get people into the building. Don’t get me wrong, Bob Nystrom and Clark Gillies were solid players and great guys, but not of the caliber of Bossy, Potvin et. al. The franchise was in such disarray in the mid-late ’90s that they had to do anything they could to spur interest.
The Jets have retired only 3 numbers, as they’ve had remarkably few great players in their 47-year history, but is Joe Klecko really deserving of the honor or did they just need to find someone from the Sack Exchange-era to recognize? Why not Wesley Walker or Freeman McNeil?
The Oakland Raiders, by contrast, have dozens of deserving number-retirees in their history but have never retired a number. The only Raider whose number is “retired” is Jim Otto, and only because the NFL will not allow 00 (double-zero) to be issued anymore.
The Mets had a “Mookie Wilson day” about 10 years ago but refrained from retiring his #1, in part because Lance Johnson was wearing it at the time (Johnson took #51 for that day). They have so far resisted the temptation to honor Keith Hernandez or Gary Carter even though they had some lean attendance years in the mid-’90s. So far it’s still just Casey, Seaver and Gil Hodges, who hopefully will finally get into the HoF this year.
The geriatric who recieved the NFC Trophy (The George Halas Trophy) is Virginia McCaskey, the daughter of George Halas. Show some respect for NFL royalty.
Thank you for pointing this out, even though she wasn’t strong enough to hold the trophy.
I like the jerseys the Bears had last year much better than this year. It’s not a big difference but it really annoys me. Last year the Bears had the three stripes on the sleeves of their jerseys, and then had some smaller stripes on the elastic, for mostly the backs and receivers, on the end of the sleeve. This year there are only two stripes on the sleeve of the jersey, and the third stripe is on the elastic part. This is very difficult to see, and on linemen you can only see the beginning and end of the third stripe because of the way the linemen’s sleeves are cut.
BEAR DOWN CHICAGO BEARS
Nah, he’ll go with cutoffs and an old Pats t-shirt with the sleeves torn off and a big coffee stain on it. He’s flexible.
Does he wear the same old hoody every week? Throughout the week? If so, wouldn’t that hint at the strength or reliability of a Reebok product? That even a beat to death cut up stretched out hoody lasts?
I think what most people don’t like is the black-on-black “unitard” look, which goes for all teams employing a color-on-color look (i.e. Seahawks)
Paul,
Please sumbit as a new term in the Webster Dictionary:
Unitard (adj.)- describes a jersey in which is color-on-color. To see word in a sentece please look above.
I can’t stand the whole “retiring the number” phenomenon, and I agree with schuby that it makes much more sense to retire a jersey than a number.
I don’t mind the number, but teams just retire FAR too many.
I think a guy has to be a nationally-known great. Heck, even some of the lower-tier hall of famers generally should not make the cut.
Or, at least, someone that completely “defined the team” to the rest of the world. And, no, not just because a guy died (Munson). And, no, not just because of one single-season record (Maris).
The Yankees, with all their greats, have some guys that just should not be in this class: Martin, Dickey, Maris, Rizzuto, Rizzuto, Mattingly, Howard (Ok, maybe for other reasons), Guidry.
Of course, retiring a jersey for the Yankees would pretty much look like retiring a number…
I think teams should feel free to retire any damn number they please. Retiring numbers is designed to be different than putting people in the Hall of Fame (of which, it should be noted, Bill Dickey is a member).
I also disagree with thinking that Munson should not have his number retired. He was the leader of a team that won three consecutive World Series, the first captain to be named after Lou Gehrig, and he died tragically while a member of the team. But, he was no slouch as a player, either. He is the only Yankee to win the ROY and MVP awards (a record which should have fallen last year, IMHO), he was a great fielding catcher, hit over .300 in three consecutive years (and at a .373 clip in the World Series), and rocked the fu manchu.
Sorry, when I read stuff like Dickey and Munson’s numbers should not be retired, I can hear my grandfather roll in his grave and I just have to speak up to put him back at peace. ;P
Interesting news in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (see first subline), which says that the Columbus Blue Jackets will change their logo to somthing similar to their current third jersey logo, involving the Ohio state flag. Though the article seems to indicate that the logo will appear as is, the quote seems to leave open the possibility of tweakage. Thoughts?
I think what most people don’t like is the black-on-black “unitard” look, which goes for all teams employing a color-on-color look (i.e. Seahawks)
Paul,
Please sumbit as a new term in the Webster Dictionary:
Unitard (adj.)- describes a jersey in which is color-on-color. To see word in a sentece please look above.
LOL
It’s already there, this is what I was referring to.
Who in the heck is in the Indy Colts “ring of honor”, Eric Dickerson and Jeff George?
Johnny Unitas?
Johnny Unitas was and always will be a BALTIMORE Colt. He never, EVER played in Indanapolis!
His name currently resides in Baltimore’s “Ring of Honor”, as well as a statue of his likeness outside of M&T Bank Stadium (Ravens Stadium).
Not only Johnny Unitas, but the other 7 HoF Baltimore Colts are emplaced in the Ravens Ring of Honor, along with Peter Boulware, Mike McCrary, Art Modell and Ernest Byner (don’t ask)
Interesting news in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (see first subline), which says that the Columbus Blue Jackets will change their logo to somthing similar to their current third jersey logo, involving the Ohio state flag. Though the article seems to indicate that the logo will appear as is, the quote seems to leave open the possibility of tweakage. Thoughts?
This was first posted here a few days ago. They’re taking the front crest and shoulder badges from their third and putting on their main sweaters. They won’t keep the laces from the third, and no word about whether or not they’ll keep the sleeve stars. It’s a smart move because the third sold way more than their other two sweaters. The only thing bad about their current third is it combines dark blue and black and just looks weird.
Also, interesting bit of trivia for you, the Ohio state flag is not a flag, but a burgee.
Colts win. Manning tries to greet Angry Homeless Man, AHM blows him off, Manning pats AHM twice on the belly. AHM shown earlier on the sidelines tugging the collar of his now-unlucky hoody.
Colts v. Bears. A uniClassic. Manning v. Bears D…another classic…thank God we’d don’t have to look at friggin mope face Belicheck this year…what a deadpan mope…
I’m fairly certain the Bears get home uni advantage. The Steelers had the option last year and chose to wear road white since they didn’t get to wear black on the path from the 6-seed.
Interesting news in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (see first subline), which says that the Columbus Blue Jackets will change their logo to somthing similar to their current third jersey logo, involving the Ohio state flag. Though the article seems to indicate that the logo will appear as is, the quote seems to leave open the possibility of tweakage. Thoughts?
This was first posted here a few days ago. They’re taking the front crest and shoulder badges from their third and putting on their main sweaters. They won’t keep the laces from the third, and no word about whether or not they’ll keep the sleeve stars. It’s a smart move because the third sold way more than their other two sweaters. The only thing bad about their current third is it combines dark blue and black and just looks weird.
The black is coming off the new jerseys, according to reports. The Blue Jackets may wear all blue.
Now that the Super Bowl matchup is set, I’m thinking back to Paul’s Page2 column before last year’s Super Bowl, in which he pointed out that the team with the better-looking uniforms usually wins the Super Bowl (promptly followed by a Steelers victory over the Seahawks). Considering the Colts-Bears matchup, I can’t figure who has the better uniform. Both are old-school pre-merger NFL teams with classic looks, you really can’t go wrong with either of them, unless you don’t like the Colts’ all-white look (which I like). Any thoughts on the uni matchup?
The Colts wear some short pants, and their socks come up over their knees – and the holder on field goal attempts, #48, looked like he was wearing sheer blue pantyhose on his knees.
Just an observation, it looked pretty weird.
Colts v. Bears. A uniClassic. Manning v. Bears D…another classic…thank God we’d don’t have to look at friggin mope face Belicheck this year…what a deadpan mope…
Belichick is as loquacious as he is natty. Jerk.
But as to uniforms the Bears-Colts will be a nice match as noted by others. Just as long as the Bears don’t pull out their navy unitard look.
Uni selection for the Super Bowl rotates yearly based on Home team. Last year was AFC (Steelers picked white since they wore them throughout the playoffs)Since the Bears have the choice, hopefully they don’t go for all Navy. I was thinking as I watched this game how great a Colts/Bears game would be uni wise except that the Colts don’t have striped socks anymore. Not looking forward to 2 weeks of Payton Manning commercials.
That interview with Belichek after the game was priceless. This also sets up my dream or nightmare of my two teams playing each other in the Super Bowl. I’m so torn. I’m pretty sick of the Bears and their damn songs though.
I hope the Colts get the blue jerseys and the Bears get the whites. It is what will look best in my opinion.
Did anyone else see a couple crowd shots of the Colts game…in the sea of blue there was one ‘lady’ with a pink colts jersey with pink colts hat. She looked like such an idiot.
I noticed the holder’s hose was stretched pretty thin, too. Also, one of Reggie Wayne’s socks had fallen down before that catch he bobbled but then held onto.
#117 by Vincent A. Cipollone on 01.21.07 10:55 pm |
Jill said:
That interview with Belichek after the game was priceless. This also sets up my dream or nightmare of my two teams playing each other in the Super Bowl. I’m so torn. I’m pretty sick of the Bears and their damn songs though.
I hope the Colts get the blue jerseys and the Bears get the whites. It is what will look best in my opinion.
Did anyone else see a couple crowd shots of the Colts game…in the sea of blue there was one ‘lady’ with a pink colts jersey with pink colts hat. She looked like such an idiot.
I knew somebody else here would notice. She stood out like a sore thumb.
Uni selection for the Super Bowl rotates yearly based on Home team. Last year was AFC (Steelers picked white since they wore them throughout the playoffs)Since the Bears have the choice, hopefully they don’t go for all Navy. I was thinking as I watched this game how great a Colts/Bears game would be uni wise except that the Colts don’t have striped socks anymore. Not looking forward to 2 weeks of Payton Manning commercials.
Oh my, you’re right. Let’s see..Sony, Sprint, Reebok, Gatorade, those are the ones I can think of right off the top. Mastercard, too?
Maybe Paul could rig up some kind of XL spreadsheet so we could keep track of the different Peyton commercials and endorsements. Paul, I think with Google Docs you can share spreadsheets.
Who in the heck is in the Indy Colts “ring of honor”, Eric Dickerson and Jeff George?
Johnny Unitas?
Johnny Unitas was and always will be a BALTIMORE Colt. He never, EVER played in Indanapolis!
His name currently resides in Baltimore’s “Ring of Honor”, as well as a statue of his likeness outside of M&T Bank Stadium (Ravens Stadium).
Not only Johnny Unitas, but the other 7 HoF Baltimore Colts are emplaced in the Ravens Ring of Honor, along with Peter Boulware, Mike McCrary, Art Modell and Ernest Byner (don’t ask)
Dispicible that the Ravens are taking another team’s glory because the league copped out to a whiney city. Those players should not be on the Ravens Ring of Honor.
Who in the heck is in the Indy Colts “ring of honor”, Eric Dickerson and Jeff George?
Johnny Unitas?
Johnny Unitas was and always will be a BALTIMORE Colt. He never, EVER played in Indanapolis!
His name currently resides in Baltimore’s “Ring of Honor”, as well as a statue of his likeness outside of M&T Bank Stadium (Ravens Stadium).
Not only Johnny Unitas, but the other 7 HoF Baltimore Colts are emplaced in the Ravens Ring of Honor, along with Peter Boulware, Mike McCrary, Art Modell and Ernest Byner (don’t ask)
Dispicible that the Ravens are taking another team’s glory because the league copped out to a whiney city. Those players should not be on the Ravens Ring of Honor.
If yopu knew anything about the history of the Colts you would know that those players DO NOT associate themselves with the Indy Colts. They have remained in Baltimore and all of them were on hand when they were added to our ring of honor. Baltimore has been called alot of names, but whiney usually isn’t one. We waited 12 years and through one expansion (where we had the best bid) to fianlly get a team. Maybe do a little research next time.
That interview with Belichek after the game was priceless. This also sets up my dream or nightmare of my two teams playing each other in the Super Bowl. I’m so torn. I’m pretty sick of the Bears and their damn songs though.
I hope the Colts get the blue jerseys and the Bears get the whites. It is what will look best in my opinion.
Did anyone else see a couple crowd shots of the Colts game…in the sea of blue there was one ‘lady’ with a pink colts jersey with pink colts hat. She looked like such an idiot.
I knew somebody else here would notice. She stood out like a sore thumb.
Pink is fine and all, but not at a AFC championship game (save it for the pre-season)
What did you think of Dungy’s suggestion to “just play the game in Ft. Wayne” I thought it was a great line.
Man I hate the Colts! Da Bears have better unis, dig the orange. The Colts lose points for that half assed shoulder stripe. The only way the Bears could ever be more annoying than Manning & co is with another Super Bowl Shuffle…
Who in the heck is in the Indy Colts “ring of honor”, Eric Dickerson and Jeff George?
Johnny Unitas?
Johnny Unitas was and always will be a BALTIMORE Colt. He never, EVER played in Indanapolis!
His name currently resides in Baltimore’s “Ring of Honor”, as well as a statue of his likeness outside of M&T Bank Stadium (Ravens Stadium).
Not only Johnny Unitas, but the other 7 HoF Baltimore Colts are emplaced in the Ravens Ring of Honor, along with Peter Boulware, Mike McCrary, Art Modell and Ernest Byner (don’t ask)
Dispicible that the Ravens are taking another team’s glory because the league copped out to a whiney city. Those players should not be on the Ravens Ring of Honor.
If yopu knew anything about the history of the Colts you would know that those players DO NOT associate themselves with the Indy Colts. They have remained in Baltimore and all of them were on hand when they were added to our ring of honor. Baltimore has been called alot of names, but whiney usually isn’t one. We waited 12 years and through one expansion (where we had the best bid) to fianlly get a team. Maybe do a little research next time.
I’ll take all the flak I have coming for what I said, so hurl it away.
23 years and counting and still crying over a team leaving- yeah, I’d call that whiney. The players may not like it, the fans may not like it but they left and they took their history and stats and honors with them.
The owner of the stadium can do whatever they want and honor whoever they want for whatever reason so they can honor whoever they want- but it doesn’t make it right. If they didn’t wear Ravens purple and black they shouldn’t be up on the Ravens ring of honor. If they played for the Colts they should be honored BY THE COLTS- not the Ravens.
They can try to honor them, but I have a feeling it would be kind of embarrassing to have the men you are honoring not show up. Just wait until Peyton and the rest retire, then your RoH will be filled up.
Colts v. Bears. A uniClassic. Manning v. Bears D…another classic…thank God we’d don’t have to look at friggin mope face Belicheck this year…what a deadpan mope…
Belichick is as loquacious as he is natty. Jerk.
But as to uniforms the Bears-Colts will be a nice match as noted by others. Just as long as the Bears don’t pull out their navy unitard look.
Actually , the All-Blue Bear unis don’t count as a unitard because the Bears (unlike the Saints and Jags) wear their white socks with stripes with the navy pants. This breaks up the pattern. Oddly enough the Bears, like the Chiefs and Jets, wear the white socks when the go with the all whites, which makes the white socks the universal road socks. Personally i doubt the Bears would go all blue since the two times they have done it (both against the packers in primetime) were among the most embarrassing moments in Bear history/
Bears, as home team, will have the option of what uniform to wear. Da Bears will be in navy blue with white pants, while the Colts will be in all white.
I’m hoping for the Bears going with the standard home unis (blue jerseys white pants) and the colts in the all-white because then it will showcase the Bears outstanding navy striped socks, which match the sleeve stripes.
What a fantastic Super Bowl coming…great, storied franchises, no horseshit unis (like Pats and Saints, yeah, let’s hear all the losers defend that awful Old Gold, yech!) …it’s old school all the way…
And great to see a football game played in the snow on nature turf in front of manic football fans… Da Bears…
And how pathetic are all the football analysts look picking the Saints over the Bears? Theismann, Salisbury, Jaworski, Golic, Long, Bradshaw, Johnson, Sharpe? Tools
They can try to honor them, but I have a feeling it would be kind of embarrassing to have the men you are honoring not show up. Just wait until Peyton and the rest retire, then your RoH will be filled up.
They don’t show up oh well, the players look bad while the team looks good for honoring it’s past.
Don’t get me wrong, I think the team should honor the city’s football past(all of it, including CFL)in memorials, statues, and a museum but the Ring of Honor should be reserved for only those who have worn the team’s uniform.
Frankly I think it would be no different than my home team(The Patriots by the way) honoring the Boston Redskins, Boston Yanks, Boston Bulldogs, Providence Steamrollers, Hartford Blues but not claiming their histories, championships, nor players as being part of the Patriots’ ring of honor/hall of fame. Just not right to do so.
Except in football or hockey, high numbers (56+) on a player just look unatural.
I always thought the reason that basketball players’ numbers were never higher than 55 was so that when the ref identified a player for a foul he would show the scorer the player’s number using his fingers, (raising 2 fingers on one hand & 3 on the other for 23). This way the scorer could know the who the player was if the crowd was too loud hear the ref. Using this logic, players would not be allowed to have numbers higher that 55. Is there a rule to support this?
I believe the rule you mention is in effect for college basketball, but not the NBA. You’ll notice that in college there are no numbers larger than 55. However, the NBA is littered with numbers larger than 5 (e.g. – Kobe’s old #8)
I believe it’s just in college (high school too, I think). The NBA has had:
6 – Julius Erving
7 – Toni Kukoc
8 – Kobe
9 – Ron Harper (Bulls)
16 – Bob Lanier
17 – Brent Barry (Spurs)
18 – ???
19 – Willis Reed
36 – Rasheed Wallace
49 – some guy on the Lakers back in the day
73 – Rodman (Lakers)
76 – Shawn Bradley
77 – George Muresan
91 – Rodman (Bulls)
93 – Artest
99 – Mikan
I can’t think of any others off the top of my head, but I’m sure there are some.
I think Tom Tolbert wore #39 with the Hornets.
John Havlicek and Chris Mullin. Brent Barry for 17? Ouch, babe.
That interview with Belichek after the game was priceless. This also sets up my dream or nightmare of my two teams playing each other in the Super Bowl. I’m so torn. I’m pretty sick of the Bears and their damn songs though.
I hope the Colts get the blue jerseys and the Bears get the whites. It is what will look best in my opinion.
Did anyone else see a couple crowd shots of the Colts game…in the sea of blue there was one ‘lady’ with a pink colts jersey with pink colts hat. She looked like such an idiot.
Jill, I saw that and immediately thought of the angry post I was going to write when I decided to let it go. Glad you posted, though, so I could chime in. Her stupidity was accentuated by the sea of blue surrounding her. In my opinion, she didn’t look fashionable or cute; she looked like an idiot.
I also wanted the Bears/Colts for several reasons. I will be rooting for the Colts, but not by much. I hope the Bears go all-navy as I like the unitard look. Whites for the Colts.
P.S. I do like the stripes on the Pats’ socks, however, and I think the Saints lost because they didn’t go full-on black.
The saints were the away team and wouldn’t have gotten a shot to wear the all-black at all. If anything they lost for not wearing the classic gold pants. I can’t stand the liatard look, especially on a team that usually looks so good. Somehow the thought of the Bears wearing the all-blue in a title game seems sacreligious
One NBA note: I was watching the Mavs/Heat game (gotta do something while waiting for the playoff games), and they had a bit on the evolution of headbands in the NBA including the flap in Chicago over Big Ben refusing to take his off. All I kept thinking was, “Paul would have (and has) done this so much better.”
The saints were the away team and wouldn’t have gotten a shot to wear the all-black at all. If anything they lost for not wearing the classic gold pants. I can’t stand the liatard look, especially on a team that usually looks so good. Somehow the thought of the Bears wearing the all-blue in a title game seems sacreligious
Oh, I know that; I was just being facetious. I stand behind the all-navy look for the Bears, though.
The saints were the away team and wouldn’t have gotten a shot to wear the all-black at all. If anything they lost for not wearing the classic gold pants. I can’t stand the liatard look, especially on a team that usually looks so good. Somehow the thought of the Bears wearing the all-blue in a title game seems sacreligious
Oh, I know that; I was just being facetious. I stand behind the all-navy look for the Bears, though.
Re: The “Ring of Honor” comments:
Note that although the Cowboys have a Ring of Honor, they don’t retire the numbers. There are players in the Ring with the same number (Emmitt Smith and Bob Hayes (22); Michael Irvin and Drew Pearson (88.)…and at one point a few years ago, Antonio Bryant wore 88 as well. Even though the numbers aren’t retired,it’s understood that no one will ever wear 12 (Staubach) or 8 (Aikman) again.
Now that the Super Bowl matchup is set, I’m thinking back to Paul’s Page2 column before last year’s Super Bowl, in which he pointed out that the team with the better-looking uniforms usually wins the Super Bowl (promptly followed by a Steelers victory over the Seahawks). Considering the Colts-Bears matchup, I can’t figure who has the better uniform. Both are old-school pre-merger NFL teams with classic looks, you really can’t go wrong with either of them, unless you don’t like the Colts’ all-white look (which I like). Any thoughts on the uni matchup?
Now hold it right there. A correlation between better looking uniforms and historical Super Bowl success is silly. I don’t buy it. Fans remember the dynasties best and elevate their uniforms over time. Also teams that win a lot are less likely to change their uniforms thus they retain a more traditional look.
The real uni-related Super Bowl stat is this: in the first 7 dome Bowls the team wearing white won. The Pats were first to lose (to GB in XXXI)
Callback to the soccer article on Friday. Just noticed this afternoon watching Arsenal’s incredible 2-1 over Manchester United…Arsenal jerseys have a little gold cannon on the back collar of their jerseys. The cannon is the main picture in their main club logo shield on the front of the jersey. Thought it looked cool, along with Henry’s lightning header in the 93rd minute to win it!
Don’t talk to me. :-(
This happens whenever Man Ure wear their blue shirts :/
(Spurs supporter, for the record. We’ll get you this weekend!)
Something to notice last week… When Cardiff came to White Hart Land last week in their all-blue kits, Spurs rolled out their rare white shorts.
Wow, so many typos…
“We’ll get you this week (it’s a Wednesday match”
“White Hart Lane”
Sorry, poor typing.
Now, now, let’s not be too hard on Spurs fans! Any word on van Persie’s injury?
Do Reche Caldwell’s eyes scare the hell out of anyone else? or is it just me?
It looks like his eyes are always about to explode. It’s freaky.
How can someone with their unblinking eyes SO OPEN keep dropping balls like that! They sure are creepy.
Maybe he was going blind and trying to get in as much light as he could*- it sure as heck looked like he couldn’t see where he was going or what he was doing!
I am in favor of cities being able to honor and remember their historic players, even if the franchise they played for left town. Nothing wrong with the Colts remembering Johnny Unitas and the other great Baltimore Colts players too if they want to, but they are a part of Baltimore history, not Indianapolis history.
And this is coming from a Steelers fan! I don’t begrudge the Ravens fans their Baltimore history; I may sadly be in a similar situation if the Penguins end up leaving Pittsburgh if the NHL ever returned. I would hope they wouldn’t give out #66.
Arsenal jerseys have a little gold cannon on the back collar of their jerseys. The cannon is the main picture in their main club logo shield on the front of the jersey. Thought it looked cool
Totally random thought, mildly related, but it just came into my mind. Here, in Germany there’s an east German team, called Energie Cottbus, an they have a lightning rod in the back of their collar. However, I always feel that you have to look twice not to confuse it with the SS-insignia and that going with that in the back of the collar is a poor choice given that their fans’ reputation is generally one of being politcally on the (far) right.
Did anyone else see a couple crowd shots of the Colts game…in the sea of blue there was one ‘lady’ with a pink colts jersey with pink colts hat. She looked like such an idiot.
Again, random soccer note/observation from across the pond. Here they’ve started marketing pink merchandising articles for women. Is that happening with you guys in the states as well?
Did anyone else see a couple crowd shots of the Colts game…in the sea of blue there was one ‘lady’ with a pink colts jersey with pink colts hat. She looked like such an idiot.
Again, random soccer note/observation from across the pond. Here they’ve started marketing pink merchandising articles for women. Is that happening with you guys in the states as well?
Yes–it has been a growing trend for a few years now. Most male fans (and those females who are true fans) can’t stand it.
When the Redskins played at RFK, I remember the Ring of Fame was actually a Washington Ring of Fame so guys like Rod Langway, Walter Johnson and Wes Unseld were in it as well. Unfortunately, RFK doesn’t have the ring anymore, we have that stupid wall.
Yes–it has been a growing trend for a few years now. Most male fans (and those females who are true fans) can’t stand it.
Thought so. Same here, can’t help but not take the girls (and the occasional guy) wearing these things to games seriuosly. I mean they’re mostly in their teens and there for the “party”/”hamdsome players”, but still. Yuck! The original post stated they’re even manufacturing pink jerseys? Now I know what’s coming next, so far we only had scarves and caps.
Did anyone else see a couple crowd shots of the Colts game…in the sea of blue there was one ‘lady’ with a pink colts jersey with pink colts hat. She looked like such an idiot.
Again, random soccer note/observation from across the pond. Here they’ve started marketing pink merchandising articles for women. Is that happening with you guys in the states as well?
Yes–it has been a growing trend for a few years now. Most male fans (and those females who are true fans) can’t stand it.
There is no lack of obvious examples of hideously poor taste in sports merchandising…
Who in the heck is in the Indy Colts “ring of honor”, Eric Dickerson and Jeff George?
Johnny Unitas?
Johnny Unitas was and always will be a BALTIMORE Colt. He never, EVER played in Indanapolis!
His name currently resides in Baltimore’s “Ring of Honor”, as well as a statue of his likeness outside of M&T Bank Stadium (Ravens Stadium).
Not only Johnny Unitas, but the other 7 HoF Baltimore Colts are emplaced in the Ravens Ring of Honor, along with Peter Boulware, Mike McCrary, Art Modell and Ernest Byner (don’t ask)
Dispicible that the Ravens are taking another team’s glory because the league copped out to a whiney city. Those players should not be on the Ravens Ring of Honor.
If yopu knew anything about the history of the Colts you would know that those players DO NOT associate themselves with the Indy Colts. They have remained in Baltimore and all of them were on hand when they were added to our ring of honor. Baltimore has been called alot of names, but whiney usually isn’t one. We waited 12 years and through one expansion (where we had the best bid) to fianlly get a team. Maybe do a little research next time.
I’ll take all the flak I have coming for what I said, so hurl it away.
23 years and counting and still crying over a team leaving- yeah, I’d call that whiney. The players may not like it, the fans may not like it but they left and they took their history and stats and honors with them.
The owner of the stadium can do whatever they want and honor whoever they want for whatever reason so they can honor whoever they want- but it doesn’t make it right. If they didn’t wear Ravens purple and black they shouldn’t be up on the Ravens ring of honor. If they played for the Colts they should be honored BY THE COLTS- not the Ravens.
Well then, by your logic, the City of Cleveland should also be labelled as whiney since they actually forced the team to leave behind the NAME and COLORS of the franchise, along with all of the history of the team.
I don’t think that’s the case. I think that people have a STRONG sense of ownership in sports teams these days. They define the cities that they play in and fans feel a personal connection.
#1 by Ajax on 01.21.07 8:15 am |
Except in football or hockey, high numbers (56+) on a player just look unatural.
#2 by austin on 01.21.07 8:22 am |
Ajax said:
I agree for the most part, but their are exceptions
#3 by Paul Frankenstein on 01.21.07 9:31 am |
I’m trying to think of other famous #84s, and the only ones I can come up with off the top of my head are Gary Clark and Randy Moss. Anyone else?
#4 by Doug on 01.21.07 9:33 am |
Joey Galloway…at least, marginally famous.
#5 by B Wach$ on 01.21.07 9:54 am |
Herman Moore. As famous as you can get on the Detroit Lions.
#6 by GoTerriers on 01.21.07 9:55 am |
Paul Frankenstein said:
Guillaume Latendresse of the Montreal Canadiens, who is not famous in and of himself (yet) is the first NHL player EVER to wear #84 . . .
#7 by The Ol Goaler on 01.21.07 10:03 am |
Well, there’s Guillaume Latendresse of Les Canadiens… Kidding aside, he’s the first NHL player to wear #84, meaning every uni number from 1 through 99 has been worn at least once by an NHL player. (#00 is banned by the league, but Frank “Mr. Zero” Brimsek wore #0 for an NHL All-Star Game in the days when teams only had one goalie, and that goalie always wore #1!)
#8 by GrafZeppelin on 01.21.07 10:08 am |
I believe Darryl Stingley wore #84.
#9 by Jeffery on 01.21.07 10:17 am |
Don’t forget TJ Houshmandzadeh! The best active #84!!!
#10 by TD on 01.21.07 10:31 am |
Shannon and Sterling Sharpe wore 84, although the ripple distortion creating by their non-stop talking made the jerseys hard to read.
#11 by Matt H. on 01.21.07 10:33 am |
Imagine what the yankees will have to do in the future. after jeter and torre’s numbers (2 & 6 respectivly), they will be out of single digits.
10yrs from now they will all be wearing 40+ numbers
#12 by TD on 01.21.07 10:43 am |
84, off the top of my head
Randy Grossman
Javon Walker
Shannon Sharpe
Sterling Sharpe
Webster Slaughter
Haywood Jeffires
Billy White Shoes Johnson
Ricky Nattiel
Gary Clark
Darryl Stingley
Joey Porter
Michael Lewis
Randy Moss
Jay Novacek
Chris Chambers
Herman Moore
Eric Moulds
TJ Houshyermama
Joey Galloway
Ben Watson
#13 by schuby on 01.21.07 11:04 am |
Matt H. said:
Yea, they need to start retiring jerseys instead
#14 by Jeff I on 01.21.07 11:21 am |
austin said:
Have to disagree.
I think Barry Zito’s #75 looks about as ridiculous as the contract he just signed
#15 by Lou P. on 01.21.07 11:33 am |
I can’t stand the whole “retiring the number” phenomenon, and I agree with schuby that it makes much more sense to retire a jersey than a number.
#16 by schuby on 01.21.07 11:41 am |
Check out the stripes on these babys.
#17 by Christopher on 01.21.07 12:05 pm |
I was a big Carlton Fisk fan when he was on the White Sox. #72 always looked good on him.
He was a big guy. For some reason I think higher numbers look OK on a big guy. But on a skinny guy, it doesn’t. Is that strange?
#18 by Christopher on 01.21.07 12:10 pm |
Lou P. said:
I don’t mind the number, but teams just retire FAR too many.
I think a guy has to be a nationally-known great. Heck, even some of the lower-tier hall of famers generally should not make the cut.
Or, at least, someone that completely “defined the team” to the rest of the world. And, no, not just because a guy died (Munson). And, no, not just because of one single-season record (Maris).
The Yankees, with all their greats, have some guys that just should not be in this class: Martin, Dickey, Maris, Rizzuto, Rizzuto, Mattingly, Howard (Ok, maybe for other reasons), Guidry.
#19 by C.N. on 01.21.07 12:25 pm |
Christopher said:
I would agree with you, with the exception of Maris and Guidry.
#20 by Ray on 01.21.07 12:34 pm |
Ajax said:
I always thought the reason that basketball players’ numbers were never higher than 55 was so that when the ref identified a player for a foul he would show the scorer the player’s number using his fingers, (raising 2 fingers on one hand & 3 on the other for 23). This way the scorer could know the who the player was if the crowd was too loud hear the ref. Using this logic, players would not be allowed to have numbers higher that 55. Is there a rule to support this?
#21 by Teebz on 01.21.07 12:38 pm |
I believe the Toronto Maple Leafs do it best with their honouring of the Leaf greats, rather than retiring a number. Most of those guys were an idol to someone, and I’m sure someone grew up wearing those numbers as a tribute to that player. Why not let that tribute carry on in their respective sport on the biggest stage?
Also, since I know some of you probably skip over my hockey-related posts, I’ve decided to use a new outlet for my love of the game. I started my own blog for it. If you like, you can check it out here.
However, Paul’s blog will always be my “home away from home”. :o)
#22 by Matt on 01.21.07 12:46 pm |
Ray said:
True in NCAA play, but not in the NBA.
#23 by Jeff F on 01.21.07 12:48 pm |
Ray said:
I believe the rule you mention is in effect for college basketball, but not the NBA. You’ll notice that in college there are no numbers larger than 55. However, the NBA is littered with numbers larger than 5 (e.g. – Kobe’s old #8)
#24 by Taylor on 01.21.07 12:58 pm |
Jeff F said:
I believe it’s just in college (high school too, I think). The NBA has had:
6 – Julius Erving
7 – Toni Kukoc
8 – Kobe
9 – Ron Harper (Bulls)
16 – Bob Lanier
17 – Brent Barry (Spurs)
18 – ???
19 – Willis Reed
36 – Rasheed Wallace
49 – some guy on the Lakers back in the day
73 – Rodman (Lakers)
76 – Shawn Bradley
77 – George Muresan
91 – Rodman (Bulls)
93 – Artest
99 – Mikan
I can’t think of any others off the top of my head, but I’m sure there are some.
#25 by ThresherK on 01.21.07 1:03 pm |
Christopher said:
I remember someone mentioning the reverse, especially for pitchers, to get a tubby one a “skinny” number with 1s and 4s and (in the right typeface) 7s. No round or wide square digits, just the slimming vertical stripes.
How does that sit with the new vogue for DBs and WRs to wear uniform numbers in the teens? Some of those “Smurf”-sized guys did look odd with 88, and I notice 86 hardly ever looked better than on Clint Didier, a tight end.
#26 by Hitch on 01.21.07 1:08 pm |
I just find that look on Chris Webber’s face priceless. Every sport that is not hockey or football should limit or restrict the use of high numbers because it is just moronic looking.
#27 by Talon Lardner on 01.21.07 1:13 pm |
Am I the only person who doesn’t mind high numbered jerseys? Granted, I’ve not been really paying attention to jersey numbers until as of late, but I’d rather have a very high number than the quite lame, 1, 0, or even worse, 00.
#28 by Jeff V on 01.21.07 1:19 pm |
During yesterday’s Pistons game, Webber mentioned that his nephew had a dream of him wearing number 84 for the Pistons. So that is why he chose that odd number for a basketball player.
#29 by Ed from Dallas on 01.21.07 1:26 pm |
Ray said:
In college and high school both digits are 0-5…as in 0-5, 10-15, 20-25, ect
#30 by Corey on 01.21.07 1:36 pm |
According to this article, the Pirates will introduce a new alternate jersey next week. It appears about half-way down under “Burried Treasure.”
http://www.post-gaze...
#31 by Jokie on 01.21.07 1:43 pm |
Callback to the soccer article on Friday. Just noticed this afternoon watching Arsenal’s incredible 2-1 over Manchester United…Arsenal jerseys have a little gold cannon on the back collar of their jerseys. The cannon is the main picture in their main club logo shield on the front of the jersey. Thought it looked cool, along with Henry’s lightning header in the 93rd minute to win it!
#32 by Will on 01.21.07 1:54 pm |
Matt said:
Even in the NBA, you need permission to wear a number higher than 55. At least you used to because there was a big deal about Shawn Bradley wearing 76 with Philly (he’s 7′6″ tall) and Muresan wearing 77 (he’s 7′7″ tall). Rodman needed permission to wear 73 (he chose that because his number was always 10, but that wasn’t available with either the Lakers or the Bulls [I think... Bulls fans probably know for sure]).
High numbers in basketball are dumb, in my opinion. Webber’s 84 is dumb. Francisco Elson used to wear 56 and that made me mad, too. And I don’t even like the Nuggets.
I’m a big fan of legal numbers (ie. 0-5 in each case) though I do like single digit numbers (6, 7, 8, and 9) now more than before. Other non-traditional numbers (16, 17, 29, 38, etc.) still annoy me.
Before everyone stops reading this, one last note: the NBA has apparently always allowed 00-55 because if you look at the Celtics’ retired numbers, Don Nelson’s 19 and Havlicek’s 17 are retired and have been retired since 1978.
#33 by J.D. on 01.21.07 2:07 pm |
#25: I remember reading an interview with Roy Williams (Lions WR) this season, and he said he liked wearing #11 for precicely that effect – according to him, it makes him look tall, skinny, and fast.
#34 by Rich Bruns on 01.21.07 2:09 pm |
Jokie said:
The gold cannon was mentioned in yesterdays comments also, someone posted a link to a picture of it. I love it when the Gunners beat Man U.
#35 by Dave from Indy on 01.21.07 2:19 pm |
Saints are wearing their black pants, ugh.
Go Bears!
#36 by Wes Covington on 01.21.07 2:20 pm |
I believe that in international basketball, the players all have to wear numbers 4-15. I believe they reserve 1, 2, and 3 to indicate the number of free throws to be shot.
#37 by schuby on 01.21.07 2:36 pm |
Dave from Indy said:
I don’t see what the big deal is with the Saints and black. It’s a part of their color scheme, so they have every right to wear it. And they are the only team with black, so i think it’s a nice change from other teams.
#38 by WVU Tom on 01.21.07 2:43 pm |
A number is a number–it is supposed to be a unique identifier for a player on a team. There was a time when, in baseball for instance, the numbers were instituted to indicate the position a player was assigned to, which explains why lower numbers are more traditional, but this is no longer the case.
I have no problem with players wearing higher numbers. It is actually kind of smart…if a player wears a number nobody has worn before, then it makes it easier to identify that number with that person. If we start seeing 3-digit numbers, that may be taking it too far.
#39 by WVU Tom on 01.21.07 2:46 pm |
schuby said:
They are the only team that wears a primary black jersey, but the Jags and the Ravens also wear black on a regular basis, though usually as a secondary color and on alternates.
#40 by Jon on 01.21.07 2:57 pm |
As far as basketball uniform numbers go, in high school and college (NFHS and NCAA), players can only wear the digits 0-5. In those two plus the NBA, a team can have either #0 or #00, but not both. In international basketball, numbers are 1-15. In the US, there used to be a rule about not having numbers 1, 2, or 3 in order to avoid confusion between number of points or foul shots and jersey numbers. This rule was taken out a few years ago because it is easy to tell the difference.
#41 by Ed from Dallas on 01.21.07 2:58 pm |
Will said:
What about Mikan’s #99?? And Rodman wore #91 w/ the Bulls.
#42 by Allen Kunt on 01.21.07 3:00 pm |
Worst ‘uniform’ of the week goes to Joe Buck. He looks awful.
#43 by concealed78 on 01.21.07 3:05 pm |
Corey said:
Jesus christ, more red??? Enough red already! I was hoping for a yellow jersey.
#44 by concealed78 on 01.21.07 3:08 pm |
Dave from Indy said:
Bearzzzzzzzzzzzz!
#45 by Pat(Milwaukee) on 01.21.07 3:08 pm |
Dave from Indy said:
The black pants do look bad, but do not look nearly as bad with the white tops as they do with the black tops.
#46 by WVU Tom on 01.21.07 3:11 pm |
Pat(Milwaukee) said:
Agree, with the white jerseys, the black pants are just fine–I think what most people don’t like is the black-on-black “unitard” look, which goes for all teams employing a color-on-color look (i.e. Seahawks)
#47 by Mike on 01.21.07 3:15 pm |
The Ol Goaler said:
Marty Biron wore 00 for the Sabres when he first came up; the league banned it shortly thereafter. You can see a few shots of him in the double donut here.
Neil Sheehy of the Hartford Whalers wore #0 in the mid-to-late 1980s. There are precisely 0 pictures of this online that I can find; I went so far as to email the good Mr. Sheehy last year to see if he had any in digital form, and he did not.
#48 by TD on 01.21.07 3:18 pm |
Non-pro basketball sticks to digits 0-5 so that officials can identify players to the scorers table with one hand for each digit.
Since pro ball (and Olympic ball) didn’t employ that system from the start, allowed players to become historically remembered with a particular number, and with retirements thinning the lot, the pros have always strayed from that theory.
When I was a started following hockey in the early 80s just about every starting goalie wore #1 and every backup had a number in the low 30s. I suppose you can only do that for so long in the TV era, but I’d love to see a few #1 goalies again.
#49 by J. Deaton on 01.21.07 3:20 pm |
#50 by Allison on 01.21.07 3:21 pm |
WVU Tom said:
I can live with the Saints black pants (mainly because they’ve got a white top on), but the refs have the worst outfit on the field with their black pants.
#51 by Vincent A. Cipollone on 01.21.07 3:31 pm |
I think the Saints are wearing their black pants because black attracts more heat than any other color and in chilly Chicago, they need as much heat as they can get.
#52 by Eric on 01.21.07 3:37 pm |
i posted this in the comments section of another thread yesterday…
Eric said:
#53 by Brian from Short Island on 01.21.07 3:41 pm |
Jokie said:
Don’t talk to me. :-(
This happens whenever Man Ure wear their blue shirts :/
(Spurs supporter, for the record. We’ll get you this weekend!)
Something to notice last week… When Cardiff came to White Hart Land last week in their all-blue kits, Spurs rolled out their rare white shorts.
#54 by Tony Payne on 01.21.07 3:41 pm |
Dont forget my man!
28-DJ Mbenga
#55 by ToasterPoodle on 01.21.07 3:43 pm |
WVU Tom said:
The Bengals also wear a black uni as their primary home jersey.
#56 by Will on 01.21.07 3:50 pm |
ToasterPoodle said:
Also the Raiders and I think Falcons
#57 by Allen Kunt on 01.21.07 3:57 pm |
Vincent A. Cipollone said:
Black doesn’t attract heat. It absorbs light instead of reflecting it. And it isn’t sunny enough in Chicago for there to be any effect.
#58 by Smail on 01.21.07 4:00 pm |
Will said:
Steelers, anyone?
#59 by Bill T. on 01.21.07 4:05 pm |
The Ol Goaler said:
John Davidson wore 00 with the Rangers.
#60 by smcs on 01.21.07 4:21 pm |
Teebz said:
The Leafs also only retire numbers if a player who has made a significant contribution to the Maple Leafs suffers a career-ending incident while a member of the Leafs. So only 2 numbers are retired 5, for Bill Barilko, who died in a plane crash the summer after scoring the Stanley Cup winning goal, the Leafs didn’t win another Cup until the year his body was discovered, 10 years later, and 6, for Ace Bailey, who suffered a career-ending head injury.
The Leafs have honoured 1, 4, 7, 9, 10, 21 and 27. Nos. 1 (Andrew Raycroft), 7 (Ian White), 9 (Aleksander Suglobov), 10 (Alex Steen), 21 (Johnny Pohl) and 27 (Mike Peca) are all being used this year.
#61 by C.N. on 01.21.07 4:35 pm |
OK, I’ve been defending Rex Grossman all season, but he really is a moron.
#62 by maximumK on 01.21.07 4:43 pm |
I’m a fan of the NFL-style “Ring of Honor” for honoring players. For those unfamiliar with it, they put names of franchise greats along the facing of the upper deck where they remain for all time. I’m not sure if all teams do it, but I know the Redskins, Colts, and Cowboys have a Ring of Honor. With some of the newer stadium designs, it’s hard to keep honoring people this way.
#63 by pennywisdom on 01.21.07 5:10 pm |
Does anyone think that the Bears orange is “oranger” lately…it seems much brighter than it used to be. (Maybe its just the HD TV)
#64 by Frank from B-more on 01.21.07 5:10 pm |
maximumK said:
Who in the heck is in the Indy Colts “ring of honor”, Eric Dickerson and Jeff George?
I like the idea of retiring jerseys instead of numbers, I mean the O’s already have 5 retired numbers (although the way they have been playing that may be it forever).
#65 by maximumK on 01.21.07 5:18 pm |
Frank from B-more said:
Ted Marchibroda, Bob Irsay, and I think Jim Harbaugh. I guess it’s not that big because all of Indy’s best players are still on the field.
How many numbers have the Duke Blue Devils retired? I notice when they broadcast their games that at least half of the ceiling is filled up with various banners.
#66 by Chris on 01.21.07 5:19 pm |
Anyone see that Nike commercial with Lebron and Steve Nash, etc playing basketball in an air force hangar. What caught my eye was their uniforms walking to the hangar. Typical Nike design, thin stripe coming from the shoulder blade and down the side and back around the stomach.
#67 by Dave A on 01.21.07 5:23 pm |
maximumK said:
The Toronto Blue Jays have also done this, with a Level of Excellence at Rogers Centre. George Bell, Dave Stieb, Joe Carter, Cito Gaston, Tony Fernandez, former GM Pat Gillick and late radio broadcaster Tom Cheek, who broadcast 4,306 consecutive games, are honoured there.
#68 by Clevo on 01.21.07 5:41 pm |
Jokie said:
did anyone notice that when Baptista came on teh pitch he was wearing a black armband? I looked at arsenal.com and didnt see anything, does anyone know what this was for?
Henry came through big (as usual) that assist on the RvP goal and his header for the win were both sweet.
Also, whats with the blue Man U kits? Are the Blue Devils when they wear them?
#69 by bg on 01.21.07 5:49 pm |
Jeffery said:
Before TJ, a fellow named BOB TRUMPY wore 84 with distinction.
#70 by bg on 01.21.07 5:51 pm |
C.N. said:
Well, he’s been up and down, and he had a really stupid quote earlier; “I wasn’t prepared..it was New Years Eve…”——–but he’s in SBXLI in 10:52 seconds.
PS
Lovie’s got his nipple jacket on again.
#71 by Jill on 01.21.07 5:58 pm |
This might be the scariest picture ever.
To make it more uni related, a couple questions. Did she pick that color of outfit to camoflouge the ball? What is up with those ear rings? How is that comfortable?
#72 by Ryan on 01.21.07 6:07 pm |
maximumK said:
The Packer’s ring of honor does it right, listing NFL hall of famers (21) and then only retiring 5 numbers…
14 Don Hutson
3 Tony Canadeo
15 Bart Starr
66 Ray Nitschke
92 Reggie White
… why 1 (Curly Lambeau) and 5 (Paul Hornung) aren’t retired are beyond me
#73 by JMC on 01.21.07 6:07 pm |
WVU Tom said:
I think the problem is less with the pants and jerseys being the same color (which bothers me, but not that much) and more with the pants and the socks being the same color. Some guys like Bush wear the high whites which makes it more bearable.
#74 by JMC on 01.21.07 6:12 pm |
Ray said:
If the refs would just spend a few hours learning how to use American Sign Language numbers they could signal any number 1-99 (and more) with just one hand.
#75 by Lincoln on 01.21.07 6:17 pm |
I think it might have been on here that it was discussed, but there was an article last year about all the young Red Sox pitchers that wore high numbers.
54 Craig Breslow
56 Craig Hansen
58 Jonathan Papelbon
62 Jon Lester
On the 40 man roster they also have:
57 Manny Delcarmen
60 David Pauley
61 Kason Gabbard
68 Devern Hansack
#76 by maximumK on 01.21.07 6:18 pm |
DAAA BEARS!
I wonder if lovie pumped up his magical inflating jacket in anticipation of the ridiculously cold shower he got at the end of that one.
#77 by bg on 01.21.07 6:28 pm |
(doh, orig posted this on the sat thread.)
Esiason is wearing an ANGRY HOMELESS MAN hoody on the pre-game. He calls Bill “Monk Man.”
Will Bill wear The Hoody is he makes it to Miami?
#78 by Bud on 01.21.07 6:29 pm |
Seattle Seahawks –
Retired Numbers
12 – Twelfth man
80 – Steve Largent (Rice used it though)
Ring of Honor
22 Dave Brown
45 Kenny Easley
79 Jacob Green
Pete Gross, the “original” voice of the Seahawks, 1976 – 92, died in December, 1992 due to cancer (Inducted November, 1992 just two days before his passing)
96 Cortez Kennedy
Chuck Knox
17 Dave Krieg
80 Steve Largent
28 Curt Warner
10 Jim Zorn
#79 by Will on 01.21.07 6:31 pm |
Will said:
I forgot what number he wore for the Bulls. Either way, the digits add up to 10.
I’m not sure about the story behind Mikan’s 99. I just wrote what I could remember off the top of my head.
#80 by Will on 01.21.07 6:36 pm |
Frank from B-more said:
Johnny Unitas?
#81 by S Bennett on 01.21.07 6:54 pm |
Not uni related, but it’s always bugged me that after the players give their blood, sweat ad tears, then the trophies are handed to some geriatric that never broke a nail in their life.
Well, you know what I mean…
#82 by Jonathan Goupil on 01.21.07 7:11 pm |
I was watching a Futurama episode last week with my son. Leela, the one-eyed character, was hired by the New New York Mets. She wears number 7/8 because all the other numbers had been retired. There’s 3/4 and others as well.
Not exactly sports, but still funny.
By the way, in the year 3000, the Mets will have brought back blue in their color scheme. Looks like ditchtheblack.com worked after all :o)
#83 by Brandon Grimm on 01.21.07 7:25 pm |
Will said:
And the Bengels too.
#84 by Big John on 01.21.07 7:37 pm |
The geriatric who recieved the NFC Trophy (The George Halas Trophy) is Virginia McCaskey, the daughter of George Halas. Show some respect for NFL royalty.
#85 by Brian on 01.21.07 7:40 pm |
The Pistons definately overdid the retiring of numbers from the first 2 championships. Bill Laimbeer (40), Vinnie Johnson (15) and Chuck Daly (2) not really needing it. They also have honored the owner Bill Davidson with the ceremonial retiring but didn’t give him a fake number, just his name on the floor. I actually like the name on the floor idea but there shouldn’t be so many. I can only imagine who will be on the floor after this “generation” of players.
href=”http://www.nba.com/pistons/history/”>http://www.nba.com/pistons/history/
#86 by WVU Tom on 01.21.07 7:46 pm |
Brandon Grimm said:
It’s been a long day–The Bengals just have too much going on with their uniforms for me to pay attention, but I can’t believe I missed Pittsburgh and Oakland!
#87 by Mike Miller on 01.21.07 7:49 pm |
Will said:
No, the Indy Colts don’t really recognize anything from Baltimore. You won’t see anything with Unitas or any mention of Super Bowl IV champs. Bill Brooks (early Indy Colts receiver) is there. So is Irsay, Marchibroda, Dickerson and Harbaugh. There may be one or two others.
Two hands around a neck may be appearing soon for Dungy and Manning, like the fedora for Landry.
#88 by Ryan on 01.21.07 7:52 pm |
Bud said:
I’m sorry, but that’s the lamest thing I’ve heard… I mean, if it was original it’d be lame enough, but it’s a rip-off of Texas A&M, and even Denver ripped off that term before Seattle did… laaaame
#89 by Mike Miller on 01.21.07 7:53 pm |
I thought I noticed the chain gang in Indy wearing the NFL official 2-stripe socks instead of NCAA/High School 3-stripe socks. Does the NFL use officals that didn’t get field playoff assignments for the chain gang in the playoffs? Or did the chain gang just get some 2-stripe socks?
I can’t really picture Ed Hochuli and his guns holding a down marker.
#90 by Euge! on 01.21.07 8:07 pm |
I hate the colts…
#91 by Brian from Short Island on 01.21.07 8:42 pm |
Brian from Short Island said:
Wow, so many typos…
“We’ll get you this week (it’s a Wednesday match”
“White Hart Lane”
Sorry, poor typing.
#92 by Jeffery on 01.21.07 9:07 pm |
bg said:
WHO DEY!
#93 by Graf Zeppelin on 01.21.07 9:07 pm |
The Buffalo Bills have a Ring of Honor as well. It’s been a while since I’ve been there, but as I recall it includes 15 Jack Kemp, 32 O.J. Simpson, 36 Cookie Gilchrist, 66 Billy Shaw, and some others.
Regarding the discussion of “undeserved” retired numbers, the N.Y. Islanders went through a period where they were retiring numbers just to get people into the building. Don’t get me wrong, Bob Nystrom and Clark Gillies were solid players and great guys, but not of the caliber of Bossy, Potvin et. al. The franchise was in such disarray in the mid-late ’90s that they had to do anything they could to spur interest.
The Jets have retired only 3 numbers, as they’ve had remarkably few great players in their 47-year history, but is Joe Klecko really deserving of the honor or did they just need to find someone from the Sack Exchange-era to recognize? Why not Wesley Walker or Freeman McNeil?
The Oakland Raiders, by contrast, have dozens of deserving number-retirees in their history but have never retired a number. The only Raider whose number is “retired” is Jim Otto, and only because the NFL will not allow 00 (double-zero) to be issued anymore.
The Mets had a “Mookie Wilson day” about 10 years ago but refrained from retiring his #1, in part because Lance Johnson was wearing it at the time (Johnson took #51 for that day). They have so far resisted the temptation to honor Keith Hernandez or Gary Carter even though they had some lean attendance years in the mid-’90s. So far it’s still just Casey, Seaver and Gil Hodges, who hopefully will finally get into the HoF this year.
#94 by Mike on 01.21.07 9:15 pm |
bg said:
bg said:
Nah, he’ll go with cutoffs and an old Pats t-shirt with the sleeves torn off and a big coffee stain on it. He’s flexible.
#95 by Billy B. on 01.21.07 9:21 pm |
Big John said:
Thank you for pointing this out, even though she wasn’t strong enough to hold the trophy.
I like the jerseys the Bears had last year much better than this year. It’s not a big difference but it really annoys me. Last year the Bears had the three stripes on the sleeves of their jerseys, and then had some smaller stripes on the elastic, for mostly the backs and receivers, on the end of the sleeve. This year there are only two stripes on the sleeve of the jersey, and the third stripe is on the elastic part. This is very difficult to see, and on linemen you can only see the beginning and end of the third stripe because of the way the linemen’s sleeves are cut.
BEAR DOWN CHICAGO BEARS
#96 by Jeff B on 01.21.07 9:26 pm |
Nah, he’ll go with cutoffs and an old Pats t-shirt with the sleeves torn off and a big coffee stain on it. He’s flexible.
Does he wear the same old hoody every week? Throughout the week? If so, wouldn’t that hint at the strength or reliability of a Reebok product? That even a beat to death cut up stretched out hoody lasts?
#97 by Boilermaker on 01.21.07 9:35 pm |
#98 by tessa on 01.21.07 9:49 pm |
Christopher said:
Of course, retiring a jersey for the Yankees would pretty much look like retiring a number…
I think teams should feel free to retire any damn number they please. Retiring numbers is designed to be different than putting people in the Hall of Fame (of which, it should be noted, Bill Dickey is a member).
I also disagree with thinking that Munson should not have his number retired. He was the leader of a team that won three consecutive World Series, the first captain to be named after Lou Gehrig, and he died tragically while a member of the team. But, he was no slouch as a player, either. He is the only Yankee to win the ROY and MVP awards (a record which should have fallen last year, IMHO), he was a great fielding catcher, hit over .300 in three consecutive years (and at a .373 clip in the World Series), and rocked the fu manchu.
Sorry, when I read stuff like Dickey and Munson’s numbers should not be retired, I can hear my grandfather roll in his grave and I just have to speak up to put him back at peace. ;P
#99 by WVU Tom on 01.21.07 9:56 pm |
Will said:
Johnny Unitas was and always will be a BALTIMORE Colt. He never, EVER played in Indanapolis!
His name currently resides in Baltimore’s “Ring of Honor”, as well as a statue of his likeness outside of M&T Bank Stadium (Ravens Stadium).
#100 by Kyle Joecken on 01.21.07 9:59 pm |
Interesting news in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (see first subline), which says that the Columbus Blue Jackets will change their logo to somthing similar to their current third jersey logo, involving the Ohio state flag. Though the article seems to indicate that the logo will appear as is, the quote seems to leave open the possibility of tweakage. Thoughts?
#101 by WVU Tom on 01.21.07 10:04 pm |
#102 by bg on 01.21.07 10:09 pm |
Angry Homeless Man may not make it to Miami. The Colts are driving. Can you imagine buttoned-down Dungy in a hoody?
Stay tuned. We’re goin’ down to the wire.
#103 by Frank from B-more on 01.21.07 10:11 pm |
WVU Tom said:
Not only Johnny Unitas, but the other 7 HoF Baltimore Colts are emplaced in the Ravens Ring of Honor, along with Peter Boulware, Mike McCrary, Art Modell and Ernest Byner (don’t ask)
#104 by bg on 01.21.07 10:12 pm |
Colts score. Up by 4 with a minute to go. FG does Pats no good.
A classic uni SB looms; Colts and Bears.
#105 by Smail on 01.21.07 10:15 pm |
Kyle Joecken said:
This was first posted here a few days ago. They’re taking the front crest and shoulder badges from their third and putting on their main sweaters. They won’t keep the laces from the third, and no word about whether or not they’ll keep the sleeve stars. It’s a smart move because the third sold way more than their other two sweaters. The only thing bad about their current third is it combines dark blue and black and just looks weird.
Also, interesting bit of trivia for you, the Ohio state flag is not a flag, but a burgee.
#106 by bg on 01.21.07 10:21 pm |
Colts win. Manning tries to greet Angry Homeless Man, AHM blows him off, Manning pats AHM twice on the belly. AHM shown earlier on the sidelines tugging the collar of his now-unlucky hoody.
Good show.
#107 by JimmyMac on 01.21.07 10:22 pm |
Colts v. Bears. A uniClassic. Manning v. Bears D…another classic…thank God we’d don’t have to look at friggin mope face Belicheck this year…what a deadpan mope…
#108 by TD on 01.21.07 10:24 pm |
I’m fairly certain the Bears get home uni advantage. The Steelers had the option last year and chose to wear road white since they didn’t get to wear black on the path from the 6-seed.
#109 by Teebz on 01.21.07 10:25 pm |
Smail said:
The black is coming off the new jerseys, according to reports. The Blue Jackets may wear all blue.
#110 by bg on 01.21.07 10:25 pm |
Doesnt it have to do with whether or not it’s an AFC site or an NFC site?
#111 by David on 01.21.07 10:40 pm |
Now that the Super Bowl matchup is set, I’m thinking back to Paul’s Page2 column before last year’s Super Bowl, in which he pointed out that the team with the better-looking uniforms usually wins the Super Bowl (promptly followed by a Steelers victory over the Seahawks). Considering the Colts-Bears matchup, I can’t figure who has the better uniform. Both are old-school pre-merger NFL teams with classic looks, you really can’t go wrong with either of them, unless you don’t like the Colts’ all-white look (which I like). Any thoughts on the uni matchup?
#112 by Heaps on 01.21.07 10:41 pm |
The Colts wear some short pants, and their socks come up over their knees – and the holder on field goal attempts, #48, looked like he was wearing sheer blue pantyhose on his knees.
Just an observation, it looked pretty weird.
#113 by Bob A on 01.21.07 10:42 pm |
JimmyMac said:
Belichick is as loquacious as he is natty. Jerk.
But as to uniforms the Bears-Colts will be a nice match as noted by others. Just as long as the Bears don’t pull out their navy unitard look.
#114 by Frank from B-more on 01.21.07 10:44 pm |
Uni selection for the Super Bowl rotates yearly based on Home team. Last year was AFC (Steelers picked white since they wore them throughout the playoffs)Since the Bears have the choice, hopefully they don’t go for all Navy. I was thinking as I watched this game how great a Colts/Bears game would be uni wise except that the Colts don’t have striped socks anymore. Not looking forward to 2 weeks of Payton Manning commercials.
#115 by Jill on 01.21.07 10:47 pm |
That interview with Belichek after the game was priceless. This also sets up my dream or nightmare of my two teams playing each other in the Super Bowl. I’m so torn. I’m pretty sick of the Bears and their damn songs though.
I hope the Colts get the blue jerseys and the Bears get the whites. It is what will look best in my opinion.
Did anyone else see a couple crowd shots of the Colts game…in the sea of blue there was one ‘lady’ with a pink colts jersey with pink colts hat. She looked like such an idiot.
#116 by am on 01.21.07 10:51 pm |
I noticed the holder’s hose was stretched pretty thin, too. Also, one of Reggie Wayne’s socks had fallen down before that catch he bobbled but then held onto.
#117 by Vincent A. Cipollone on 01.21.07 10:55 pm |
Jill said:
I knew somebody else here would notice. She stood out like a sore thumb.
#118 by bg on 01.21.07 10:56 pm |
Frank from B-more said:
Oh my, you’re right. Let’s see..Sony, Sprint, Reebok, Gatorade, those are the ones I can think of right off the top. Mastercard, too?
http://www.cultureby...
Maybe Paul could rig up some kind of XL spreadsheet so we could keep track of the different Peyton commercials and endorsements. Paul, I think with Google Docs you can share spreadsheets.
http://docs.google.c...
#119 by Ed Findlay on 01.21.07 10:59 pm |
Frank from B-more said:
Dispicible that the Ravens are taking another team’s glory because the league copped out to a whiney city. Those players should not be on the Ravens Ring of Honor.
#120 by Frank from B-more on 01.21.07 11:03 pm |
Ed Findlay said:
If yopu knew anything about the history of the Colts you would know that those players DO NOT associate themselves with the Indy Colts. They have remained in Baltimore and all of them were on hand when they were added to our ring of honor. Baltimore has been called alot of names, but whiney usually isn’t one. We waited 12 years and through one expansion (where we had the best bid) to fianlly get a team. Maybe do a little research next time.
#121 by Big Green on 01.21.07 11:05 pm |
It all comes down to the socks…the Colts hurt themselves by removing the stripes this year. The Bears get the nod in that department.
#122 by Frank from B-more on 01.21.07 11:06 pm |
Vincent A. Cipollone said:
Pink is fine and all, but not at a AFC championship game (save it for the pre-season)
What did you think of Dungy’s suggestion to “just play the game in Ft. Wayne” I thought it was a great line.
#123 by nico on 01.21.07 11:23 pm |
Man I hate the Colts! Da Bears have better unis, dig the orange. The Colts lose points for that half assed shoulder stripe. The only way the Bears could ever be more annoying than Manning & co is with another Super Bowl Shuffle…
#124 by Ryan B on 01.21.07 11:24 pm |
The Bears’ navy-on-navy look would be bad, but George Halas would turn over in his grave if they played the Super Bowl in these: Hideous
#125 by Ed Findlay on 01.21.07 11:25 pm |
Frank from B-more said:
I’ll take all the flak I have coming for what I said, so hurl it away.
23 years and counting and still crying over a team leaving- yeah, I’d call that whiney. The players may not like it, the fans may not like it but they left and they took their history and stats and honors with them.
The owner of the stadium can do whatever they want and honor whoever they want for whatever reason so they can honor whoever they want- but it doesn’t make it right. If they didn’t wear Ravens purple and black they shouldn’t be up on the Ravens ring of honor. If they played for the Colts they should be honored BY THE COLTS- not the Ravens.
#126 by Frank from B-more on 01.21.07 11:29 pm |
They can try to honor them, but I have a feeling it would be kind of embarrassing to have the men you are honoring not show up. Just wait until Peyton and the rest retire, then your RoH will be filled up.
#127 by Tom on 01.21.07 11:32 pm |
Bob A said:
Actually , the All-Blue Bear unis don’t count as a unitard because the Bears (unlike the Saints and Jags) wear their white socks with stripes with the navy pants. This breaks up the pattern. Oddly enough the Bears, like the Chiefs and Jets, wear the white socks when the go with the all whites, which makes the white socks the universal road socks. Personally i doubt the Bears would go all blue since the two times they have done it (both against the packers in primetime) were among the most embarrassing moments in Bear history/
#128 by James Craven on 01.21.07 11:32 pm |
Bears, as home team, will have the option of what uniform to wear. Da Bears will be in navy blue with white pants, while the Colts will be in all white.
#129 by Tom on 01.21.07 11:36 pm |
I’m hoping for the Bears going with the standard home unis (blue jerseys white pants) and the colts in the all-white because then it will showcase the Bears outstanding navy striped socks, which match the sleeve stripes.
#130 by JimmyMac on 01.21.07 11:44 pm |
What a fantastic Super Bowl coming…great, storied franchises, no horseshit unis (like Pats and Saints, yeah, let’s hear all the losers defend that awful Old Gold, yech!) …it’s old school all the way…
And great to see a football game played in the snow on nature turf in front of manic football fans… Da Bears…
And how pathetic are all the football analysts look picking the Saints over the Bears? Theismann, Salisbury, Jaworski, Golic, Long, Bradshaw, Johnson, Sharpe? Tools
#131 by Ed Findlay on 01.21.07 11:48 pm |
Frank from B-more said:
They don’t show up oh well, the players look bad while the team looks good for honoring it’s past.
Don’t get me wrong, I think the team should honor the city’s football past(all of it, including CFL)in memorials, statues, and a museum but the Ring of Honor should be reserved for only those who have worn the team’s uniform.
Frankly I think it would be no different than my home team(The Patriots by the way) honoring the Boston Redskins, Boston Yanks, Boston Bulldogs, Providence Steamrollers, Hartford Blues but not claiming their histories, championships, nor players as being part of the Patriots’ ring of honor/hall of fame. Just not right to do so.
#132 by Jacob on 01.21.07 11:51 pm |
All this talk about high jersey numbers and no one mentioned playoff hero, World Series Champion So Taguchi #99?!?!
#133 by pr9000 on 01.21.07 11:55 pm |
I think I’d rather see the home Colts unis and the Bears in all-white. Now that would be uni heaven.
#134 by Stuby on 01.21.07 11:55 pm |
Taylor said:
I think Tom Tolbert wore #39 with the Hornets.
John Havlicek and Chris Mullin. Brent Barry for 17? Ouch, babe.
#135 by Minna H. on 01.22.07 12:07 am |
Jill said:
Jill, I saw that and immediately thought of the angry post I was going to write when I decided to let it go. Glad you posted, though, so I could chime in. Her stupidity was accentuated by the sea of blue surrounding her. In my opinion, she didn’t look fashionable or cute; she looked like an idiot.
I also wanted the Bears/Colts for several reasons. I will be rooting for the Colts, but not by much. I hope the Bears go all-navy as I like the unitard look. Whites for the Colts.
P.S. I do like the stripes on the Pats’ socks, however, and I think the Saints lost because they didn’t go full-on black.
#136 by brett on 01.22.07 12:07 am |
Ryan B said:
I like these, they remind of the Orange Crush Broncoe unis circa Elway. Granted, the navy on white looks better, i dig the orange.
#137 by Tom on 01.22.07 12:12 am |
The saints were the away team and wouldn’t have gotten a shot to wear the all-black at all. If anything they lost for not wearing the classic gold pants. I can’t stand the liatard look, especially on a team that usually looks so good. Somehow the thought of the Bears wearing the all-blue in a title game seems sacreligious
#138 by Minna H. on 01.22.07 12:13 am |
One NBA note: I was watching the Mavs/Heat game (gotta do something while waiting for the playoff games), and they had a bit on the evolution of headbands in the NBA including the flap in Chicago over Big Ben refusing to take his off. All I kept thinking was, “Paul would have (and has) done this so much better.”
#139 by Minna H. on 01.22.07 12:15 am |
Tom said:
Oh, I know that; I was just being facetious. I stand behind the all-navy look for the Bears, though.
#140 by Tom on 01.22.07 12:17 am |
Minna H. said:
cool
#141 by Brian on 01.22.07 12:20 am |
Do Reche Caldwell’s eyes scare the hell out of anyone else? or is it just me?
It looks like his eyes are always about to explode. It’s freaky.
#142 by Ed from Dallas on 01.22.07 12:22 am |
Re: The “Ring of Honor” comments:
Note that although the Cowboys have a Ring of Honor, they don’t retire the numbers. There are players in the Ring with the same number (Emmitt Smith and Bob Hayes (22); Michael Irvin and Drew Pearson (88.)…and at one point a few years ago, Antonio Bryant wore 88 as well. Even though the numbers aren’t retired,it’s understood that no one will ever wear 12 (Staubach) or 8 (Aikman) again.
#143 by Brian on 01.22.07 12:26 am |
The Bills “ring of honor” is called the “wall of fame” … it also has the 12th man on it.
#144 by nico on 01.22.07 12:36 am |
Brian said:
How can someone with their unblinking eyes SO OPEN keep dropping balls like that! They sure are creepy.
#145 by acc (the brain) on 01.22.07 12:42 am |
David said:
Now hold it right there. A correlation between better looking uniforms and historical Super Bowl success is silly. I don’t buy it. Fans remember the dynasties best and elevate their uniforms over time. Also teams that win a lot are less likely to change their uniforms thus they retain a more traditional look.
The real uni-related Super Bowl stat is this: in the first 7 dome Bowls the team wearing white won. The Pats were first to lose (to GB in XXXI)
#146 by Hal on 01.22.07 1:11 am |
Brian from Short Island said:
Now, now, let’s not be too hard on Spurs fans! Any word on van Persie’s injury?
#147 by Mike Miller on 01.22.07 1:14 am |
Department of Redundency Department alert…
The locker room championship gear the Bears and Colts received had “NFC Conference Champions” and “AFC Conference Champions” on it.
NFL Shop
Uh…Last time I checked, the C in AFC and NFC stood for conference. So you should just say NFC Champions or AFC Champions.
Marketing at its best.
#148 by Ed Findlay on 01.22.07 2:05 am |
nico said:
Maybe he was going blind and trying to get in as much light as he could*- it sure as heck looked like he couldn’t see where he was going or what he was doing!
*no offense to anyone sight impaired meant.
#149 by Giancarlo on 01.22.07 2:24 am |
Ryan B said:
Why? The Bears wore orange jerseys during the 1930s.
#150 by NMK on 01.22.07 2:25 am |
I am in favor of cities being able to honor and remember their historic players, even if the franchise they played for left town. Nothing wrong with the Colts remembering Johnny Unitas and the other great Baltimore Colts players too if they want to, but they are a part of Baltimore history, not Indianapolis history.
And this is coming from a Steelers fan! I don’t begrudge the Ravens fans their Baltimore history; I may sadly be in a similar situation if the Penguins end up leaving Pittsburgh if the NHL ever returned. I would hope they wouldn’t give out #66.
#151 by Florian on 01.22.07 5:31 am |
Arsenal jerseys have a little gold cannon on the back collar of their jerseys. The cannon is the main picture in their main club logo shield on the front of the jersey. Thought it looked cool
Totally random thought, mildly related, but it just came into my mind. Here, in Germany there’s an east German team, called Energie Cottbus, an they have a lightning rod in the back of their collar. However, I always feel that you have to look twice not to confuse it with the SS-insignia and that going with that in the back of the collar is a poor choice given that their fans’ reputation is generally one of being politcally on the (far) right.
Did anyone else see a couple crowd shots of the Colts game…in the sea of blue there was one ‘lady’ with a pink colts jersey with pink colts hat. She looked like such an idiot.
Again, random soccer note/observation from across the pond. Here they’ve started marketing pink merchandising articles for women. Is that happening with you guys in the states as well?
#152 by WVU Tom on 01.22.07 8:24 am |
Florian said:
Yes–it has been a growing trend for a few years now. Most male fans (and those females who are true fans) can’t stand it.
#153 by dgc on 01.22.07 8:31 am |
When the Redskins played at RFK, I remember the Ring of Fame was actually a Washington Ring of Fame so guys like Rod Langway, Walter Johnson and Wes Unseld were in it as well. Unfortunately, RFK doesn’t have the ring anymore, we have that stupid wall.
#154 by Florian on 01.22.07 8:41 am |
Yes–it has been a growing trend for a few years now. Most male fans (and those females who are true fans) can’t stand it.
Thought so. Same here, can’t help but not take the girls (and the occasional guy) wearing these things to games seriuosly. I mean they’re mostly in their teens and there for the “party”/”hamdsome players”, but still. Yuck! The original post stated they’re even manufacturing pink jerseys? Now I know what’s coming next, so far we only had scarves and caps.
#155 by JimmyMac on 01.22.07 9:55 am |
Did anyone else see a couple crowd shots of the Colts game…in the sea of blue there was one ‘lady’ with a pink colts jersey with pink colts hat. She looked like such an idiot.
Again, random soccer note/observation from across the pond. Here they’ve started marketing pink merchandising articles for women. Is that happening with you guys in the states as well?
Yes–it has been a growing trend for a few years now. Most male fans (and those females who are true fans) can’t stand it.
There is no lack of obvious examples of hideously poor taste in sports merchandising…
#156 by Kerry on 01.22.07 10:58 am |
Ed Findlay said:
Well then, by your logic, the City of Cleveland should also be labelled as whiney since they actually forced the team to leave behind the NAME and COLORS of the franchise, along with all of the history of the team.
I don’t think that’s the case. I think that people have a STRONG sense of ownership in sports teams these days. They define the cities that they play in and fans feel a personal connection.
#157 by ToasterPoodle on 01.22.07 11:42 am |
Mike Miller said:
The hat I saw by following your link actually said
2006 NFL Conference Champions.
So, on the hat anyway, it was correct.