Tomorrow is Independence Day. I always like to call it that — Independence Day, not the 4th of July — because that’s what the holiday is about, after all: our independence from the British crown. It’s a special day, an important day. If you haven’t read the Declaration of Independence lately, I suggest that you do so — it’s a pretty stirring document, and it serves as a compelling reminder that we always need to be vigilant, because liberty is a fragile thing, something we have to nurture and protect from anything that threatens it.
As it happens, I myself have recently identified precisely such a threat, an evil seed that bids to lay waste to everything we hold dear. And I can assure you that I plan to do everything within my power to expunge this threat from the face of this earth.
I am referring, of course, to Ronnie Belliard’s socks.
In case you missed it (as I did myself, until there was a brief mention of it in yesterday’s comments), Belliard — who usually goes pajama-pantsed — hiked up his cuffs on Tuesday night, revealing the mark of the beast on his stockings. Although it’s hard to be sure, it appears that this wasn’t an isolated incident (that photo is from Sunday).
This isn’t the first time the scourge of logo creep has afflicted MLB hose. Back in 2005, I identified at least at least four players with the Rawlings logo on their socks: Kelvim Escobar, Orlando Cabrera, Paul Byrd (here’s another view of him), and Joe Crede. At the time, I worried that we’d soon start seeing sock-borne maker’s marks throughout MLB diamonds. Fortunately, that hasn’t come to pass, but Belliard’s legwear is a reminder that we can’t take lower-leg tranquility for granted.
And to think this team is called the Nationals.
Why is this so important? Because socks are just about the only brand-free oasis remaining on the baseball diamond. Think about it: Jerseys are visibly branded, along with pants, shoes, fielder’s gloves, batting gloves, catching gear, and undershirts (not always, but the chest swoosh is often exposed to view). The only things that aren’t logo-creepy are headwear (well, usually) and socks. Socks are also unbranded — at least for now — in the other major pro sports leagues.
And it damn well better stay that way. Because if there’s one thing this country stands for, it’s freedom, and that definitely includes freedom from advertising-infested hosiery. Rise up, my fellow Americans! Whether it means dumping boxes of socks into Boston Harbor, driving a bullpen buggy through the countryside while shouting, “The sock swooshes are coming! The sock swooshes are coming!,” or burning Ronnie Belliard in effigy (maybe just from the knees down), we must take arms against this savage incursion. Repeat after me, fellow citizens: Give us advertising-free socks, or give us death.
Uni Watch Calender Correction: Yesterday I mentioned the possibility of convening a Uni Watch gathering in Manhattan after the Don Larsen perfect game screening “next Tuesday, July 10th” — a tricky concept, since next Tuesday is the actually 8th. Oops. The correct day/date is next Thursday, the 10th. So let’s try this again: If there’s sufficient interest among NYC readers, we can have a Uni Watch confab at 8:30ish on July 10th at Jimmy’s Corner on West 44th. If this appeals, send me a note.
Uni Watch News Ticker: The Giants and Cubs apparently couldn’t wait until the holiday weekend to start wearing the star-spangled caps — further evidence that almost every idea gets taken too far these days. Meanwhile, Chris Bruggeman reports that Ryan Dempster had some XYZ issues during that game. Several Cubs fans apparently noticed it and e-mailed the broadcast team, leading Len Kasper and Bob Brenly to discuss the situation. I don’t have access to the Cubs broadcast feed, alas, but Chris says that at one point Brenly quipped, “If [Dempster] pitches a shutout, I think the whole staff will go out to greet him with their barn doors open.” … In a related item, the Pedro porthole was in full force last night in St. Looey. … In yesterday’s entry on tags and labels, I quoted Terry Proctor thusly: “For the NBA or NFL teams that SandKnit outfitted, they would say something like, ‘Custom-Crafted by Medalist SandKnit for the Boston Celtics of the National Basketball Association’ (or whatever the appropriate team was).” That prompted Doug Rogers to send along a photo of the label from one of his old Vikings jerseys — check it out. Notice anything amiss? They got it right on this one. … Brooks Robinson was presented with an All-Time Gold Glove on Tuesday night. York Revolution players wore “B. Robinson” nameplates in his honor (with thanks to Chris Laughman). … Good observation here about an update to the Hornets’ logo (with thanks to Ernie Ballard). … Another great job by Nike (with thanks to Christian Ruzich). … The Mid-American Conference has a new logo (with thanks to Tom Konecny). … Odd observation from Ellen Schmidt, who notes that Greg Dobbs was wearing eye black early in one of the recent Phils/Rangers games but had removed it later in the game. … Who picks the Twins’ uniforms each day? Answer here (with thanks to Joe Drennan). … LI Phil found something interesting: a site that’s sort of a soda bottle version of Uni Watch. The home page is here. … Also from Phil (reprinted from yesterday’s comments): a bearded Yankee! Must’ve been from one of Thurman’s periodic “I’m gonna fuck with Steinbrenner” phases. … Another smoking athlete (but not in uniform): Sean Avery (courtesy of Andrew Jobe). … Check out what the Bossier-Shreveport Battle Wings (arenafootball2) will be wearing for the 4th of July. … More news on SMU’s new football togs here, here, here, here, here, here, and here (with thanks to Chris Mycoskie and Tod Meisner). … Reprinted from yesterday’s comments: More hoops jerseys with crotch extensions. That’s Washington coach Tippy Dye checking out the team’s uniforms. … Also from yesterday: Full gallery here of the West Michigan Whitecaps’ Darth Vader jerseys. … Yet another noteworthy bit from yesterday’s comments: Numberless catcher? Nope, it’s just Bengie Molina, who combines two rarities: a catcher wearing No. 1 and a really thick vertical strap. … Hey, speaking of graphics on MLB hosiery, check out the stirrups in this photo from Bill Henderson’s CD. Don’t think I’ve ever seen a uni number sewn into the bottom of the strap like that. Also can’t say I recall seeing the ’Stros wearing stars on their calves — hmmmm. … The Brewers and Pirates will wear Negro Leagues throwbacks on Saturday (with thanks to Jeff Ash). …Ever heard of the National Indoor Football League or the United Indoor Football League? Yeah, me neither, but Marc Viquez says a team called the Fort Wayne Freedom belonged to both of those leagues, and he recently spotted one of their helmets for sale at an Indianapolis shop. … Admirably detail-obsessive observation from Brandon Davis, who writes: “It appears that MLB started adding the TM symbol to the MLB logo on the back of batting helmets in 2006, the same time teams started wearing CoolFlo helmets.”
Holiday Schedule: Uni Watch will be closed tomorrow. Bryan will handle the weekend, as usual. See you all next week, and try not to blow off too many of your fingers with fireworks.
#1 by Ben on 07.03.08 8:22 am |
First linked image is not Belliard.
#2 by Ricko on 07.03.08 8:33 am |
Was gonna ask if there was a reason teams were wearing their Stars n’ Stripes early. And apparently there isn’t. At least not a policy reason, anyway.
Funny thing about new Ray unis. First time I saw them(was in a magazine in O’Hare) I thought…”They’re gonna have a great year.” Same thought I had when I first saw current Twins unis back in ‘87. Take a young team that’s struggled and is finding itself, change their unis from something a little “odd” to something the looks a major leaguer would wear (Twins scrapped powder blue sansabelt and those dumb red hats) and it has a huge uplifting affect.
So I’m surprised at Ray success. “If you look good, you feel good. If you feel good, you do good.”
#3 by Jim on 07.03.08 8:35 am |
The Giants look God-awlful in theose blue hats.
#4 by Ricko on 07.03.08 8:45 am |
I’m NOT surprised by Rays’ success.
#5 by Rich on 07.03.08 8:47 am |
Astros stirrups with a star
#6 by LI Phil on 07.03.08 8:51 am |
well admittedly, this was an absolute joke…but
this uni, even the alt, was one of the nicer and cleaner unis in the bigs…plus, it’s a nice deep hunter green
this…not so much, especially with the annoying habit of the jersey to spell “RAAYS”
*INTERSTING CONCEPT jersey here
#7 by Ricko on 07.03.08 8:52 am |
By the way, this is a great weekend to remind those with a narrow definition of patriotism that dissent in our genes.
It is our birthright, our responsibility.
The Boston Tea Party was not a $1,000 a plate fundraiser. It was a freakin’ protest.
And THAT’s what those stars n’strips hats are celebrating (even though they’re dumb and ugly): The courage to dissent, to stand up in the face of the powerful.
NOT blind allegiance. Blind allegiance gets guys to fly jets into skyscrapers. Dissent is decidedly preferable.
(I will now put my soapbox away).
#8 by LI Phil on 07.03.08 8:58 am |
on a uni related note…
last night UW stalwart mike engle made a request, which i shall echo here, of those with some photoshop skills…
would someone be able to do mock ups of the starspangled cap LOGOS on their CURRENT-color caps?
in other words, “starspangled A” on a green cap, “starspangled SF” on a black cap, etc.
i think they will look crappy on the non-red or blue hats, but i bet they don’t look completely horrible on say a reds (non black-bill), cards, d-back (red), mets, yanks, dodgers, royals, etc…ya know…those whose base colors compliment the starspangled logo
anyway…if ANYONE can do that (photoshop)…tha’d be great
#9 by James Craven on 07.03.08 9:00 am |
While you’re at it, Ricko, get off of Philip’s lawn, will ya?
BTW, have a safe and sane Fourth of July. As Bob Barker reminded us a couple decades ago, “Have your fireworks spayed or neutered.”
#10 by Ricko on 07.03.08 9:02 am |
Something else interesting about the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights…”
In the recorded history of mankind, that was the first time a government ever wrote that down.
And it was baseball, in 1947, that went a long way to helping us remember that.
You can mention that to anyone who doesn’t think baseball is endemic to the American experience in the 20th century and, hopefully, beyond.
#11 by Paul Lukas on 07.03.08 9:03 am |
Now fixed.
#12 by Paul Lukas on 07.03.08 9:04 am |
Excellent — thanks!
#13 by LI Phil on 07.03.08 9:08 am |
those exact words…yes
however, james monroe borrowed a large portion of the DI from another famous document written 561 years earlier on the plains of runnymede
#14 by Jeremy on 07.03.08 9:10 am |
So, should we start the “Stop swoosh socks, wear stirrups!” campaign?
#15 by Robert on 07.03.08 9:15 am |
I am envisioning one lonely figure, wearing a Mets cap, standing on a pier, solemnly dumping a box of stirrups into Boston Harbor, with only a camera crew there to record the act of defiance. I like it.
#16 by Stuby on 07.03.08 9:21 am |
I’d love to see the Giants go with this uni every year on the 4th of July. Maybe with the waistband worn a bit lower, though. Will the Thrill looks like Steve Urkel in that shot.
http://www.flickr.co...
#17 by Brooks on 07.03.08 9:38 am |
Paul, I disagree completely with your views on Nike, and “logo creep.” While you have a right to voice your opinion, and I have a right to choose whether or not to read this space each day, I disagree 100% with the above statement. You are right that we have a freedom to choose what we choose, and what that truly means is that Belliard, and everyone else has a right to choose what socks they wear, and if those socks happen to have a swoosh, or Adidas logo, or nothing at all the choice is up to them.
Who are you to say that everyone has a right to be free from “logo creep?” What about those of us who are not offended by it? Don’t we have an equal right? I chose to wear Nike products through my football career in high school and college, wasn’t it my right to wear Nike socks, wristbands, cleats, and gloves? I think your comments are way off base. While preaching meanings of freedom you overlook what freedom is truly about.
#18 by James P. on 07.03.08 9:45 am |
you beat me too it. I wish the Astros would wear those throwbacks…including the star stirrups…
#19 by GoTerriers on 07.03.08 9:51 am |
Though it’s well documented that Thurman Munson had numerous “I’m gonna fuck with Steinbrenner” phases, George didn’t buy the team from CBS until 1973. So not being a baseball card expert, is it conceivable that the baseball card depicting Thurman with a beard is pre-1973 and therefore pre-dates the Yankees no-beard policy?
#20 by Hurnf on 07.03.08 9:53 am |
Listen to NPR’s Morning Edition tomorrow for the annual reading of the Declaration of Independence. It will stir your soul like nothing else.
#21 by chance on 07.03.08 9:54 am |
True enough. I’ve read that one, too - inspiring, all.
Time for my family to break out the DVD of 1776….
#22 by GoTerriers on 07.03.08 10:02 am |
And to paraphrase Dick Allen: “I hit better when I look bitchin’!”
#23 by Brian Erni on 07.03.08 10:07 am |
On the subject of branded hoisery:
I play and manage a team in a Long Island 18 and over league and, as you can probably imagine, uniforms are quite interesting. My club tries to take the Uni Watch stance on a lot of things (I order the unis) but it can be difficult to either get everyone to comply. One thing most guys do though is hike up the socks, but there is an epidemic more prominent than Nike on our fields: Under Armor. I’d say a good half the league that goes high socks are equipped with the Under Armor ‘H’, but much more prominent than the Rawlings and Nike marks. The logo is right in the center of the shin facing forward.
#24 by Walaitis on 07.03.08 10:07 am |
Another point - Which is the lesser of two evils? Pajama pants, or logo’d hosiery? The jerseys have logos. The gloves have logos. The shoes have logos. The sweat bands have logos. The body armor has logos. Why should lower legs be exempt? I’m not saying I like it. I’m just saying if they’re generally accepted everywhere else, why not there?
On a totally different note, shouldn’t the link for the Bossier-Shreveport Battle Wings promotion read “for Independence Day”?
#25 by Paul Lukas on 07.03.08 10:09 am |
Be my guest — disagree all you like. Fuck stand on the corner and distribute anti-Lukas pamphlets, for all I care. I’m sure Tom Paine would approve.
#26 by Paul Lukas on 07.03.08 10:11 am |
A, B, C, D, and E suck, so why shouldn’t F suck as well?
Sounds logical to me.
#27 by Ricko on 07.03.08 10:13 am |
“those exact words” is what I meant, no slight to the Magna Carta intended.
re: Astros. Yeah, always thought those first Astros unis (after switch from Colt .45s) were pretty classy. When they flipflopped the orange and navy for a few years prior to Rainbow Guts the orange stirrups had a navy star…but that uni wasn’t nearly as nice looking as the one shown here today.
re: Solitary Met dumping things into harbor. Hope those are the black socks…and maybe the black/royal and black hats, too?
re: Freedom from logo creep. Think maybe Paul was doing an “exasperation” thing cuz of holiday. Kinda think he knows stirrups weren’t on the minds of Founding Fathers. Although, they did wear those nifty stockings with bloused breeches, didn’t they. Hmmm, I wonder…
“Damn that Paul Revere, sticking his logo all over his cutlery.”
Oh, forgot, for NBA: “Oklahoma City Laters.”
When spending sports entertainment dollars Okalhomans would then be thinking, “Hmmm, I guess I’m gonna spend money (blank) or (blank)?” If I have to explain that, you’re at the wrong web site. LOL
rimshot
(Hey, I am in WAY too good a mood cuz of short week).
#28 by fc on 07.03.08 10:15 am |
Can we go back to the stirrups talk and all other ancient, museum-worthy relics that remind you of sad, old times?
#29 by LI Phil on 07.03.08 10:22 am |
paul displaying some common sense
just not gonna go there with the swoosh sox
#30 by Walaitis on 07.03.08 10:25 am |
As for the Athletes Formerly Known As Sonics - I’d like a logical explanation of the OKC abbreviation. Yes, “OK” is the official postal service abbreviation for the state of Oklahoma. I’m sure C is for City. But usually when you put three letters together like that, each letter stands for something. The “K” has no right being there!
Am I along here, or just in a stinky mood for being reprimanded by the zoo keeper?
#31 by Sam H on 07.03.08 10:33 am |
I know that it’s completely unimportant in the grand scheme of things, but I found the title strangely fitting, given what’s happening with Seattle and the NBA at the moment.
#32 by James Craven on 07.03.08 10:36 am |
OH FOR GOD’S SAKES JOHN, SIT DOWN!
Could not resist doing that line.
BTWE, uni-related, the colonial soldiers’ messanger uniform? It is spot-on.
#33 by Mark K on 07.03.08 10:38 am |
Man, I miss this guy…
http://www.sportslog...
#34 by Wade Harder on 07.03.08 10:40 am |
Except it would be a box of logo branded socks, not stirrups. So far, they are logo-free.
#35 by Cathy on 07.03.08 10:41 am |
Love the flag on your post Paul. I fly the Gadsden http://upload.wikime... flag year round at my house. Of course, most people think I’m part of an extreme right wing militia (couldn’t be farther from the truth). For those who stop to ask (and they do), I explain what the flag is. http://en.wikipedia....
…I will fly the Stars and Sriped tomorrow though.
#36 by Perry on 07.03.08 10:42 am |
While I’m with Paul in preferring logo-free equipment, I think I’d be willing to put up with it on socks if it meant that everyone was showing them, preferably with stirrups. If I never had to see a ballplayer wearing his pants to his shoetops again, I could stand a little swoosh.
#37 by Mike on 07.03.08 10:44 am |
If you really want to be moved, you should hear the reading of the Declaration of Independence at the Old State House in Boston tomorrow morning.
I never miss it. They read the DI from the exact spot it was initially read in 1776.
After all I am descended from a simple cobbler from Connecticut (no not THAT one, but my grandparents and great grandparents were cobblers from Connecticut).
#38 by Anthony Verna on 07.03.08 10:45 am |
Dick Stewart!!!
#39 by Thomas on 07.03.08 10:50 am |
I got goosebumps.
#40 by Perry on 07.03.08 10:53 am |
Wasn’t it Dick Stuart? In Ball Four Bouton quotes him as saying “I add 20 points to my average if I know I look bitchin’ out there.”
#41 by Walaitis on 07.03.08 10:55 am |
Too bad Mel Allen isn’t around anymore. He’d probably know.
#42 by LI Phil on 07.03.08 10:58 am |
one night in pittsburgh, thirty-thousand fans gave me a standing ovation when i caught a hot dog wrapper on the fly
#43 by Ricko on 07.03.08 10:58 am |
I hadn’t stopped to think the SuperSonics had been around for 41 years! SportsCenter pointed out the last time teams moved that had been located in a city that long or longer were Browns to Baltimore and Senators to Minnesota, the latter being close to 50 years ago.
Long time. So is truly a moment of significance in pro sports history.
#44 by chance on 07.03.08 11:00 am |
Never!
NEVER!
;)
#45 by Perry on 07.03.08 11:00 am |
This is apparently the new Arsenal away kit for next season:
http://the-cannon.co...
I like it. I DON’T like that the home kit is apparently going to have wide, black-bordered white stripes down the sleeves, rather than the traditional all-white sleeve.
#46 by Jonas on 07.03.08 11:04 am |
In case anyone was curious, Sean Avery is hanging out with Thom Browne, he was menswear designer of the year in 2006, and makes the best oxford shirts on the planet. Any hardcore Uni-watch reader would be quite impressed with the quality and the hand made construction (in the USA with NO logos Paul). His whole line is very 1950\’s inspired and the materials are the best in the world. His boutique is on 100 Hudson St, in NYC if Paul or anyone else is in the neighborhood.
I am assuming this was a follow up to Sean’s new “fashion intern” gig at Vogue. Where on men.style.com he gave the top ten ugliest sports uniforms ever just a few days back. He was also on MTV cribs the other day… talk about a marketer. Reebok socks will follow.
#47 by Jake E on 07.03.08 11:15 am |
Logo creep on socks and otherwise is a way of shaming us into paying more for what we used to get for less, or free. Essentially buying what we don’t need, we fall for the classic marketing stunt of “creating a need.”
We used to wear an old tee-shirt under our sports unis, the older, softer and smellier the better. Now we feel like lesser athletes if we don’t shell out for synthetic Under Armor shirts designed specifically for our sport and the prevailing temperature on game-day. Ten-dollar hockey socks (or your freebies from High School - who cared?) were fine until RBK Edge came along with their $40 logoed product, and suddenly there’s an urge that was never there before. We didn’t used to care where our socks came from but suddenly we’re prepared to fork over forty bucks to be like Sydney (or teammates who caved). We fear we may be losing out on the authentic sports experience as fan or athlete if we don’t have the real deal. So we buy in, feeling suddenly like we’re in the know, like we’re getting an actual “edge” — not realizing that we’ve actually been had.
I’m using the ‘royal we’ here, knowing there are lots of fellow dissenters, to illustrate the mindgame that logo creep plays. On this glorious Fourth I’m not saying it should be banned - just, maybe, BUCK IT a little. You know, it can start with a Sharpie - if you find yourself with a swoosh on your socks and you don’t like it - just black it out. And support Paul when he tries to take a stand, no matter how hopeless the battle may seem. That’s what John Adams woulda done!
#48 by LI Phil on 07.03.08 11:20 am |
i’ll support paul when he’s right
and he’s wrong about nike (maybe not about his definition of logo creep, which is NOT my definition, but it IS his board)
but we agree to disagree…as some great american once said…i may not agree with a word you say, but i’ll fight to the death for your right to say it
#49 by joe on 07.03.08 11:27 am |
no one is saying they shouldn’t wear Nike stuff. The point is that the player is not playing for Nike, they are playing for the TEAM they are on. The corporate graphics that are not part of the teams branding do not belong and should not be on the uniforms. You can say its marketing all you want, but even if they didn’t put the logo on the jersey, when I person wants to buy an authentic jersey, nike, russell, reebok, ect would still get the sale, its un-need. No one is going to walk into a store for a “real” jersey and say “hmm I’d buy that cubs jersey if only it had a majestic logo on it”
#50 by Jason on 07.03.08 11:28 am |
As a Nats fan, I encourage Ronnie to continue wearing his Nike socks. The first photo Paul linked was Belliard bashing a grand slam in Miami. The second was a two-run homer that beat Baltimore.
So no offense to the general Uni population, but…
Viva la Swoosh!
#51 by Jeff Beef Bone on 07.03.08 11:30 am |
New Orleans Hornets Logo:
Damnit New Orleans! GET RID OF HUGO! That was the worst logo idea when Charolette created it when they expanded, when the team was moved I was certain they would ditch the worst logo in the NBA, but they didn’t. They even created a secondary logo that is vastly superior, but does not cordinate with the main logo at all. But they reserve it for the tank top strap. I thought for sure they were just easing that logo in to take over, but no. They revamped Hugo to look like a cheap tracing of the previous Hugo logo. Fuck.
#52 by Ian K on 07.03.08 11:31 am |
That quote is attributed to Voltaire, who was French, not American.
#53 by LI Phil on 07.03.08 11:39 am |
fuckin’ french…
however…”i disapprove of what you say, but i will defend to the death your right to say it” is widely attributed to voltaire, but cannot be found in his writings…with good reason…the phrase was invented by a later author as an epitome of his attitude…
in 1906, i believe
nevertheless…mea culpa, and thanks for the correction
#54 by Ricko on 07.03.08 11:40 am |
I don’t mind a manufacturer’s symbol on gear too much, any more than I mind an aligator or little polo player on a shirt. What does bug me are flat-out ads, such as corporate names across the chest of soccer unis or those patches all over Arena football jerseys (Aaron’s, US Army, et al).
A Russell “R” on a pants pocket I can live with. Even a swoosh up high on a sock. A quarterback under center being a billboard, though, that’s something else. Just…tacky, that’s all.
(Of course, since when anyone worrying about being tacky these days).
#55 by Matt on 07.03.08 11:41 am |
I noticed the drawings of the SMU uniforms were Adidas; however if you look at page 2 of the mailbag, June Jones is holding a Nike SMU jersey. Who will be their sponsor?
http://sportsillustr...
#56 by Walaitis on 07.03.08 11:46 am |
I for one, if walking into a store to buy an “authentic” jersey, WOULD walk out if it had a Russell (or otherwise) logo on it, and not Majestic.
But maybe that’s why I’m here, and not on the “UniWhatBlog” down the street.
#57 by Ricko on 07.03.08 11:47 am |
Yeah, like Descartes. He wasn’t so damn authoritative, was typically French ambivalent. Just had a good editor.
His original draft read:
“I think, therefore I am…I think.”
#58 by Jarid on 07.03.08 11:48 am |
I’ve actually heard of the football leagues you mentioned - I’m in Sioux Falls, SD, home of the Sioux Falls Storm, who were in the NIFL before moving to the UIF (where they’ve won all three league championships and are playing for the fourth next week). It’s basically another minor league catering to cities that aren’t big enough to get real Arena League teams - the kind of places that have NBADL or low-minor/independent baseball teams. I’ve been to a game, and they do put on a good (albeit obnoxiously loud) show.
From a uni perspective, it’s probably what you’d expect - the uniforms are all very much minor league, with lots of bold, trendy colors, side piping, helmets with full-fledged team logos instead of more understated designs, etc.
#59 by joe on 07.03.08 11:48 am |
No, the point was if they didn’t put the logos on the real ones, no one would *not* buy one because of the lack of a logo if it was the authentic jersey. Having a manufacturer logo is not the selling point of the product.
#60 by Phil on 07.03.08 11:49 am |
Paul’s a lot easier to support or defend when his responses (#25 & 26) don’t sound like they are from Pee Wee Herman trying to make his point. “I know you are, but what am I?”
The only way to stop logos on socks or anywhere else on the uniform is for MLB to say it can’t be there.
#61 by S. Bennett on 07.03.08 11:51 am |
There is an excellent chance your kids are buying soccer sock, which are laden with logos and brand identifiers. They’re also one of the few options available at the average sports store if you want something other than white socks or black anklets.
#62 by Neil on 07.03.08 11:51 am |
The Twin City baseball socks I currently wear are garbage and I tend to go through a pair every couple of games. I’ve heard that the Under Armour socks are much better, but because of the logo on the shin, I won’t buy them.
Can anyone recommend a quality non-logoed baseball sock?
#63 by LI Phil on 07.03.08 11:51 am |
link?
……..
and just one more thing before this gets ad nauseum about one’s definition of logo creep…IF we agree with paul’s definition that a swoosh on a sock is logo creep…then so to is the majestic logo on every mlb uni…except one (i believe)
so, then, by extension, i guess that one team should be held up to the highest esteem by our founder, no?
#64 by S. Bennett on 07.03.08 11:52 am |
If you do write up a pamphlet, make sure to mention that he still hasn’t polished his softball cleats.
SB
#65 by Beardface on 07.03.08 11:55 am |
Yea… you know, perhaps they should just change the name of the team as well… How’s New Orleans Levee sound? I mean it would fit right in with that franchise’s history of failure when it matters…
#66 by sean lewis on 07.03.08 11:58 am |
Darren Rovell’s CNBC Sports biz blog has an interesting uni conspiracy tilt to it this morning.
http://www.cnbc.com/...
#67 by Ricko on 07.03.08 12:00 pm |
PearSox aren’t too bad. But nothing seems to hold up real well anymore.
#68 by Paul Lukas on 07.03.08 12:00 pm |
Yes, duh, of course that’s logo creep! Maker’s marks on uniforms are why I came up with the term “logo creep” to begin with!
I have written many times about my admiration for the Yankees’ logo-free uniforms (although it’s because they cut their own deal with Adidas, not because they’re anti-logos).
Here’s something I bet most of you haven’t seen: Mariano Rivera in the 2005 All-Star Game, with a Majestic logo on his sleeve:
http://espn.go.com/m...
All the Yankees in that ASG wore the Majestic logo, because the jerseys with the ASG patch came straight from Majestic (instead of from Adidas like the rest of the Yanks’ gear).
#69 by Ricko on 07.03.08 12:00 pm |
Or did you mean stirrups?
#70 by vpofbeer on 07.03.08 12:02 pm |
I don’t know about that tidbit on the Hornets’ logo. That updated logo on Gulf Coast Offense is nowhere to be found on the team’s official website.
During this season’s postseason run - especially if you went to the merchandise shop at N.O. Arena or received the any of the promotional t-shirts that were given away at the home games - it actually looks like the team is using the Fleur de Bee logo on EVERYTHING. Sure it’s got a goofy name, but it’s far superior to the old logo.
Watching the draft last week, it looked to me like the hat Darrell Arthur put on when the Hornets drafted him had the Fleur de Bee on it as well.
Anywho, just a couple other Hornets logo observations.
#71 by PDXclark on 07.03.08 12:10 pm |
Nice use of the “Don’t Tread on Me” flag- but I would have used the Gadsen Flag version-
http://upload.wikime...
much cooler looking snake, but alas, no stripes.
Happy Independence Day!
#72 by Mike on 07.03.08 12:11 pm |
Aside from the absolute pain this story brings, I am also intriguied by the undershirt….is that some sort of new compression shirt, or a new take on the old “pox” shirts?
http://sports.aol.co...
#73 by Paul Lukas on 07.03.08 12:11 pm |
Exactly. The stripes sealed it for me.
#74 by Ricko on 07.03.08 12:12 pm |
From story on who picks Twins’ uni for the day:
“Why so many jerseys?
” ‘This gives our merchandising folks opportunities, as there’s a lot for fans to buy. It’s a variety,’ said Smith. “
Well, at least they admit it.
#75 by Fredk on 07.03.08 12:15 pm |
The Giants (and Cubs)were honoring the Troops last night.They had a big pregame ceremony and had many troops in attendance has well as sending prerecorded messages from the players to the troops via the broadcast which was carried on the Armed Services Radio and TV network…(SO They didn’t jump the Gun on the 4th by wearing the blue hats)
#76 by PDXclark on 07.03.08 12:18 pm |
Oops, I’m a jackass. (ref #34)
The “find” for “tread” before posting didn’t do the job.
I’ll write “Read Before Posting” 10 times on the chalkboard as pennance.
#77 by Chad G on 07.03.08 12:19 pm |
Didn’t feel like reading through all those comments so somebody may have already mentioned this, but those blue SMU jerseys look just like the bills throwbacks:]
http://www.nflshop.c...
#78 by Ricko on 07.03.08 12:20 pm |
btw, I hate sleeveless alternates, such as when the Twins wear them. Don’t like the “just for the hell of it” aspect. Guess I’m old school enough to remember when Reds and Pirates went to them in ‘56 and ‘57 respectively it was unique because it was the style they elected to wear that year.
Now is kind a like a hockey team wearing Cooperalls once in a while as “alternate breezers.”
I just think it looks gimmicky on teams that do it, far moreso than merely a dark-colored jersey. That seems to be a legitimate “alternate.” The vest is like a whole different style.
I’m probably alone in that thought, I know.
#79 by Kek on 07.03.08 12:22 pm |
“the mark of the beast”
honestly…
#80 by LI Phil on 07.03.08 12:32 pm |
wait…i have a question…
i thought (and that is of course, dangerous) the yankees wear majestic uniforms, but the specifically PAY majestic NOT to put the logo on them…not that they wear adidas uniforms
do i have that correct? i know they have a deal with adidas (and next year the wonderful swoosh)…but i still thought their uni’s were made by majestic, just logo-free (with that fee prolly paid for by adidas)
#81 by Dane on 07.03.08 12:37 pm |
It is a 1976 Topps baseball card.
As soon as I saw the words “mark of the beast”, I immediately skipped ahead to the Ticker. Hopefully we have many uni-incidents over the weekend for digestion and dissection on Monday. Until then, enjoy your Nathan’s Famous! (times 66)
#82 by Michael on 07.03.08 12:40 pm |
Paul, maybe we could get a Seattle SuperSonics uniform retrospective? Even though I hated everything about them being a Houston Rockets fan, I know how it feels to lose a team. Seeing those classic Oiler uniforms next to the modern Texans still makes me feel sad.
In the spirit of relocation, I offer up my suggestion for a team name: The Oklahoma City Joads.
#83 by Paul Lukas on 07.03.08 12:40 pm |
Hey, you can have your anti-Christ and I can have mine….
#84 by GoTerriers on 07.03.08 12:42 pm |
Yup - and that is why I didn’t win the prize when that question appeared on the UniWatch Triva contest last year . ..
#85 by Kek on 07.03.08 12:45 pm |
Oh boy, no comment on that one.
Seriously though, have you ever addressed a stance on logos on say batting gloves, fielders’ gloves, bats, cleats and other non-uniform related gear? I understand your issue with logos being on the uniform itself and that the team name is the brand, etc, etc, but comment #26 leads me to believe that you may have issue with the equipment end of the spectrum.
#86 by LI Phil on 07.03.08 12:46 pm |
oh damn…i must have missed that first post…yeah, i actually found that card when i did a search yesterday for “1976 world series pictures”…(looking for the NL ump pillbox hats)…sorry…i should have chimed in sooner…thanks dane, for clearing it up
#87 by Paul Lukas on 07.03.08 12:51 pm |
I have less of an issue with labels and logos on equipment, because equipment is a matter of personal choice (i.e., you can choose to wear a Rawlings glove, a Wilson glove, etc.), not team uniformity. That doesn’t mean it’s a great thing when Reebok plasters its logo all over a glove — advertising overkill is still advertising overkill — but it doesn’t offend me in the same way that the Majestic logo on jersey sleeve (or a swoosh on a sock) does.
#88 by Kek on 07.03.08 12:51 pm |
I seem to recall Sparky Lyle writing about Munson and his beard in “The Bronx Zoo” (one of my favorite baseball books of all time). He said that Munson would grow the beard to piss off the boss but that he was miserable and uncomfortable in the dog days of summer with that beard rubbing against his catcher’s mask.
#89 by Kek on 07.03.08 1:02 pm |
That’s kind of what I figured but I would caution that although nike and reebok are in the glove game these days, that one shouldn’t be biased against them as far as logos on gloves.
It may be the easy thing to do by picking on the big companies like Nike, Reebok, Under Armor, etc, but do a search on Rawlings gloves on Dicks or Eastbay. Their logos are just a prominent on fielders gloves as anyone else in the game. Don’t give them a pass because they are a traditional baseball manufacturer and not a multi-national conglomerate.
And to those in the know, that red label, Red “R” and Rawlings script are just as recognizable as said mark of the beast.
#90 by LI Phil on 07.03.08 1:07 pm |
of course, dougie, but they’re not nike
therefore, they’re not evil
#91 by Walaitis on 07.03.08 1:22 pm |
I’d like to make the argument that when it comes to logos on uniforms, equipment, etc., I’d PREFER Nike over other companies’ marks. As has been noted on this site, it sometimes looks like a fold or a shadow, sometimes it’s obviously just the swoosh. Nike’s logo is relatively subtle and simple, and can blend in. With the other logos, there’s no doubt what you’re looking at.
#92 by Paul Lukas on 07.03.08 1:23 pm |
Well, they don’t have a carpet-bombing/scorched-earth approach to branding like Nike does. So yeah, they’re not as evil. But I assure you I was just as upset about those Rawlings logos on the socks in 2005 as I am about Belliard’s now. And I’ve criticized Reebok (for the “Ree-Box” on NHL jerseys, e.g.), Adidas (for adding three stripes to NBA refs’ jerseys), Majestic (for their MLB marks), etc.
So I’d say I’m pretty equal-opportunity when it comes to critiquing logo creep. But when it comes to the overall “Let’s