06.19.08

#1 by Jim on 06.19.08 8:07 am |     

… Rob Gugliotta notes that the “NBA” icon on the Celtics’ championship banners is sometimes solid, sometimes not. Anyone know what that’s about?

When I was in Boston in Febuary seeing a Bruins/Wings game, I saw that and wondered the same thing. Seeing I was a Detroiter in Boston I hesitated to ask. Maybe hidden meaning? Like clinched series on road for one, and home for the other?

#2 by Aram on 06.19.08 8:24 am |     

… Rob Gugliotta notes that the “NBA” icon on the Celtics’ championship banners is sometimes solid, sometimes not. Anyone know what that’s about?

When I was in Boston in Febuary seeing a Bruins/Wings game, I saw that and wondered the same thing. Seeing I was a Detroiter in Boston I hesitated to ask. Maybe hidden meaning? Like clinched series on road for one, and home for the other?

A quick search of NBA finals seems to show that the solid vs. non-solid NBA logos on the banners has nothing to do with where Boston clinched the championship… Maybe it’s just totally arbitrary.

#3 by Patrick O'Donnell on 06.19.08 8:25 am |     

It is not vandalism if it comes right off. I understand your hatred for Nike, but get over it. It’s no different than someone writing in sidewalk chalk, from the vandalism standpoint. And it’s not across the entire path, so you can just run around it. They will, and should, be taken down, they’ll be told not to do it again, and life will go on.

#4 by Stuby on 06.19.08 8:54 am |     

Wow, only one Phillies fan in that ‘METS SUCK’ picture (dude on the far left) has everything on his jersey correct.

#5 by jere on 06.19.08 9:00 am |     

As for the Sox wearing green jerseys, all I’ve heard from NESN, the Herald, and the Globe is that it’s a possibility, not that it’s definite. NES said a shamrock patch was another possibility. I’m sure they’ll just go the green jersey route, but I haven’t heard it’s definite yet. (I could be wrong.)

#6 by Mike Edgerly on 06.19.08 9:02 am |     

The Tampa Bay Rowdies are expected to return as a USL First Division franchise. Bravo for resurrecting the Rowdies name and Colors!

http://www2.tbo.com/...

#7 by Hank on 06.19.08 9:03 am |     

Wow, only one Phillies fan in that ‘METS SUCK’ picture (dude on the far left) has everything on his jersey correct.

If you mean the Utley alternate jersey, well he was able to fork over $190 while the Howard alternate is the replica for $79.

#8 by jere on 06.19.08 9:04 am |     

It is not vandalism if it comes right off. I understand your hatred for Nike, but get over it. It’s no different than someone writing in sidewalk chalk, from the vandalism standpoint. And it’s not across the entire path, so you can just run around it. They will, and should, be taken down, they’ll be told not to do it again, and life will go on.

It is a lot different. And telling someone to “get over” an issue they’re obviously very passionate about is like dropping a turd in their drink. (And it has nothing to do with Paul’s hatred of Nike, as he clearly said.)

#9 by LI Phil on 06.19.08 9:09 am |     

Wow, only one Phillies fan in that ‘METS SUCK’ picture (dude on the far left) has everything on his jersey correct.

If you mean the Utley alternate jersey, well he was able to fork over $190 while the Howard alternate is the replica for $79.

how much does the ‘mets suck’ jersey go for?

#10 by Justin on 06.19.08 9:14 am |     

As far as the Celtics banners go, it was definitely done that way for a reason. Those are not the original banners. The banners that hung in the Boston Garden were too small to be seen properly in the new FleetCenter/TD BankNorth Garden. New larger banners were created when the building opened. The original banners hang in the teams practice facility in Waltham.

So there IS a reason for the different designs. Of course one possibility is that they were originally done this way by mistake and the team wanted to keep the new banners as “authentic” as possible. Id be interested to hear if anyone knows the real reason.

#11 by Hank on 06.19.08 9:14 am |     

It is not vandalism if it comes right off. I understand your hatred for Nike, but get over it. It’s no different than someone writing in sidewalk chalk, from the vandalism standpoint. And it’s not across the entire path, so you can just run around it. They will, and should, be taken down, they’ll be told not to do it again, and life will go on.

Not everyone is going to have the foresight to think they can slip and get injured on the graphic. Have you ever walked across the reflective stripes in a crosswalk, especially when they are wet? Those can be downright dangerous, too.

As for it being an act of vandalism, per the Chicago Municipal Code:

8-4-060 Vandalism defined.
A person commits vandalism when he engages in the willful or malicious destruction, injury, disfigurement, or defacement of any public or private property. This offense includes, but is not limited to, cutting, tearing, breaking, marking, drawing or painting when these actions are intended to or have the effect of causing damage to property.
(http://www.chicityclerk.com/legislation/codes/chapter8_4.html#060)

I doubt Nike ‘intended’ to damage property, so it wouldn’t be vanadalism per se. However, they could face a charge of trespassing:

8-4-050 Trespassing.
A person commits trespass when he knowingly: …; (d) Willfully defaces, mars, injures or destroys any building or part of any building or any property of another with paint, tar, acid, grease, oil, or other such substance which would detrimentally alter the outer face or substance of such building or any property of another, or any fence, tree, shrub or plant appurtenant thereto.

#12 by Hank on 06.19.08 9:15 am |     

Wow, only one Phillies fan in that ‘METS SUCK’ picture (dude on the far left) has everything on his jersey correct.

If you mean the Utley alternate jersey, well he was able to fork over $190 while the Howard alternate is the replica for $79.

how much does the ‘mets suck’ jersey go for?

PRICELESS.

#13 by Stuby on 06.19.08 9:16 am |     

Wow, only one Phillies fan in that ‘METS SUCK’ picture (dude on the far left) has everything on his jersey correct.

If you mean the Utley alternate jersey, well he was able to fork over $190 while the Howard alternate is the replica for $79.

I’m sorry but $79 is still alot for something that’s so freakin’ incorrect.

#14 by Hank on 06.19.08 9:19 am |     

Wow, only one Phillies fan in that ‘METS SUCK’ picture (dude on the far left) has everything on his jersey correct.

If you mean the Utley alternate jersey, well he was able to fork over $190 while the Howard alternate is the replica for $79.

I’m sorry but $79 is still alot for something that’s so freakin’ incorrect.

Agree. I think this topic was covered by Paul not too long ago.

#15 by Jim on 06.19.08 9:20 am |     

It is not vandalism if it comes right off. I understand your hatred for Nike, but get over it. It’s no different than someone writing in sidewalk chalk, from the vandalism standpoint. And it’s not across the entire path, so you can just run around it. They will, and should, be taken down, they’ll be told not to do it again, and life will go on.

Not everyone is going to have the foresight to think they can slip and get injured on the graphic. Have you ever walked across the reflective stripes in a crosswalk, especially when they are wet? Those can be downright dangerous, too.

As for it being an act of vandalism, per the Chicago Municipal Code:

8-4-060 Vandalism defined.
A person commits vandalism when he engages in the willful or malicious destruction, injury, disfigurement, or defacement of any public or private property. This offense includes, but is not limited to, cutting, tearing, breaking, marking, drawing or painting when these actions are intended to or have the effect of causing damage to property.
(http://www.chicityclerk.com/legislation/codes/chapter8_4.html#060)

I doubt Nike ‘intended’ to damage property, so it wouldn’t be vanadalism per se. However, they could face a charge of trespassing:

8-4-050 Trespassing.
A person commits trespass when he knowingly: …; (d) Willfully defaces, mars, injures or destroys any building or part of any building or any property of another with paint, tar, acid, grease, oil, or other such substance which would detrimentally alter the outer face or substance of such building or any property of another, or any fence, tree, shrub or plant appurtenant thereto.

Sweet, an all day debate about Vandalism… can’t wait :/

#16 by Stuby on 06.19.08 9:24 am |     

It is not vandalism if it comes right off. I understand your hatred for Nike, but get over it. It’s no different than someone writing in sidewalk chalk, from the vandalism standpoint. And it’s not across the entire path, so you can just run around it. They will, and should, be taken down, they’ll be told not to do it again, and life will go on.

Not everyone is going to have the foresight to think they can slip and get injured on the graphic. Have you ever walked across the reflective stripes in a crosswalk, especially when they are wet? Those can be downright dangerous, too.

As for it being an act of vandalism, per the Chicago Municipal Code:

8-4-060 Vandalism defined.
A person commits vandalism when he engages in the willful or malicious destruction, injury, disfigurement, or defacement of any public or private property. This offense includes, but is not limited to, cutting, tearing, breaking, marking, drawing or painting when these actions are intended to or have the effect of causing damage to property.
(http://www.chicityclerk.com/legislation/codes/chapter8_4.html#060)

I doubt Nike ‘intended’ to damage property, so it wouldn’t be vanadalism per se. However, they could face a charge of trespassing:

8-4-050 Trespassing.
A person commits trespass when he knowingly: …; (d) Willfully defaces, mars, injures or destroys any building or part of any building or any property of another with paint, tar, acid, grease, oil, or other such substance which would detrimentally alter the outer face or substance of such building or any property of another, or any fence, tree, shrub or plant appurtenant thereto.

Sweet, an all day debate about Vandalism… can’t wait :/

I argue that vandalism is NOT a sport.

#17 by Paul Lukas on 06.19.08 9:25 am |     

As for it being an act of vandalism, per the Chicago Municipal Code:

8-4-060 Vandalism defined.
A person commits vandalism when he engages in the willful or malicious destruction, injury, disfigurement, or defacement of any public or private property. This offense includes, but is not limited to, cutting, tearing, breaking, marking, drawing or painting when these actions are intended to or have the effect of causing damage to property.
(http://www.chicityclerk.com/legislation/codes/chapter8_4.html#060)

I doubt Nike ‘intended’ to damage property, so it wouldn’t be vanadalism per se.

Uh, “disfigurement”?

I don’t want to get into a long debate about what does and doesn’t constitute vandalism (so let’s please NOT do that). But corporate advertising doesn’t belong in public parks, period. Even if it did belong there, the corporate advertiser would have to PAY for the use of the space, while Nike just waltzed in and TOOK the space for free (as we all know, they have a v-e-r-y limited ad budget and have to cut costs whenever possible). It’s total bullshit and should be called as such.

#18 by Mark in Shiga on 06.19.08 9:27 am |     

I loved seeing an ESPN column devoted entirely to the uniforms of my favorite team!

(It could have been done without the endless “curse” references that seem to be a mainstay of any Cubs-related article, though — give it a rest, already!)

One thing that wasn’t mentioned is the evolution of the “bear face” logo. Back around 1910, they started using a bear holding a bat, inside a C as their main logo. Here’s Larry Doyle modeling it in 1911. Then in 1914 they put “CUBS” on the jerseys and moved the little bear to the cap. This logo was still on the jerseys in the 1930s, and then it disappeared for a while.

In the 1960s, they brought back a very minimalist bear face as the sleeve patch. They kept this one around long enough for it to reach the much-maligned blue-with-white-pinstripes 1978-1982 jerseys, though in 1980 they changed it to the long-running red-white-and-blue bear face.

They kept this face until 1994, when it was replaced by this similar one; at the same time, they removed the blue sleeve hems from the home jerseys. (They also put names on the backs in 1993, much to the chagrin of traditionalists.)

Now they’ve got the walking bear logo that’s been standard since 1997, and they use it as a sleeve patch for the regular home (bring back that number-only style, please! and road uniforms, and as the main logo on the blue alternates and practice shirts. I like these much better than the “Team Cuba” script that the blue shirts contained in ‘94-’96 — how can a jersey like this get such oppobrium from some people?

I love seeing the bear evolve with the times, and think that the current “walking” style is perfect for this or any era. The only thing I want the Cubs to change is to get the names off the home jerseys (leave them on the road; some fans *do* like the names). They just need to position the numbers about an inch higher up. On the big guys it looks fine, but it’s positioned too low on the ordinary-height players, forcing them to blouse their shirts out. Here’s an even better comparison: D-Lee (right) great; Lester Strode (left) not so much.

Anyone have any photos of the Cubs’ throwback uniforms in their first interleague series with the White Sox in 1997? Those looked amazing. Bring those back!

#19 by RaoulDuke on 06.19.08 9:40 am |     

I hope some enterprising Chicagoan takes a slip on one of those ads and sues the swoosh emblazoned pants off of nike.

#20 by josh on 06.19.08 9:50 am |     

As for the Sox wearing green jerseys, all I’ve heard from NESN, the Herald, and the Globe is that it’s a possibility, not that it’s definite. NES said a shamrock patch was another possibility. I’m sure they’ll just go the green jersey route, but I haven’t heard it’s definite yet. (I could be wrong.)

Death of Red Auerbach, green jersey. Celtics title, green jersey. Earth Day, green jersey. St. Patrick’s Day, green jersey. The Red Sox are one color fits all. How ’bout a pink jersey for breast cancer awareness?

#21 by chris on 06.19.08 9:58 am |     

you might want to get on the phone with someone about this in regards to advertising in public parks

#22 by Philly Al in NoCal on 06.19.08 10:00 am |     

I fully understand everyone’s confusion, but the Mets Suck family used to be my neighbors when I was growing up in Philadelphia.

#23 by Bryan Redemske on 06.19.08 10:03 am |     

On the yellow jersies … those look to be the ones he was wearing when he rolled into Paris on the last day. The one straight ahead of the camera is the clue — Postal wore a “retro” kit on the last day of the 2003 Tour, using the old USPS logo. That was the only time the old logo was used.

#24 by Ricko on 06.19.08 10:05 am |     

As for the Sox wearing green jerseys, all I’ve heard from NESN, the Herald, and the Globe is that it’s a possibility, not that it’s definite. NES said a shamrock patch was another possibility. I’m sure they’ll just go the green jersey route, but I haven’t heard it’s definite yet. (I could be wrong.)

Death of Red Auerbach, green jersey. Celtics title, green jersey. Earth Day, green jersey. St. Patrick’s Day, green jersey. The Red Sox are one color fits all. How ’bout a pink jersey for breast cancer awareness?

How ’bout yellow for Bed Wetting Awareness?
Demographic too young?
Okay, Incontenance Awareness.

Oh, shoot, yellow’s already taken, for “Tie a yellow ribbon…”

Well, p*ss on that idea then.

re: Nike ad on sidewalk. Whoa, I’ve had some of my ads fall on their face, but never had someone fall on his face ON one of my ads.

What IS this world coming to.

#25 by Zack on 06.19.08 10:11 am |     

Actually it is where they clinched it. I was at the home opener for the Bruins this year and asked an usher this very questions and this is the answer that I got.

See the all green NBA logo (with white letters spelling out NBA) for championships won on the road like in the 1981 vs. half green NBA logo (with green letters spelling out NBA) for championships won at home like in 1984… http://www.nba.com/c...).

As far as the Celtics banners go, it was definitely done that way for a reason. Those are not the original banners. The banners that hung in the Boston Garden were too small to be seen properly in the new FleetCenter/TD BankNorth Garden. New larger banners were created when the building opened. The original banners hang in the teams practice facility in Waltham.

So there IS a reason for the different designs. Of course one possibility is that they were originally done this way by mistake and the team wanted to keep the new banners as “authentic” as possible. Id be interested to hear if anyone knows the real reason.

#26 by T.A. on 06.19.08 10:12 am |     

Can’t really argue with this (spotted at yesterday’s Bosox/Phillies game by Paul Kamras).

Honestly, Paul — as someone who claims to be a Mets fan, you talk ALOT of crap. Is this UniWatch or some Phillies, Mets hater blog? You can certainly voice your opinion but show some pride for once.

#27 by Broadway Connie on 06.19.08 10:12 am |     

“…Jeremy Brahm reports that the Japanese Olympic field hockey team will be wearing this design in Beijing, and the women’s weightlifting team will be wearing this. … Also from Jeremy: Volleyball captains are usually designated by having their front uni number underlined. But Venezuelan captain Andy Rojas wears the underscore on his back…”

I don’t know Jeremy Brahm, but he’s my new hero. Great stuff!

#28 by floormaster squeeze on 06.19.08 10:13 am |     

I found this interesting article on the first sporting uniforms from an old Vanity Fair (surprising light on info about said uniforms but I digress):

http://www.oldmagazi...

#29 by Eric B. on 06.19.08 10:15 am |     

Sean O’Sullivan, the stirrup-clad pitcher in the video, is already signed — he’s pitching for the Rancho Cucamonga Quakes, the single-A California League affiliate of the Anaheim Angels of Not Los Angeles. (If you look closely, you can see the “RC” logo of their road uni on his left breast.) He was also the starter of the last game we went to. In fact, the Quakes’ whole starting nine (and a good portion of their bench/bullpen) went high-cuffed for the game, with most of them including stirrups. I’m not sure if that’s a regular thing, or just something they do for his starts.

In that game, they were hosting the Modesto Nuts, who also had a large handful of guys going high-cuffed — including their starting shortstop, a rehabbing Troy Tulowitski.

#30 by Shaftman on 06.19.08 10:21 am |     

It is not vandalism if it comes right off. I understand your hatred for Nike, but get over it. It’s no different than someone writing in sidewalk chalk, from the vandalism standpoint. And it’s not across the entire path, so you can just run around it. They will, and should, be taken down, they’ll be told not to do it again, and life will go on.

I don’t think this was motivated by Paul’s “hatred for Nike” but rather the fact that they feel they “own the joint” and do what they want.

You have kids in this country that get told to take down their lemonade stands because they don’t have the proper permits but Nike unilateraly decides that they can do what they want, when they want.

You state that the runners can just run over these, but how do we know that they aren’t too slick or even too “sticky”? The change from asphalt to this sticker could affect how you run or, god forbid, even injure an unsuspecting runner.

This goes far beyond a “logo creep” issue.

#31 by Ricko on 06.19.08 10:35 am |     

As for the Sox wearing green jerseys, all I’ve heard from NESN, the Herald, and the Globe is that it’s a possibility, not that it’s definite. NES said a shamrock patch was another possibility. I’m sure they’ll just go the green jersey route, but I haven’t heard it’s definite yet. (I could be wrong.)

Death of Red Auerbach, green jersey. Celtics title, green jersey. Earth Day, green jersey. St. Patrick’s Day, green jersey. The Red Sox are one color fits all. How ’bout a pink jersey for breast cancer awareness?

How ’bout yellow for Bed Wetting Awareness?
Demographic too young?
Okay, Incontenance Awareness.

Oh, shoot, yellow’s already taken, for “Tie a yellow ribbon…”

Well, p*ss on that idea then.

re: Nike ad on sidewalk. Whoa, I’ve had some of my ads fall on their face, but never had someone fall on his face ON one of my ads.

What IS this world coming to.

My point, of course, was that too many one-off jerseys (or obviously recyled “special” jersyes/hats used just because they’re on hand and convenient) diminish the impact of the important other causes they support. I’m trying to imagine, say, the Dodgers wearing purple had the Lakes somehow won the NBA title. And why they would, or should, bother.

As far as Nike on the sidewalk, interesting that entities born of the desire/need to take on a huge foe of some sort seem to eventually become what they opposed. Freedom fighters end up dictators. Paramilitary organizations that arise during a war are, after the war, oftentimes exactly what they were fighting against–militants operating outside the law.

Nike, once the little U.S. company that began in Bill Browerman’s workshop and tried to compete with adidas, puma and others, is now the giant that little companies must battle to keep from being squashed like a bug. Nike now has far more power than anyone it even chased from behind…and it wields that power far more heavy-handedly and with less conscience than the others ever did.

That said, I still wear their shoes, cuz every other brand makes my achilles tendons hurt like hell. And that’s the trap they’ve got some of us in.

#32 by Steve on 06.19.08 10:36 am |     

Actually it is where they clinched it. I was at the home opener for the Bruins this year and asked an usher this very questions and this is the answer that I got.

See the all green NBA logo (with white letters spelling out NBA) for championships won on the road like in the 1981 vs. half green NBA logo (with green letters spelling out NBA) for championships won at home like in 1984… http://www.nba.com/c...).

As far as the Celtics banners go, it was definitely done that way for a reason. Those are not the original banners. The banners that hung in the Boston Garden were too small to be seen properly in the new FleetCenter/TD BankNorth Garden. New larger banners were created when the building opened. The original banners hang in the teams practice facility in Waltham.

So there IS a reason for the different designs. Of course one possibility is that they were originally done this way by mistake and the team wanted to keep the new banners as “authentic” as possible. Id be interested to hear if anyone knows the real reason.

Can’t be. 1962 was clinched at home and 1963 was on the road. In the picture they have the same colored icon.

#33 by Mark Doescher on 06.19.08 10:36 am |     

In conjunction with their vintage helmet auction the University of Oklahoma is now auctioning off a pqair of new-unworn-straight out of the box 70’s era Spot-Bilt Football Cleats.

http://soonersports....

#34 by LI Phil on 06.19.08 10:42 am |     

Nike, once the little U.S. company that began in Bill Browerman’s workshop and tried to compete with adidas, puma and others, is now the giant that little companies must battle to keep from being squashed like a bug. Nike now has far more power than anyone it even chased from behind…and it wields that power far more heavy-handedly and with less conscience than the others ever did.

point?

#35 by eric on 06.19.08 10:43 am |     

As for it being an act of vandalism, per the Chicago Municipal Code:

8-4-060 Vandalism defined.
A person commits vandalism when he engages in the willful or malicious destruction, injury, disfigurement, or defacement of any public or private property. This offense includes, but is not limited to, cutting, tearing, breaking, marking, drawing or painting when these actions are intended to or have the effect of causing damage to property.
(http://www.chicityclerk.com/legislation/codes/chapter8_4.html#060)

I doubt Nike \’intended\’ to damage property, so it wouldn\’t be vanadalism per se.

Uh, \”disfigurement\”?

I don\’t want to get into a long debate about what does and doesn\’t constitute vandalism (so let\’s please NOT do that). But corporate advertising doesn\’t belong in public parks, period. Even if it did belong there, the corporate advertiser would have to PAY for the use of the space, while Nike just waltzed in and TOOK the space for free (as we all know, they have a v-e-r-y limited ad budget and have to cut costs whenever possible). It\’s total bullshit and should be called as such.

Maybe we can confirm whether or not Nike is actually paying for the park space. I work in advertising and even for certain \’guerilla\’ pieces of advertising placed in public places, there are hoops we must go through.

Frankly, I\’m not as appalled at the commercial use of public space (there are beautiful and clever ways to incorporate ad messaging into the public view), but of the misuse of the medium (it\’s lousy work, even from the blurry digital shot above … it\’s not interesting in any way other than placement.)

Oh - who won the Pedro Buttonhole contest already?

#36 by joe on 06.19.08 10:46 am |     

the best part of the marathon slip is that he was wearing Nikes

#37 by eric on 06.19.08 10:49 am |     

Gisele gets it.

#38 by Ricko on 06.19.08 10:50 am |     

Nike, once the little U.S. company that began in Bill Browerman’s workshop and tried to compete with adidas, puma and others, is now the giant that little companies must battle to keep from being squashed like a bug. Nike now has far more power than anyone it even chased from behind…and it wields that power far more heavy-handedly and with less conscience than the others ever did.

point?

See the preceding paragraph. Saying not surprising that Nike should become the precise opposite of what it originally was. Pointing to the socio-ecnomic phenomenon of almost-predictable reversals such as that…not necessarilly judging them.

#39 by Ricko on 06.19.08 10:53 am |     

Meaning their need to dominate.

#40 by chris on 06.19.08 11:00 am |     

Nike Fly Fishing???
blog link

#41 by Broadway Connie on 06.19.08 11:02 am |     

Sean O’Sullivan, the stirrup-clad pitcher in the video, is already signed — he’s pitching for the Rancho Cucamonga Quakes…In that game, they were hosting the Modesto Nuts, who also had a large handful of guys going high-cuffed…

Quakes?! Nuts?! These are killer names, Eric B. Are the other teams in the league as well denominated?

#42 by Dave on 06.19.08 11:03 am |     

You know, you’d think Paul, as a journalist (who has struggled at times to have a solid contract until very recently), wouldn’t come out and say he “hates” Nike, especially since he might need them as a source sometime. Sure, he doesn’t have to respect them or like them but to put it in print that he hates them is pretty strong.

As a uniform fan, Nike puts out some great stuff and some duds. Nike also has had plenty of business mistakes throughout the years, but at least they try to innovate.

I guess start bashing me as an employee of Nike, which I’m not.

#43 by LI Phil on 06.19.08 11:08 am |     

Meaning their need to dominate.

again…you say that like it’s a bad thing

but then, i guess the same people who hate/bash nike also hate/bash mcdonalds, the yankees, microsoft, coke…etc…

but that’s a argument for another board…or…is it?

#44 by Cosmo on 06.19.08 11:12 am |     

So what’s the big surprise in the ESPN column? The pleated pants?

Article’s here in case Paul hasn’t posted the link yet.
http://sports.espn.g...

#45 by Shaftman on 06.19.08 11:12 am |     

You know, you’d think Paul, as a journalist (who has struggled at times to have a solid contract until very recently), wouldn’t come out and say he “hates” Nike, especially since he might need them as a source sometime. Sure, he doesn’t have to respect them or like them but to put it in print that he hates them is pretty strong.

As a uniform fan, Nike puts out some great stuff and some duds. Nike also has had plenty of business mistakes throughout the years, but at least they try to innovate.

I guess start bashing me as an employee of Nike, which I’m not.

I understand where you are coming from but I like Paul’s writing for the same reason that I like Keith Hernandez’s broadcasts on SNY; both say what they feel. I don’t always agree with either of them but I feel that I’m always getting their honest opinion and I can’t say that about a lot of people.

My personal opinions are mixed…I love Nike sneakers and equipment but I do feel that the “logo creep” (from Nike and others) is getting out of hand.

#46 by Jim on 06.19.08 11:14 am |     

Meaning their need to dominate.

again…you say that like it’s a bad thing

but then, i guess the same people who hate/bash nike also hate/bash mcdonalds, the yankees, microsoft, coke…etc…

but that’s a argument for another board…or…is it?

At one time, yes. Recently, anything can be discussed here. Anyone want to talk about Alpacas?

#47 by Duckstyle on 06.19.08 11:15 am |     

Meaning their need to dominate.

again…you say that like it’s a bad thing

but then, i guess the same people who hate/bash nike also hate/bash mcdonalds, the yankees, microsoft, coke…etc…

but that’s a argument for another board…or…is it?

I pick and choose. Very seldom do I hate large coorperations just because their big and powerful, mainly because they’re probably successful for having a superior product. But that being said, putting these stickers down is just plain wrong. A company with bascially unlimited advertising funds would stoop to putting “graffiti” on running paths? WTF!? It pisses me off, and I’m not normally all for bashing Nike, just their ugly uni’s and ridiculously designed shoes, but they’re probably no worse than any other big brand. And I agree with some of the other people saying these very well might have been a slip hazzard, I remeber seeing similar stickers on teh grounds at Summerfest in Milwaukee a few years ago and seeing people slipping on them during the rain. They’re lucky someone didn’t break a tailbone, but I guess, just like the fine they’ll get, someone just said, “Who cares, we’ve got money coming out of our asses!”

#48 by jere on 06.19.08 11:17 am |     

“My point, of course, was that too many one-off jerseys (or obviously recyled “special” jersyes/hats used just because they’re on hand and convenient) diminish the impact of the important other causes they support. I’m trying to imagine, say, the Dodgers wearing purple had the Lakes somehow won the NBA title. And why they would, or should, bother.”

That’s fine, but you brought it up using the example of the Red Sox who, the way you paint it, break out these green jerseys every other day. You said

“Death of Red Auerbach, green jersey. Celtics title, green jersey. Earth Day, green jersey. St. Patrick’s Day, green jersey.”

They wear green (sometimes) on St. Patrick’s Day, which is always in Spring Training. They did not wear a green jersey on Earth Day, they wore a patch. They wore the green jerseys in the regular season ONE TIME, when Red Auerbach died and MAY wear them again to honor a Celtics title. I’m just saying, with all the teams that do break out alternate jerseys, you picked a bad example.

#49 by interlockingtc on 06.19.08 11:18 am |     

I don’t care if it’s Nike or Mother’s Day Cards from Hallmark, you just don’t slap an advertisement onto a park’s path. You just don’t. My god.

What’s next? An ad on the ceiling of a birthing room in a hospital?

#50 by KT on 06.19.08 11:21 am |     

The Tampa Bay Rowdies are expected to return as a USL First Division franchise. Bravo for resurrecting the Rowdies name and Colors!

http://www2.tbo.com/...

I am told by someone on the inside that the green and gold hoop socks may make a comeback as well.

I’m thinking some of the identity will be updated (it has been 24 years since the NASL days) - you don’t see a lot of soccer shirts with the high collars anymore.

But as someone for whom the Rowdies were their first love, I’m very pleased.

#51 by Paul Lukas on 06.19.08 11:21 am |     

So what’s the big surprise in the ESPN column? The pleated pants?

Yes!

#52 by Duckstyle on 06.19.08 11:22 am |     

“My point, of course, was that too many one-off jerseys (or obviously recyled “special” jersyes/hats used just because they’re on hand and convenient) diminish the impact of the important other causes they support. I’m trying to imagine, say, the Dodgers wearing purple had the Lakes somehow won the NBA title. And why they would, or should, bother.”

That’s fine, but you brought it up using the example of the Red Sox who, the way you paint it, break out these green jerseys every other day. You said

“Death of Red Auerbach, green jersey. Celtics title, green jersey. Earth Day, green jersey. St. Patrick’s Day, green jersey.”

They wear green (sometimes) on St. Patrick’s Day, which is always in Spring Training. They did not wear a green jersey on Earth Day, they wore a patch. They wore the green jerseys in the regular season ONE TIME, when Red Auerbach died and MAY wear them again to honor a Celtics title. I’m just saying, with all the teams that do break out alternate jerseys, you picked a bad example.

You’re missing the point. Green isn’t one of their colors and yet they’re acting like it is, which is just as worng as adding balck of every other uni out there. That’s why people are bashing it. Once a year? Fine. 3 times a year for any number of reasons? Ridiculous!

#53 by Ricko on 06.19.08 11:23 am |     

Meaning their need to dominate.

again…you say that like it’s a bad thing

but then, i guess the same people who hate/bash nike also hate/bash mcdonalds, the yankees, microsoft, coke…etc…

but that’s a argument for another board…or…is it?

Just being observational about Nike’s successes and the character thereof. And you’re right, it’s for another board. Mentioned it only cuz of the “slip n’slide on the sidewalk ad” story.

I do like their shoes, though. And I admire the fact they’re smart enough to understand that successful organizations never stop marketing. It comes with the territory.

In other words, I don’t mind their logo on my shirt or shorts or shoes or batting gloves, or on anyone else’s. For such a company, it’s to be expected, that’s all I was saying (whew, I managed to make it uni-related as I now leave this topic behind). LOL

#54 by Ricko on 06.19.08 11:26 am |     

“My point, of course, was that too many one-off jerseys (or obviously recyled “special” jersyes/hats used just because they’re on hand and convenient) diminish the impact of the important other causes they support. I’m trying to imagine, say, the Dodgers wearing purple had the Lakes somehow won the NBA title. And why they would, or should, bother.”

That’s fine, but you brought it up using the example of the Red Sox who, the way you paint it, break out these green jerseys every other day. You said

“Death of Red Auerbach, green jersey. Celtics title, green jersey. Earth Day, green jersey. St. Patrick’s Day, green jersey.”

They wear green (sometimes) on St. Patrick’s Day, which is always in Spring Training. They did not wear a green jersey on Earth Day, they wore a patch. They wore the green jerseys in the regular season ONE TIME, when Red Auerbach died and MAY wear them again to honor a Celtics title. I’m just saying, with all the teams that do break out alternate jerseys, you picked a bad example.

You’re missing the point. Green isn’t one of their colors and yet they’re acting like it is, which is just as worng as adding balck of every other uni out there. That’s why people are bashing it. Once a year? Fine. 3 times a year for any number of reasons? Ridiculous!

PRE-cise-ly.

#55 by stateofmain on 06.19.08 11:28 am |     

What’s next? An ad on the ceiling of a birthing room in a hospital?

Considering ads are on the ceilings in gyno offices… I wouldn’t be surprised if/when they appear on the ceilings of birthing rooms.

#56 by Duckstyle on 06.19.08 11:30 am |     

What’s next? An ad on the ceiling of a birthing room in a hospital?

Considering ads are on the ceilings in gyno offices… I wouldn’t be surprised if/when they appear on the ceilings of birthing rooms.

My first kid is due on July 30th, I’ll let you know.

#57 by AJ on 06.19.08 11:33 am |     

Looks like at some point Raleigh Athletic Equipment became part of Riddell Sports.
http://www.fundingun...

This would seem to have happened in January 1995:
http://sec.edgar-onl...
http://www.secinfo.c...

#58 by KT on 06.19.08 11:36 am |     

You know, you’d think Paul, as a journalist (who has struggled at times to have a solid contract until very recently), wouldn’t come out and say he “hates” Nike, especially since he might need them as a source sometime. Sure, he doesn’t have to respect them or like them but to put it in print that he hates them is pretty strong.

“I’m not a journalist, I’m a yodeler.” - Tony Kornheiser

#59 by Cosmo on 06.19.08 11:44 am |     

So what’s the big surprise in the ESPN column? The pleated pants?

Yes!

That WAS crazy to read about, I just wasn’t sure if it was known before.

#60 by Duckstyle on 06.19.08 11:51 am |     

So what’s the big surprise in the ESPN column? The pleated pants?

Yes!

That WAS crazy to read about, I just wasn’t sure if it was known before.

The pleats are fine, but only as long as they also have a sharp crease down the middle of each leg.

#61 by DrBear on 06.19.08 11:52 am |     

What’s next? An ad on the ceiling of a birthing room in a hospital?

Considering ads are on the ceilings in gyno offices… I wouldn’t be surprised if/when they appear on the ceilings of birthing rooms.

My first kid is due on July 30th, I’ll let you know.

Well, let the WIFE let us know…

I remember reading a book on the history of the Sporting News back when it had its 100th anniversary. One of the pages displayed showed an article on the demise of the Cubs vest jersey with the great headline:
CUBS GIVE A HEAVE - TO THEIR NO-SLEEVE PEEVE

Actually, I was surprised by the powder blues. Bring those back as the road unis now. This must be done.

#62 by Juan Grande on 06.19.08 12:00 pm |     

“My point, of course, was that too many one-off jerseys (or obviously recyled “special” jersyes/hats used just because they’re on hand and convenient) diminish the impact of the important other causes they support. I’m trying to imagine, say, the Dodgers wearing purple had the Lakes somehow won the NBA title. And why they would, or should, bother.”

That’s fine, but you brought it up using the example of the Red Sox who, the way you paint it, break out these green jerseys every other day. You said

“Death of Red Auerbach, green jersey. Celtics title, green jersey. Earth Day, green jersey. St. Patrick’s Day, green jersey.”

They wear green (sometimes) on St. Patrick’s Day, which is always in Spring Training. They did not wear a green jersey on Earth Day, they wore a patch. They wore the green jerseys in the regular season ONE TIME, when Red Auerbach died and MAY wear them again to honor a Celtics title. I’m just saying, with all the teams that do break out alternate jerseys, you picked a bad example.

You’re missing the point. Green isn’t one of their colors and yet they’re acting like it is, which is just as worng as adding balck of every other uni out there. That’s why people are bashing it. Once a year? Fine. 3 times a year for any number of reasons? Ridiculous!

PRE-cise-ly.

Boston’s an Irish town. Green is practically assigned to the Irish. Boston and Green go together. This shouldn’t be such a big deal.

#63 by jere on 06.19.08 12:02 pm |     

“My point, of course, was that too many one-off jerseys (or obviously recyled “special” jersyes/hats used just because they’re on hand and convenient) diminish the impact of the important other causes they support. I’m trying to imagine, say, the Dodgers wearing purple had the Lakes somehow won the NBA title. And why they would, or should, bother.”

That’s fine, but you brought it up using the example of the Red Sox who, the way you paint it, break out these green jerseys every other day. You said

“Death of Red Auerbach, green jersey. Celtics title, green jersey. Earth Day, green jersey. St. Patrick’s Day, green jersey.”

They wear green (sometimes) on St. Patrick’s Day, which is always in Spring Training. They did not wear a green jersey on Earth Day, they wore a patch. They wore the green jerseys in the regular season ONE TIME, when Red Auerbach died and MAY wear them again to honor a Celtics title. I’m just saying, with all the teams that do break out alternate jerseys, you picked a bad example.

You’re missing the point. Green isn’t one of their colors and yet they’re acting like it is, which is just as worng as adding balck of every other uni out there. That’s why people are bashing it. Once a year? Fine. 3 times a year for any number of reasons? Ridiculous!

Are you not reading what I’m writing? The Red Sox have worn a green jersey ONE TIME in over one hundred seasons in the regular season! I didn’t miss the point, the guy said what his point was and I’m responding to it, since it’s completely misleading to say the Red Sox wear an odd color all the time when they’ve done it once in 108 years.

#64 by jere on 06.19.08 12:07 pm |     

So to clarify: The guy complained about the Red Sox “breaking out the green jerseys” for

1. St. Patrick’s day (never happened in the regular season)

2. Earth Day (never happened, they wore a patch only)

3. A Celtics title (never happened, but might happen Friday) (They wore Green in honor of Red Auerbach’s death, that was the one time.)

So basically he’s complaining about something that’s NEVER happened. I agree with his point, but the Red Sox are not the team to pick on in this case.

#65 by Eric B. on 06.19.08 12:11 pm |     

Sean O’Sullivan, the stirrup-clad pitcher in the video, is already signed — he’s pitching for the Rancho Cucamonga Quakes…In that game, they were hosting the Modesto Nuts, who also had a large handful of guys going high-cuffed…

Quakes?! Nuts?! These are killer names, Eric B. Are the other teams in the league as well denominated?

The California League is:
Bakersfield Blaze (Rangers)
High Desert Mavericks (they’re based in Adelanto) (Mariners)
Inland Empire 66ers (they’re based in San Bernardino) (LA Dodgers)
Lake Elsinore Storm (Padres)
Lancaster Jethawks (Red Sox)
Modesto Nuts (Rockies)
Rancho Cucamonga Quakes (Angels)
San Jose Giants (SF Giants)
Stockton Ports (A’s)
Visalia Oaks (Diamondbacks)

A few things I discovered just now while trolling their websites looking for affiliations:

A Quakes photo gallery, showing all the guys in their high cuffs (the only exceptions seem to be a couple rehabbing major leaguers):
http://rcquakes.com/...

The Storm has one of my favorite cap logos:
http://www.skiltech....

I kind of like the Blaze cap logo, too:
http://shop.mlb.com/...

Tomorrow night’s promotion for the Storm is “Redneck Night.” I’m not sure if this means special unis or not — no further info on their website yet.

#66 by Duckstyle on 06.19.08 12:12 pm |     

So to clarify: The guy complained about the Red Sox “breaking out the green jerseys” for

1. St. Patrick’s day (never happened in the regular season)

2. Earth Day (never happened, they wore a patch only)

3. A Celtics title (never happened, but might happen Friday) (They wore Green in honor of Red Auerbach’s death, that was the one time.)

So basically he’s complaining about something that’s NEVER happened. I agree with his point, but the Red Sox are not the team to pick on in this case.

Then who is “the team to pick on in this case”? Certainly there are many other cases of alternate jersey stupidity, the Padre’s and White Sox camo jerseys come to mind, but in “this case”, no I believe the Red Sox are at fault if they waer grenn again. Who else’s fault would it be?

#67 by Duckstyle on 06.19.08 12:15 pm |     

What’s next? An ad on the ceiling of a birthing room in a hospital?

Considering ads are on the ceilings in gyno offices… I wouldn’t be surprised if/when they appear on the ceilings of birthing rooms.

My first kid is due on July 30th, I’ll let you know.

Well, let the WIFE let us know…

I remember reading a book on the history of the Sporting News back when it had its 100th anniversary. One of the pages displayed showed an article on the demise of the Cubs vest jersey with the great headline:
CUBS GIVE A HEAVE - TO THEIR NO-SLEEVE PEEVE

Actually, I was surprised by the powder blues. Bring those back as the road unis now. This must be done.

I think she’ll be preoccupied, I think Travis Henry should know the answer.

#68 by Duckstyle on 06.19.08 12:16 pm |     

What’s next? An ad on the ceiling of a birthing room in a hospital?

Considering ads are on the ceilings in gyno offices… I wouldn’t be surprised if/when they appear on the ceilings of birthing rooms.

My first kid is due on July 30th, I’ll let you know.

Well, let the WIFE let us know…

I remember reading a book on the history of the Sporting News back when it had its 100th anniversary. One of the pages displayed showed an article on the demise of the Cubs vest jersey with the great headline:
CUBS GIVE A HEAVE - TO THEIR NO-SLEEVE PEEVE

Actually, I was surprised by the powder blues. Bring those back as the road unis now. This must be done.

I think she’ll be preoccupied, I think Travis Henry should know the answer.

Just kidding. He wasn’t present for any of those births.

*ZING!

#69 by LI Phil on 06.19.08 12:18 pm |     

great article on teh cubbies mr. lukas…who knew they had so many fucking ridiculous eccentricities quirks?

on another note, loved the ‘descriptor’ at the bottom of the article:

Paul Lukas never ever ever ever wears pleated pants

#70 by odessa steps magazin on 06.19.08 12:22 pm |     

The new Sports Illustrated (Tiger cover) has a double-page spread in the back of the magazine showing off the stirrups worn in the cubs/braves throwback game last week.

#71 by Wally1912 on 06.19.08 12:23 pm |     

I wrote to Celtics a couple of years back regarding the NBA circle on the banners and got a response from Jeff Twiss of the C’s front office. He said their was no rhyme or reason to the two different types of circles. The manufacturer of the banners over the years simply inserted one of two different types at their fancy.
The recreations which hang in the New Garden simply copied the originals found in the Old Garden for authenticity’s sake.
FYI, the new scaled down banner the C’s are using today on one of their duck boat parade vehicles has the circle with the green edges, white middle, and green NBA letters.

#72 by KT on 06.19.08 12:27 pm |     

Actually, I was surprised by the powder blues. Bring those back as the road unis now. This must be done.

Nope.

Road grays are soooo classic.

#73 by Justin on 06.19.08 12:27 pm |     

“My point, of course, was that too many one-off jerseys (or obviously recyled “special” jersyes/hats used just because they’re on hand and convenient) diminish the impact of the important other causes they support. I’m trying to imagine, say, the Dodgers wearing purple had the Lakes somehow won the NBA title. And why they would, or should, bother.”

That’s fine, but you brought it up using the example of the Red Sox who, the way you paint it, break out these green jerseys every other day. You said

“Death of Red Auerbach, green jersey. Celtics title, green jersey. Earth Day, green jersey. St. Patrick’s Day, green jersey.”

They wear green (sometimes) on St. Patrick’s Day, which is always in Spring Training. They did not wear a green jersey on Earth Day, they wore a patch. They wore the green jerseys in the regular season ONE TIME, when Red Auerbach died and MAY wear them again to honor a Celtics title. I’m just saying, with all the teams that do break out alternate jerseys, you picked a bad example.

You’re missing the point. Green isn’t one of their colors and yet they’re acting like it is, which is just as worng as adding balck of every other uni out there. That’s why people are bashing it. Once a year? Fine. 3 times a year for any number of reasons? Ridiculous!

In NO WAY are they acting like green is one of their colors. They have used it twice now during the regular season to honor the Celtics in some way. How is this exactly like the Mets wearing black jerseys ALL THE TIME? One of the great things about being a Boston sports fan, is that it is really cool to see how the teams all support each other.

#74 by Mark K on 06.19.08 12:28 pm |     

I suppose the little love-fest between the Boston teams makes sense considering they’re both at the top of their leagues but in most cities I would guess this wouldn’t happen as the teams are really competitors for the local sports fans’ dollars.

Dodgers wearing purple for the Lakers? The stars would really have to align for that one.

#75 by Duckstyle on 06.19.08 12:30 pm |     

“My point, of course, was that too many one-off jerseys (or obviously recyled “special” jersyes/hats used just because they’re on hand and convenient) diminish the impact of the important other causes they support. I’m trying to imagine, say, the Dodgers wearing purple had the Lakes somehow won the NBA title. And why they would, or should, bother.”

That’s fine, but you brought it up using the example of the Red Sox who, the way you paint it, break out these green jerseys every other day. You said

“Death of Red Auerbach, green jersey. Celtics title, green jersey. Earth Day, green jersey. St. Patrick’s Day, green jersey.”

They wear green (sometimes) on St. Patrick’s Day, which is always in Spring Training. They did not wear a green jersey on Earth Day, they wore a patch. They wore the green jerseys in the regular season ONE TIME, when Red Auerbach died and MAY wear them again to honor a Celtics title. I’m just saying, with all the teams that do break out alternate jerseys, you picked a bad example.

You’re missing the point. Green isn’t one of their colors and yet they’re acting like it is, which is just as worng as adding balck of every other uni out there. That’s why people are bashing it. Once a year? Fine. 3 times a year for any number of reasons? Ridiculous!

In NO WAY are they acting like green is one of their colors. They have used it twice now during the regular season to honor the Celtics in some way. How is this exactly like the Mets wearing black jerseys ALL THE TIME? One of the great things about being a Boston sports fan, is that it is really cool to see how the teams all support each other.

Another great reason is that they all USE CAPS ALL THE TIME FOR NO APARENT REASON.

#76 by Ricko on 06.19.08 12:35 pm |     

So to clarify: The guy complained about the Red Sox “breaking out the green jerseys” for

1. St. Patrick’s day (never happened in the regular season)

2. Earth Day (never happened, they wore a patch only)

3. A Celtics title (never happened, but might happen Friday) (They wore Green in honor of Red Auerbach’s death, that was the one time.)

So basically he’s complaining about something that’s NEVER happened. I agree with his point, but the Red Sox are not the team to pick on in this case.

If you mean me, I wasn’t picking on the Red Sox. I was thinking only of two things that seem to be creeping into the whole special jersey philosophy in general…
1. More of them is better.
2. “As long as we have these green jerseys and/or hats from St. Pat’s, we could ALSO use ‘em for…” (if a team considers doing something largely because doing it would be easy and virtually free, it isn’t much of a tribute).

#77 by Bioretention on 06.19.08 12:38 pm |     

“I’d like to begin by saying f*ck Lance Armstrong.”

-George Carlin

Nothing wrong with the green Red Sox unis, BTW. It’s been a long damn time since they were necessary to honor the Celtics. Though, sadly, we never got to see Bob Stanley or Marty Barrett in a green jersey.

#78 by Kenny on 06.19.08 12:48 pm |     

I have an older Tom Pagnozzi jersey with what I believe is a NL sleeve patch - I’m not even sure it’s an official jersey but I can check when I get home

#79 by Patrick O'Donnell on 06.19.08 12:53 pm |     

It is not vandalism if it comes right off. I understand your hatred for Nike, but get over it. It’s no different than someone writing in sidewalk chalk, from the vandalism standpoint. And it’s not across the entire path, so you can just run around it. They will, and should, be taken down, they’ll be told not to do it again, and life will go on.

I don’t think this was motivated by Paul’s “hatred for Nike” but rather the fact that they feel they “own the joint” and do what they want.

You have kids in this country that get told to take down their lemonade stands because they don’t have the proper permits but Nike unilateraly decides that they can do what they want, when they want.

You state that the runners can just run over these, but how do we know that they aren’t too slick or even too “sticky”? The change from asphalt to this sticker could affect how you run or, god forbid, even injure an unsuspecting runner.

This goes far beyond a “logo creep” issue.

How many times have you seen someone advertise on sidewalks in chalk for some fair? Are they vandals and trespassers, too? I’m sure they got permits for that. The only difference is that it’s Nike. And as for it being too slick/sticky, the picture clearly shows that it’s easy to get AROUND it, like I said before. Not “run over them.”

The article said the Parks department had no idea what the interviewer was talking about. All I was saying was that you’d think the Chicago city flag was changed to a big swoosh. A few ads were put in a park. That’s it.

#80 by Robert on 06.19.08 1:00 pm |     

I took my son to the Rangers game against the Braves last night. At some point, the scoreboard showed a video of Rangers historical highlights (insert joke here). My son noted the powder blues, said that they were very unusual, and expressed his admiration of them.

On the one hand, I was so proud that he was noticing something uni-related without being prompted. On the other hand, as a hater of the powder blues, I nearly became despondent to learn that he likes them enough to desire a throwback.

My conflicted feelings continue today.

#81 by Dan on 06.19.08 1:04 pm |     

“”This is just another example of LeBron’s commitment to the city of Akron, its University and our basketball program,” Dambrot said in a statement.”

Not a big fan of LeBron’s statement; “Akron is my home team, I want them looking great head to toe.” It’s sort of like LeBron giving a thumbs-up to something he probably had no idea about until Nike told him to go on television and give a statement.

I doubt LeBron even has a say in the design of his clothes, let alone a say in the fact that Akron is not branded under him. It wasn’t LeBron’s decision, it was Nike’s.