My NFL season-preview column is now up on ESPN — here’s the link.
Meanwhile, let’s talk about the new NFL logo. By now you’ve all seen the new version, which will go into effect next year (and has already inspired several parodies). Let’s examine the changes and some of the league’s stated reasons for them:
• The old typeface was dated. Yeah, it probably was. It’s always felt very 1970s to me, and the curlicue on the end of the L has generally struck me as more kitschy than elegant. A modest tweak would have been fine by me.
That said, the new type treatment is a disaster. Remember how the Cardinals’ Turn Ahead the Clock insignia featured robotic birds? That’s how this type feels to me — a clunky, robotic take on the previous version. And as a few jillion people have already noted, the old lettering matched the contours of the shield, but the new version doesn’t even try. C’mon, people — even Larry Johnson’s tattoo does a better job of matching type to its surrounding environment than this new logo does.
• The 25 stars were too many for licensees to reproduce on a patch. Then maybe you should have your licensees talk to the people who make American flag patches. Fifty stars, easy as pie. And here’s a thought: Maybe you’d have more room to depict the stars if you didn’t devote so much of the neckline patch to the word Equipment.
• Yeah, but the eight stars represent the eight divisions — the old 25 stars didn’t stand for anything. Oh, please. The NFL didn’t even go to the eight-division format until 2002, so it’s not exactly a time-honored institution. In this era of expansion and relocation and reconfiguration, the lifespan of a given league format is about 15 years. Does anyone really doubt that they’ll be tinkering with the division structure again before long? And what will they do then — change the league logo again? (As an aside, do the stars in the NFC and AFC logos “stand for anything”? Quick, redesign those with four stars each, one for each division, before someone notices!)
My favorite thing about the outgoing logo is how the football is positioned over the stars, partially obscuring some of them. It creates a sense of lots of stars, almost like a waving flag — very spangle-y, almost glittery, like fireworks. But the new football just sits in between the two quartets of stars, and you can almost feel the dull thud that resulted when they put it there. Again, it feels robotically club-footed compared to the previous version.
• The new football is more realistic, plus it evokes the Lombardi Trophy. Oh really? The actual Lombardi Trophy shows eight laces on the ball — same as on a real football. The ball in the old logo also has eight laces. But the new logo shows a ball with five laces, which means it’s not true to the trophy or to a real-life football. Minor point? Maybe, but it speaks to the heavy-handedness and lack of fine detail in this new design.
So let’s ask the standard Uni Watch question: Is it good or is it stupid? I think it’s clear where I’m coming down on that one.
And please, I don’t want to hear anyone saying how I’m resistant to chnage, how I hate anything new, blah-blah-blah. Like I said, I’ve never been in love with the old logo’s typography and definitely think it offers room for improvement. But this ain’t it.
OK? Good. Now get off my lawn.
O Canada: Anyone else getting exhausted by all these NHL unveilings? Just when you think you’ve caught up, they throw a few more at you. I’m tempted to call it Sisyphean (in part because it’s true, but mainly because I just like saying, “Sisyphean”).
Quickly, then: The Canadiens have gotten it right. My only two concerns: (1) The white jersey’s hemline stripes look a bit thinner than before. (2) As someone astutely noted in yesterday’s comments, the Habs created the illusion of a straight hemline by positioning the new jerseys on a flat surface, thereby hiding Reebok’s new shirttail-style hem, which continues to be the problematic. (Additional pics are here, and additional info is here.)
The Flames have gotten it wrong. Seriously, what the hell is this? And this? And while I’m generally in favor of flags on uniforms, the Alberta flag’s color scheme looks awful on the home jersey. What a mess. They did get one thing right, however: I think the rounded shirttail hem is better suited for stripes that are flush against the edge, instead of floating a few inches above the hemline.
Mail Call: Several people have mentioned to me that they’re no longer receiving e-mail notifications when a new ESPN column goes up, even though they’re on the mailing list. Of course, the blog itself functions as a notification system, since I always link to new ESPN columns from this site, but still, I want the mailing list to function properly. If you’re on the list and haven’t been getting notices lately (or if you’re not on the list but want to join), let me know and I’ll make sure you’re signed up.
Uni Watch News Ticker: Contrary to some rumors that were floating around last week, the 49ers will not be wearing their Montana-era throwbacks for the entire season. They’ll still wear them for their first game, as has been the plan all along, but that’s it. … Reprinted from yesterday’s comments: Burger King is giving away mini-jerseys. … That Nike commercial featuring LaDainian Tomlinson running wild on the Bears’ defense wasn’t received very well in Chicago. … Kris McInnis sent along three excellent Auburn pics: this shot of the school’s infamous orange jersey, which was worn one time apiece in 1978 (against Georgia), ’79 (Miss. State), and ’80 (Georgia again); this shot of Shug Jordan in an Alabama Poly. Tech. practice jersey with painted on letters and numbers, taken two years before the school officially changed its name to Auburn; and this shot of a tearaway jersey from 1980, plus a rare glimpse of Auburn using merit decals. … According to this article in the Charlotte Business Journal, the Bobcats’ navy uniform will be worn 20 time this season (up from 12 in 2006-07) and will eventually become the team’s primary design, and the franchise emphasizes blue and reduces the role of orange. … You have got to be kidding me (blame Vince). … Ethan Rowley and his wife were recently at a Nebraska volleyball game, where Mrs. Ethan noted that many of the ’Huskers had their shorts tags sticking out. Upon going home and doing a bit of investigative work, Team Rowley discovered that this had happened before — several times, in fact. And other schools do it too! Could some volleyball-savvy reader please fill us in on this highly disturbing trend? … Speaking of volleyball, let’s go out on a high note: Cory Wright reports that the girls’ volleyball team at Sullivan Central High in Blountville, Tennessee, has been wearing some completely amazing socks.
#1 by Kevin on 09.05.07 9:06 am |
I gotta say - the side vertical stripes on the Flames jerseys look really sharp. However, the flag patches ruin the look of the jersey. They should’ve incorporated the flags into a new secondary logo, sorta like what the Ravens did with the Maryland state flag.
#2 by Fred on 09.05.07 9:12 am |
Judging by this picture, it looks like they’re just rolling down the top of their shorts to help them fit better. My Fiance does that when she borrows my shorts.
#3 by Jim on 09.05.07 9:15 am |
The flames should have taken the jersey from last year and made it fit to the new RBK style. They had a great jersey. Now they have a joke…….
#4 by Chris on 09.05.07 9:20 am |
Last night in the “Super Series” between Canada’s and Russia’s under-20 teams, Canada wore throwbacks from the 1972 series between Canada and the Soviet Union.
They are up for sale at EBay….
John Tavares’ sweater
#5 by alex on 09.05.07 9:21 am |
A little piece in the Montreal Canadiens jersey history.
http://www.habsinsid...
#6 by Chris on 09.05.07 9:21 am |
Ooops, where did that link go….
#7 by James P. on 09.05.07 9:24 am |
first time I have actually looked at the old and new logos together and the new one is smaller than the old one! over all, it is not a good upgrade…
#8 by Ilana Hardesty on 09.05.07 9:29 am |
From yesterday’s Boston Globe, to add to the numbers roster: Royce Clayton, called up to the Sox for the roster expansion, “has switched to No. 11 to coincide with his 11th major league stop.”
#9 by Stuby on 09.05.07 9:30 am |
I have always like the curly L on the NFL logo. I will be sad to see it go.
#10 by Brandon on 09.05.07 9:31 am |
At first I liked the idea of a star for each division on the NFL logo, but Paul you make a good point that these divisions are rarely concrete. A minor touch up on the L would of done just fine.
#11 by Amy on 09.05.07 9:34 am |
Yeah I agree, it looks to me like they’re just rolling the top of their shorts to make them shorter. Its a fairly common practice. I used to roll the top of my soccer shorts like that.
#12 by Go Cyclones on 09.05.07 9:38 am |
Exactly what I thought. Girls like to roll the waistband down once or twice, especially if wearing baggy shorts. Never thought it would be necessary for volleyball however…
#13 by Garrett on 09.05.07 9:39 am |
I don’t think I know a girl who DOESN’T roll her shorts. Doesn’t matter how tiny they get.
#14 by John on 09.05.07 9:39 am |
I’m going to have to agree with the earlier posts. I used to wear biker shorts under my basketball shorts, once they’ve been washed a couple times they lose their elasticity and you’ve got to roll them over to get them to stay up, also because they get a little longer/bigger when they stretch out. Whoo, run-on sentence patrol?
#15 by al on 09.05.07 9:40 am |
first off, the new shield stinks … if anything, i would bet the font change was a request of the merchandisers.
as for the volleyballers “tails”, it looks like they are just turning the top of their shorts over.
#16 by Erich on 09.05.07 9:40 am |
What does LJ’s tatoo stand for?
#17 by Pat on 09.05.07 9:40 am |
I almost completely agree about the new NFL logo. Except I like the old typography and the new football (never noticed the lacing problem before today). Don’t like the 8 stars instead of 25. I think that was the biggest mistake.
#18 by Jason G. on 09.05.07 9:40 am |
I agree with this. This seems to be a very common thing among young women today. You’d think they’d remove the tag or something.
I agree with this as well. I argued this point probably too much the other day. Therefore the only thing I will say today is that I will be sad to see it go and the new letters have no character at all.
#19 by Stuby on 09.05.07 9:40 am |
Makes for a good story, but he’s worn 11 in the past and has played for teams that have retired 11 (Giants, White Sox, Reds-unofficial) so he’s had to take other numbers. I guess we’ll have to see what he does when he goes to his twelfth team.
#20 by redemske on 09.05.07 9:41 am |
Nike has a pair of shorts that say ‘just do it’ on the inside of the waistband. It’s visible only if you roll the shorts.
#21 by Monza on 09.05.07 9:42 am |
Looks like my post didn’t post, but to second what Amy & Fred said, they roll down the tops of their shorts for comfort. My daughter used to play HS volleyball & she said did it for that reason, although hers usually were rolled down just a bit more.
Also, on the NFL logo thing, I keep reading that the 25 stars didn’t stand for anything, but I also read somewhere over the past week (Sorry, I can’t remember where) that the stars actually stood for the 25 teams that were in the league at the last logo redesign. I don’t have time to do the research, but could that be true?
#22 by tommy on 09.05.07 9:42 am |
Can anyone help me find that link that came up (last week?) of that crazy Winnipeg Jets jersey prototype that was up for auction? Can’t find it…
New Habs jerseys: Yes
New Flames jerseys: YIKES!
#23 by Robert on 09.05.07 9:43 am |
I had not noticed it with volleyball shorts, but many girls roll down the tops of the varying styles of shorts.
#24 by Greasy on 09.05.07 9:43 am |
Notice the Flames are adding still more black to their jerseys. Why is it that any team thinks they can add black thier color scheme when it has no business being there at all? (see: NY Mets, Detroit Lions, Northwestern University, Old Indiana Football (late 90’s), the 90’s New York Jets etc. Is anyone else sick of this trend?
I am a Red Wings fan, and a while ago (again, around the late 90’s) they were thinking of introducing a third jersey…a black jersey with red numbers. It was met with so much negativity during a fan poll, that they scrapped the idea. At least they let the fand give thier input before doing such a horrible thing.
#25 by John on 09.05.07 9:44 am |
About the Calgary Flames…I think the Black “C” is attrotious, it was a clear move to “capitalize” on the color-creep of black into uniforms. Terrible Idea, unless it was historic (Chicago WhiteSox…good, Mets…bad….Flyers…good, Calgary…bad)
The away “white” uniform is more bareable than the home “Red/Orange.” I actually like the whites, because of the original “C”. Puting both Flags is admirable, but it is over done with the “baby blue.”
I am from Philadelphia, so it is not like I want to bash them for the sake of bashing.
#26 by Andy on 09.05.07 9:47 am |
You didn’t mention the color change (blue to dark blue) or the slight change in the shape of the shield (the bottom of the new one isn’t as flat).
I think those two changes are improvements worth noting…unless you’re just trying to focus on the negatives.
#27 by mlmintampa on 09.05.07 9:48 am |
As anyone who has dated a current college girl knows, they love soffe shorts. They are designed to be rolled up. The volleyball players may be doing it to make them seem like soffe.
#28 by Joe Drennan on 09.05.07 9:48 am |
Looking at more pictures of the Flames sweaters today, I saw the back for the first time and it’s dreadful without numbers. I do like the view of the front though.
On their breezers though, I noticed the hip stripes aren’t in their usual position directly on the side, but they appeared to be slightly towards the front to line up with the striping on the sweater. We all know the stripes only line up when sanding still and that’s still a crap shoot, so why make them line up instead of making the brezers look nice like say the Blackhawks or Wild?
#29 by Jeag on 09.05.07 9:49 am |
You have got to be kidding me (blame Vince).
Very nice! How much?
#30 by Allan Chandler on 09.05.07 9:50 am |
You have got to be kidding me (blame Vince).
LOVE the leopard print tennis outfit. Now all she needs is a pole to dance around. Surprised Serena Williams didn’t wear this first.
#31 by CardHusker on 09.05.07 9:53 am |
Straight from the mouth of “the wife.”
Girls roll down the waistband of their shorts because they don’t like where it hits (usually for comfort and because they prefer low waist, versus natural waist, fit - especially if you’re like me and have no natural waist). I can only assume that’s why some of the girls tags are sticking out and some aren’t. I used to do the same thing when i played soccer. And I still do the same with my workout shorts. but, i feel like division 1 athletes should be able to find shorts that fit without exposing their tags. you’d think adidas would have more to choose fro
#32 by Zack on 09.05.07 9:55 am |
Oops, I think BK originally planned to have Mike Vick represent the Falcons on their mini-jerseys and are scrambling to find another guy. The Falcons jersey page is currently blank.
#33 by girad31 on 09.05.07 9:56 am |
My daughter has played club and high school volleyball for three years now, and the goofy sock trend is just emerging. Her club team had socks with stripes like a barber pole, and now her high school team has polka dot socks. I have seen teams who wear one sock one school color, and the other sock the other school color. This trend also seems to be crossing over into basketball.
#34 by Stuby on 09.05.07 9:58 am |
Just curious why those two changes should be considered ‘improvements’?
#35 by Jason G. on 09.05.07 9:59 am |
I agree with you on the “capitilizing on the black” thing but in this case I think it looks really good. The logo could use a little more yellow, however I still like it. That being said I’ve actually considered buying a Flames jersey in the past because I liked the way they looked. I think it’s safe to say I will never own one of these eyesores. The view from the back is just strange and the view from the front isn’t any better. Just terrible.
#36 by todd krevanchi on 09.05.07 10:00 am |
to agree with the sentiments of the majority, it is not a volleyball trend as much as it is a girls shorts trend.
i believe it started with cheerleaders who wear the popular soffe shorts…
im sure you guys have seen girls wear this
this trend has now evolved into personalization options as well
#37 by hott rodd on 09.05.07 10:03 am |
They had Algie Crumpler yesterday.
#38 by Elwood on 09.05.07 10:03 am |
The Penguins have confirmed that their jerseys will have a special patch this year.
However, I have heard that the patch is not for the 40th anniversary of the Penguins but rather the 250th anniversary of Pittsburgh itself.
#39 by Philly Bill on 09.05.07 10:03 am |
Huh? Crumpler’s 83 is on there, as it was yesterday.
Still, I’d prefer one of these.
#40 by Stuby on 09.05.07 10:03 am |
She should have stuck with the socks.
#41 by Chris on 09.05.07 10:03 am |
Are you kidding me? Bethanie Mattek is the best dressed woman on the ATP Tour. Google images of her and you will see her in knee socks complete with stripes and of course her gold ensemble from this year’s US Open singles match. I like that she has fun with it. She is their version of Ian Poulter.
#42 by Mardi on 09.05.07 10:04 am |
The pittsburgh penguins keep putting teasers up on their website the first one was yesterday with a pic of crosby’s nameplate and a new one today with the collar
#43 by Jason G. on 09.05.07 10:04 am |
I’m seeing Crumpler up there. I wondered the same thing about the Patriots. Rodney Harrison seems like a more obvious choice than Richard Seymour. Pre-HGH anyway.
#44 by Terry Mark on 09.05.07 10:07 am |
Now that a consensus seems to have formed on the showing of shorts tags, can someone shed some light on why female volleyball players wear those body-hugging shorts while males wear the baggy shorts? Not that I’m complaining, but I’ve always wondered if there’s a practical reason for the tight, boy leg-cut shorts. Also, is anyone aware of women’s volleyball team that deviates from this uni standard?
On the NFL shield, two improvements worth noting for me are the darker shade of blue and the three-dimensional rendering of the football (the inaccurate lacing notwithstanding).
#45 by Stuby on 09.05.07 10:08 am |
I would think Tom Brady.
#46 by Kenny on 09.05.07 10:08 am |
I think North Texas’ new unis look like shit
I preferred the green helmets
#47 by JJar on 09.05.07 10:09 am |
http://sports.yahoo....
I disagree with Paul over this…Boy-oy-oing!
#48 by John on 09.05.07 10:10 am |
OH MY…she has a history…
http://www.tennismus...
#49 by Joe Drennan on 09.05.07 10:14 am |
I always felt like a perv when I was a prep sports reporter and I was sent to volleyball games to take photos. Now I love the shorts on college girls as it’s OK to look at them, but I always felt like the crepy guy with a camera at the volleyball games because of the shorts.
#50 by Minna H. on 09.05.07 10:16 am |
I hate the new NFL logo. Might as well make it the official No Fun League. I think the old logo is fine the way it is, curly L, outdated font at all. Way to go, NFL!
As for the girls’ barely-there shorts, thank GOD I am no longer a young girl. I don’t like to wear shorts at all, much less Daisy Dukes. No, I prefer me some men’s boxer shorts, thank you very much. Comfortable, and funky, too–especially my South Park pair.
#51 by Stuby on 09.05.07 10:17 am |
That picture illustrates that it is possible for Nike to make a good looking football uniform. The OU one of course.
#52 by Sage Confucius on 09.05.07 10:21 am |
Usually ASNF means ‘A Son Never Forgets.’ For us military minded folks it also means ‘Afghan Special Narcotics Force.’ Although, as much opium that still flows from Afghanistan, the members must be unemployed.
#53 by Pat on 09.05.07 10:22 am |
Why’s that? Other than the fact that Tom Brady is the obvious #1 choice, and Tedy Bruschi #2 you have to consider who is a better player. Richard Seymour is the best defensive end in football, perhaps the best defensive lineman in football. Rodney Harrison is one of the best safeties but not top 1 or 2 like Seymour. Why not have the best player available instead of a more marketable person? (Oh and Seymour is marketable in the New England area, he is on radio commercials all the time and did a few Dunkin Donuts spots)
#54 by Dane on 09.05.07 10:25 am |
Here’s what surprises me about the new NFL logo: it looks easier to duplicate, with the fewer stars, block font and missing football laces. With the No Fun League always worried about counterfeit merchandise, you would think they would have gone with a ridiculously complex logo.
#55 by Kevin on 09.05.07 10:26 am |
Is it me or was todays blog kinda hot? First the leopard outfit on the tennis player and then the tight shorts on the volleyball gals. I got say, there’s nothing sexier than a woman in uniform.
#56 by BCrisp on 09.05.07 10:28 am |
My wife is a long time volley ball player, and high school coach. She would have played Div 1 college, but blew out her knee. Anyways, she told me that the tighter shorts serve two purposes. One, to not obstruct arm movement when digging or bumping. Two is when they dive or roll on the court (they are trained to dive into a forward roll to absorb the shock of diving on a court) baggier shorts would ride up and expose more than tighter shorts do.
I knew attending all those high school games when my wife was coaching would pay off. Eventhough, I did feel like a pervert being a non parent or high school age.
#57 by Andy on 09.05.07 10:34 am |
Because they make the logo look better, as opposed to looking worse.
j/k… Just my opinion. I think the dark blue is a more powerful or stronger color. I think the slight change in shield shape makes it look less squat and dumpy…more lean and streamlined.
#58 by Peter Wunsch on 09.05.07 10:36 am |
I just went to NFL.com and they are still using the old logo.
#59 by Peter Wunsch on 09.05.07 10:36 am |
I just went to NFL.com and they are still using the old logo.
#60 by Stuby on 09.05.07 10:41 am |
It isn’t going to change until next season.
#61 by Dwight on 09.05.07 10:51 am |
Agreed - Very Nice! AND, you logo nazi’s should love the fact that there is no logo creep.
#62 by jim on 09.05.07 10:53 am |
Why aren’t there any numbers or names on the Flames jerseys? Are they keeping last year’s italic style? Would it have been too much to get the numbers sewn on for the big unveiling? Sheesh.
#63 by Denis on 09.05.07 10:55 am |
The AHL is also moving to RBK Edge unis. Here is a page dedicated to their unveiling:
http://theahl.com/fa...
#64 by Minna H. on 09.05.07 10:57 am |
P.S. The Flames new jersey: The back looks like the Aries symbol, which is ok by me because I am an Aries. I also like the C bursting in flames. Overall, not bad.
As for the volleyball shorts being so tight–I don’t buy any reason for it (benefitting performance) because if it were true, the men would be doing it, too.
#65 by AJ on 09.05.07 10:59 am |
As a long time girls volleyball coach, here’s what I can tell you:
Being a male coach of teenage girls always gets odd looks. That being said, I can tell you a few things that my girls have told me over the years. The first is that as has been said the roll down is to make shorts “fit” better. I tried one year making the uniform policy that they had to order and wear them “as is,” I have to say seeing half my girls with shorts that looked like old man pants (hiked up to who knows where) just because of their proportions nixed that idea pretty quick. They looked awful on some of them and well teen girl volleyball players tend to be a bit disproportional anyway, so no reason to make it worse.
Secondly, the girls did one year vote to wear board shorts for some tournaments. They were short board shorts (not long like they wear in the men’s game.) but we did (and I have seen a few others in my lifetime) deviate from the spandex standard. As far as why, I’ve always been told (by other coaches) that the rolling excuse given above is the reason. Of course now that some girls are wearing inseams shorter than would be allowed on some beaches, I still think that it has more to do with style and attention than anything athletic or modesty related. (I will say every guy coach I knew wondered, and every woman coach I knew was coy on the subject, even when married to each other . . . so something tells me it’s more just the “look” than any other reason.)
#66 by GoTerriers on 09.05.07 11:03 am |
Richard Seymour will NOT be the best defensive end in football this year (and this hurts me to say), since rumors are swirling that the “minor offseason knee surgery” that has placed him on the PUP list for the first 6 weeks has had “complications” that will result in him being placed on IR in week 7, thus ending his season before it starts . . .
#67 by Evan on 09.05.07 11:04 am |
Thos birdgeport ones look cool
#68 by BCrisp on 09.05.07 11:06 am |
This raises a question I had during the Olympics. Most of the snowboarders wore baggy clothes to compete. Like this. If someone told them they’d gain a second on times or six inches on a jump by wearing something tighter, (like this) would they? Or are they wanting to be cool and wear the baggy clothes. I think the girls like the tight shorts because of attention, feel, etc. They just add on reasons later to justify it.
#69 by Jason G. on 09.05.07 11:11 am |
If I’m not mistaken Rodney Harrison is the emotional leader of the defense. They definitely seem to miss him when he’s gone. Same could be said for Bruschi. Brady is the obvious number one but they went for a defensive player which is why I brought up Harrison. Also as far as why the more marketable person, isn’t that what this is? A marketing scheme.
#70 by Pat on 09.05.07 11:12 am |
Where did you hear this? Mike Reiss didn’t have it on his blog which is, by far, the best place to go for patriots info.
I know it’s not uni-related but this is important right now. And, I still say, with or without playing time this season he is still the best defensive lineman in football.
#71 by girad31 on 09.05.07 11:13 am |
RE: volleyball uniforms. My daughter’s club team played at a big tourney at Penn State recently and one of the kids from a PA team was either Amish or Mennonite and wore baggy shorts and a long sleeve T shirt on under her team shirt. It was clear that her parents did not want revealing so much. She was an incredible setter, and it made me wonder how a college coach might deal with such a situation.
#72 by Nick Page on 09.05.07 11:14 am |
My initial guess is that the volleyball players are just rolling down the waist band of their shorts. My girlfriend does this all the time, I don’t really understand why.
#73 by Pat on 09.05.07 11:17 am |
But I also said Seymour was marketable. And, I may go as far as to say more marketable even before the HGH.
#74 by SATCH on 09.05.07 11:18 am |
Yea, when I saw the new Flames jersey I almost clicked the “Report Inappropriate Content” link next to the jersey. Thats how bad it is.
#75 by Paul Lukas on 09.05.07 11:19 am |
OK, so they roll down the waistband (some NFL players do this too). Now how about CUTTING OFF THE TAG, so it doesn’t hang out and make you look like an idiot?
#76 by Kenny on 09.05.07 11:23 am |
You can see it here about Seymour on the PUP list
#77 by Pat on 09.05.07 11:26 am |
That’s not what I’m talking about. The PUP list is not news. The IR is. I’ll believe it when I read it somewhere. I haven’t heard anything about it and knowing how they work down in Foxborough I doubt they would let something like that get out. So I’m weary of your information.
#78 by Terri on 09.05.07 11:26 am |
Spandex shorts also tend to ride up, especially when you don’t have stick-thin thighs. (And volleyball players def. don’t) Rolling them up, aside from making them more comfortable, prevents this, or I guess gives into this.
That said, during preseason at my college, the vball girls used to wear those tiny shorts everywhere around campus, not bothering to pull a pair of gym shorts over them when they left practice, resulting in numerous scronful looks from the other girls’ sports teams.
#79 by Brandon on 09.05.07 11:34 am |
probably from Profootballtalk.com can’t say the website is 100% but pretty consistent
#80 by AJ on 09.05.07 11:39 am |
We had a Islamic girl play with our club one year. She wore board shorts, leggings, and a longsleave undershirt with her uniform. She played college ball on the east coast somewhere and reportedly the school got her all the appropriate wear from Nike custom made.
#81 by GoTerriers on 09.05.07 11:42 am |
I heard it on ‘EEI radio this morning, but the “Flash Boy” cited ProFootballTalk as the source. As I said, it’s just a rumor . . .and an opportunity for Jarvis Green to have a breakout year!
#82 by joe on 09.05.07 11:43 am |
Yet man don’t have any of these problems. and baggier shorts on men riding up in a dive can expose a lot more.
#83 by Teebz on 09.05.07 11:44 am |
A local university here allowed a student who was a point guard to wear a long-sleeved shirt under his tanktop along with his turban. It didn’t affect his performance as far as anyone could tell. He was just sweaty at the end of the game.
After all, he was an all-star in the CIAU.
#84 by Vince DeMarco on 09.05.07 11:44 am |
I don’t think the league ever had 25 teams. If it did (or if it any odd number of teams) at least one team would have to have a bye week every week. I think this happened after the “new” Browns were added. The addition of the Texans made the number of teams even.
#85 by Jim on 09.05.07 11:45 am |
Because that would be just too easy………
#86 by Teebz on 09.05.07 11:49 am |
More for you to hate, Paul…
The Carolina Hurricanes are officially unveiling their new uniforms tomorrow.
#87 by Joe Drennan on 09.05.07 11:53 am |
If t-sirts can be tagless when you buy them, why not shorts that the maker knows the wearer will roll the band down do the same?
I’m a fan for tagless everything as those darn things itch.
#88 by Kyle Joecken on 09.05.07 11:55 am |
This article has an amusing anecdote about the Rams.
#89 by Timmyd on 09.05.07 11:55 am |
First off, NFL logo should not have been tweaked. I never thought it looked outdated, it never seemed to me that it had outlived its time, and the new lettering is abysmal.
Secondly, did anyone notice the socks on the white flames uniform? Anyone?
Thirdly, I have information that the Chicago Wolves were going to have white piping around their shoulders like the possibel new Carolina Hurricanes uniforms. There were prototypes made but these were scrapped in favor of the old design, only rbk-ified, as seen on the ahl page.
#90 by Stuby on 09.05.07 12:05 pm |
Trying to top the Rams I guess, Mike Nolan of the Niners will have 10 captains.
Article
#91 by BAM BAM on 09.05.07 12:17 pm |
To Paul’s question about not taking out the tags … As a coach who confronts similar issues, I get upset when the tags are removed! The tag contains sizing and care information. Yes, believe it or not in poorer programs shorts and shirts have to last more than 1 year and are passed down. If the tags are removed then the distribution of clothing the next season is a nightmare and the “new” owner doesn’t know who to properly care for the uniform. A better question, why haven’t the manufacturers noted this trend and met both the athlete’s and coach’s needs?
#92 by Nick on 09.05.07 12:17 pm |
I was at the Cards v. Pirates game last night and Nyjer Morgan, the leadoff man for the Pirates, had some nice stirrup action going on.
There was also a squirrel that caused quite a fuss between innings.
#93 by BAM BAM on 09.05.07 12:17 pm |
To Paul’s question about not taking out the tags … As a coach who confronts similar issues, I get upset when the tags are removed! The tag contains sizing and care information. Yes, believe it or not in poorer programs shorts and shirts have to last more than 1 year and are passed down. If the tags are removed then the distribution of clothing the next season is a nightmare and the “new” owner doesn’t know how to properly care for the uniform. A better question, why haven’t the manufacturers noted this trend and met both the athlete’s and coach’s needs?
#94 by Andrew Dupont on 09.05.07 12:22 pm |
The contrast between the reaction on this blog and the reaction at Brand New (another blog I love) is astonishing to me. The author of that blog hails the new logo for solving all the problems of the old logo without introducing radical change. The comments, while not as passionate as the ones on Uni Watch, are nearly all positive.
Everyone here seems to agree that the type is fucked on the new logo, but I stare at it and I just don’t see what’s so wrong with it. You admit the old lettering was too 1970s, but still want the new lettering to curve around the contours of the crest, which doesn’t leave much room for evolution of the type. (And to compare this to Turn Ahead the Clock, even obliquely, is ridiculous.)
Again, the visual design/logo side of me loves this redesign. But the sports fan/uniform dork side of me likes it too.
#95 by N_V_D on 09.05.07 1:11 pm |
Talked to my sister who played NAIA V-ball and got yet another reason for the roll-over: because of the tight shorts, regular undergarments are tough to incorporate. As such, the tag from the shorts can become quite annoying on the backside while moving around on the court. Ripping the tag out sometimes leaves a jagged edge that still annoys so the roll-over is employed.
#96 by Pat on 09.05.07 1:13 pm |
How can you have a “visual design/logo side” and not see how badly designed the new shield is? Do you not see exactly what Paul pointed out? The letter treatment is all messed up and just doesn’t fit in the shield shape. That’s just problem #1.
#97 by UW justin on 09.05.07 1:20 pm |
How can you not see that it’s HIS opinion. Why is it so hard for people to just agree to disagree with their opinions?
I mean, I’ve read all of the arguements for not liking the new logo and yet I still think it’s okay (not needed, but not the end of the world). That doesn’t make you stupid for thinking differently than me, nor does it make me stupid for thinking differently than you. It’s an OPINION.
#98 by Matt D. on 09.05.07 1:20 pm |
The only reason North Texas changed their uniforms is because of the hiring of Coach Dodge, who became well known because of his high school coaching at Carroll. North Texas probably wanted to appeal to the superb high school talent at Carroll and other school by making the UNT uniforms look very, very, very, ve