Paul’s still gone, which is probably a good thing considering the content of the Uni Watch inbox. As was noted by, say, 15 or 20 people yesterday, the Browns are breaking out the brown pants tonight.
And I know what you’re thinking — “That’s a lot of brown.” You got that right. And it gets worse: there are no stripes on the pants. All brown. And the socks? All brown. Um … cool?
So, while fans may think the Browns are playing like crap, here at Uni Watch we’ll be happy to say, “And they look like crap, too! Literally.”
Or, bigger turd: the unis or Brady Quinn? I could go on all day, but I’m sure it’s going to spiral out of control on its own accord. Don’t let me down.
Uni Watch News Ticker: Here’s some more info on the Serbian NOB from Saturday’s entry, courtesy of Adam Chkautovich: “The Serbians have two alphabets. They are the exact same alphabet, but one uses English letters (Known as the ‘Latin’ script [Latinica is what it's called in Serbian]). The other alphabet uses some English letters, but some do not mean the same thing (Ex: The “C” in Serbian is actually an “S”, an “H” is “N”, a “X” is a “H”, a “B” is a “V”, and a “P” is a “R”). This other alphabet is known as the Cyrillic alphabet [Cyrilica in Serbian].” Many thanks, Adam. … Brinke Guthrie wants to know if this logo will be used by the Cowboys this year. I’m gonna guess yes. A lot. … Brinke also checked in with this link — it’s a great read. … Rugby news from Caleb Borchers, who notes Percy Montgomery’s 100th test for South Africa. Montgomery got a special jersey, with the pertinent information on his chest — visible here. None of the others had the info. And afterward he got a neat little cap to mark the occasion. But they didn’t send any pics to Uni Watch. … New NC State football unis here, courtesty of Clay Best, who doesn’t dig the wolf logo south of the collar. Agreed. … Matt Corica spotted a swoosh on the shoulder of NBC poolside reporter Andrea Kramer after Michael Phelps’ 8th gold medal. Makes sense — Nike puts a swoosh everywhere else. Why not on her, too? … A very young Brett Favre can be seen here, thanks to a screen grab from Tris Wykes. Note the Air helmet rather than Favre’s standard Riddell, and also the four-point chinstrap. Tris also dug up a 1965 Minnesota football media guide. Dig the stripes on coach Murray Warmath. “He looks like a state trooper,’ says Tris. And he also looks bad-ass. … Here’s the memorial sticker for Oregon freshman Todd Doxey, who drowned a few weeks ago. Thanks Todd, who has no last name. … Pretty cool old baseball photo here. … As mentioned a few times on Friday, the Broncos are letting the orange jersey out to play for two games. … You know the Esquire mascot I asked about on Friday? Here he is. This one sold for $3,600 at auction recently. Thanks, Anthony. … Florida State is going with tackle twill numbers on its football jerseys this year, rather than screened-on numbers. Thanks to Tom Tollerton for the note. … A jersey-borne political statment here, with thanks to Tom Konecny. … Chafing = bleeding = bad. Good story here. … Vintage Clemson basketball here from Dan Snider. Tree Rollins is No. 30, by the way. … Joe Bowling has an interesting A’s hat. He doesn’t know where it came from, but knows it’s at least 20 years old. Can anybody help? … Larry Woods has spotted some contraband at USC.
#1 by Tree Missile on 08.18.08 7:29 am |
How long has Florida State had the feathered cuffs and neckline? I like it, but I never noticed it before.
#2 by Vince on 08.18.08 7:48 am |
Pretty cool old baseball photo here.
The catcher appears to be wearing shorts! And I doubt he plays for the 70s Era White Sox!
#3 by Kirk on 08.18.08 7:56 am |
The baseball photo is probably the Hollywood Stars and the Los Angeles Angels back from the Pacific Coast League.
If I remember correctly, the Stars were one of the only other teams (aside from those rascally White Sox) to wear shorts.
#4 by josh's twin on 08.18.08 8:04 am |
Except Putin’s jersey should read CCCP.
#5 by Chris on 08.18.08 8:14 am |
Tree Missile said:
That’s funny, Tree. I came here to question when they were going to get rid of it–they’ve been doing it since the mid-90s or so, and everyone one else that did something similar moved on years ago.
#6 by Bryan on 08.18.08 8:26 am |
Bryan said:
I like how the punter’s back is used. They get no respect!
#7 by Jim on 08.18.08 8:46 am |
josh’s twin said:
Shouldn’t a CCCP or USSR throwback have this guy on it? Gorbachev was his name….
http://www.proyectos...
Seeing Putin wasn’t Prime Minister of either, he was Prime Minsiter of Russia.
#8 by Robert on 08.18.08 9:02 am |
Stripe-free brown pants? Ugh. All football pants that are not gold must have stripes. It is a simple rule and I insist that it be followed.
#9 by Ricko on 08.18.08 9:04 am |
Robert said:
Motion seconded.
#10 by Ricko on 08.18.08 9:06 am |
re: 1965 Gopher media guide.
Damn, I miss those unis. Always thought they should go back them. In those unis, was only times they ever went to Rose Bowl.
Instead, we get all-maroon and piping running helter skeleter.
Gee, nobody else does THAT. How original and distinctive.
#11 by LI Phil on 08.18.08 9:10 am |
Ricko said:
like this?
…or perhaps, they should just not be brown
#12 by Eriq Jaffe on 08.18.08 9:10 am |
Eriq Jaffe said:
You can scratch the word \”probably\” from that. Those are definitely the Angels and Stars – the Stars wore those shorts between 1950 and 1953.
#13 by ScottyJ in WV on 08.18.08 9:12 am |
That A’s cap has to be at least 30 years old….
#14 by Rick White in Cedar Park, TX on 08.18.08 9:16 am |
LI Phil said:
With morbid curiosity I ask … does anyone have a picture of the solid brown pants Cleveland is going to wear?
#15 by Glen on 08.18.08 9:18 am |
The USSR throwback made me do a google image search of russian uniforms, and i found this. http://blog.800hight... it is quite amazing
#16 by Don on 08.18.08 9:20 am |
I had an A’s pillbox hat just like that one when I was a kid. I bought it at a souvenir stand at Astroworld (RIP) in Houston back in the early 80s.
#17 by LI Phil on 08.18.08 9:20 am |
Rick White in Cedar Park, TX said:
no pics…but we have this style guide
#18 by Geeman on 08.18.08 9:23 am |
Robert said:
Respectfully disagree. Colored pants generally should have no stripes. There’s generally too much striping in football uniforms these days. Some striping looks good — e.g., on the Giants’ pants — but generally it’s not needed. The Saints’ black pants look good.
#19 by Geeman on 08.18.08 9:24 am |
That said, the Browns look better in white.
#20 by nick on 08.18.08 9:27 am |
Geeman said:
#21 by adrian on 08.18.08 9:27 am |
“Vintage Clemson basketball here from Dan Snider. Tree Rollins is No. 30, by the way”
The center court logo looks like the work of Phil Neel.
http://weagleweagle....
Neel created some really cool program covers for Auburn
http://weagleweagle....
and for Clemson
http://www.ascgameda...
as well as other colleges.
#22 by Jim on 08.18.08 9:28 am |
Glen said:
Looks like they made the hat and collar out of old people hair…..
#23 by Tim F. on 08.18.08 9:35 am |
Last year’s Madden had the brown pants in Cleveland’s primary away uniform and they were never worn. This year they were removed from the game, and now they actually make use of them.
#24 by Marty Met on 08.18.08 9:49 am |
Maybe we could wait until tomorrow and we have ACTUALLY seen the pants before everyone everyone freaks out. I happen to think they will probably look good, but I’m reserving judgement until after the game tonight.
#25 by chance on 08.18.08 9:56 am |
Tim F. said:
Don’t worry – I’m guessing after tonight they’ll never see the field again.
#26 by BrianC on 08.18.08 9:58 am |
At least it’s not Brown pants with a brown shirt. Nothing looks worse in football than dark pants with dark jerseys.
#27 by mark on 08.18.08 10:05 am |
“The Saints’ black pants look good”
they are horrible, and most of my fellow saints fans agree with me
#28 by Jim on 08.18.08 10:05 am |
So I had a moment over the weekend where I realized that I might read this site too much. I was watching Olympic coverage most of the weekend, trying not to freak out that the U.S unis in each sport had a different shade of blue, and sometimes gold (which I Really don’t understand), but the real kicker is when I flipped to the Lions/Bengals game to see how badly the Lions were getting their ass kicked when I noticed something. The Bengals’ NOBs, were really hard to read because the unis were so tight the top half of everyones’ names were folded down on top of the shoulder pads.
Best Pic I could find:
http://www.gettyimag...|1&axs=0|82352591%2c82352546%2c82352506%2c82352502%2c82352499%2c82352496%2c82352492%2c82352478%2c82352477%2c82352475%2c82352473%2c82352471%2c82352468%2c82352466%2c82352464%2c82352463%2c82352461%2c82352459%2c82352458%2c82352456%2c82352455%2c82352453%2c82352451%2c82352449%2c82352445%2c82352444%2c82352441%2c82352439%2c82352435%2c82352432%2c82352431%2c82352429%2c82352428%2c82352425%2c82352423%2c82352235%2c82352203%2c82352200%2c82352197%2c82264640%2c82264634%2c82264633%2c82264629%2c82264615%2c82264614%2c82264604%2c82264506%2c82264496%2c82264485%2c82264484%2c82264483%2c82264481%2c82264480%2c82264477%2c82264474%2c82264471%2c82264468%2c82264465%2c82264464%2c82264457|0&id=82352203
I was sitting in my living room watching a sport that I really don’t care about, noticing a uni flaw that
a) I really shouldn’t even care about
b) Probably the only people who noticed this are reading this comment
and c) I couldn’t wait to get to work today to tell everyone.
Just funny how much more stuff I notice about unis even in a sport I don’t give a rat’s ass about.
I love this site.
#29 by Billy on 08.18.08 10:06 am |
BrianC said:
Like these?
http://www.valpoathl...
#30 by Colin on 08.18.08 10:08 am |
That A’s hat looks to be from the same line I have from the early 80’s…the Twins company from Boston.
I have a pillbox hat collection…and Ive never seen the A’s one before…I can confirm Phillies and Pirates (of course), Astros, Braves, Twins, Padres, Dodgers and the Expos.
#31 by LI Phil on 08.18.08 10:08 am |
BrianC said:
as i said in the comments last night, don’t be surprised to see the all brown look at least once this season…also…does anyone know if the orange pants are still a part of the ‘official’ uni? because…like the lambs and the flaming tacks…i could see a monochrome brown and a all-orange at least once this season…with a garish mix-and-match for other games
/just seems like the new trend (oh joy of joys)
#32 by Deemer on 08.18.08 10:08 am |
Could the A’s pillbox cap be from the All-Star game in Philadelphia in 1976?
#33 by Ricko on 08.18.08 10:12 am |
Don said:
Fan cap. Very unlikely never wore them in games. From mid- to late-80s or after, cuz before that A’s wore kelly green, not forest.
—Ricko
#34 by cah on 08.18.08 10:15 am |
Marty Met said:
What fun is that?
#35 by Nate on 08.18.08 10:15 am |
Collin is right about the A’s hat. My great uncle had a clothing store in southern Iowa that sold that brand of pillbox style hats for each MLB team.
#36 by LI Phil on 08.18.08 10:24 am |
mark said:
these are good black pants
these are not
until the aints match the golds, tho…might as well keep the stripes off the pants altogether
maybe bring this back…
but…
howz about this for some NEW saints unis?
#37 by LI Phil on 08.18.08 10:27 am |
here’s the ‘away’ saints uni combo possibilities
#38 by Bryan Redemske on 08.18.08 10:30 am |
Marty Met said:
Yeah, but you like Oregon.
And if you crank up your anti-Penn State/Yankees broken record, you’re done for the day.
#39 by Tim on 08.18.08 10:30 am |
chance said:
I agree. We might see the first incarnation of “batting practice pants.”
Striped helmets, Striped jerseys, plain brown pants and socks and black shoes…..it wont work.
#40 by Ricko on 08.18.08 10:31 am |
Nate said:
Such fascination for a style hat that only one team (Pirates) wore for more than one season. In fact, weren’t the Cardinals the only other team that actually DID wear them on the field (other than for the ‘76 ASG warmups)? And Cardinals even had the three stiped circles on their batting helmets, which one-ups the Pirates.
#41 by Anthony Verna on 08.18.08 10:34 am |
Jim said:
I think you missed the joke, then.
#42 by Robert on 08.18.08 10:36 am |
mark said:
I agree, and it is good to receive confirmation from a Saints fan. The several Saints fans that I know here in Dallas are of the same mindset.
A team with such a loyal following deserves better than to try to dress like a 1989 Colorado squad.
#43 by Anthony Verna on 08.18.08 10:36 am |
Tim F. said:
And in Madden ‘09 for the Wii, you can’t even see the uniform you’re selecting. It just says, “Home” or “Away” or “Alternative 5.”
#44 by El Rey on 08.18.08 10:42 am |
Jim said:
That’s what I love about this site, the eye on details.
No, Gorbachev shouldn’t be on there. The point of the picture is that Putin is acting like the old Soviet Union. However, Putin is the Prime Minister now. The president is Medvedev. So, maybe his name should be on there since the president is the head of state.
#45 by Ricko on 08.18.08 10:43 am |
Robert said:
There, that’s my point. NFL should set the standard. Teams should want to look as good as the pros. NFL teams shouldn’t be going around thinking, “Let’s dress like we’re in the Arena league” or “Hey, I saw s great looking JC football uni the other day that we should copy.”
—Ricko
#46 by Kek on 08.18.08 10:46 am |
Bryan Redemske said:
I have to admit, I’m with Marty on this one. Sounds terrible in theory but I’ll wait to see. Besides, it will give me the ONLY reason I’ll tune into this game tonight on TV.
I thought the Texans in all red sound terrible and I’ll admit, while not my favorite uni by any stretch, it really wasn’t as bad as I thought it would be.
Anyone else find it ironic that a yellow box would call someone out on “broken record” issues? Let’s play a game: how many days can UW go without a Nike jab?!?!
#47 by Jeff on 08.18.08 10:49 am |
Call me a purist but why do teams insist on fucking up their classic uniforms? Think Detroit, Buffalo, etc. At least it seems that Buffalo is trying to get back to to the classic AFL look(that’s the American NOT Arena Football League for all you kiddies out there). Now Cleveland is going to start messing with a pristine look. I know the teams want to boost their mechandise sales but this is usually a short term fix for poor performance on the field.
#48 by Jim on 08.18.08 10:50 am |
El Rey said:
Ahh… see I don’t pay attention to foriegn or domestic polotics so I didn’t get the joke. My bad.
Egg on my face…
#49 by jere on 08.18.08 10:51 am |
Bryan Redemske said:
The anti-Yankee broken record is my all-time favorite song.
#50 by Bryan Redemske on 08.18.08 10:51 am |
Kek said:
Please. The box I comment in is tan. Get your monitor calibrated.
Regardless, if you had to choose one thing to identify Marty Met’s mindset, what would it be? Bitching about Penn State or the Yankees. Always.
Me, I bitch about everything. As for Nike … I’ll stop when they stop.
#51 by Do Not Adjust Your Television… | WaitingForNextYear on 08.18.08 10:53 am |
[...] Reportedly, an online poll will be available following the game, asking fans what they think of the new look. While I am personally curious to see what this “look” will look like, UniWatch blog is none too thrilled with the team yet to even take the field. The UPS man in the picture should say it all. Plus, we all know how Rick feels about alternate jerseys. I can’t wait to see what the rest of the Browns world has to say. [...]
#52 by Stan aka The Took on 08.18.08 10:53 am |
Glen said:
That’s what the new russian army uniforms are or were suppose to look like. It was in the NY Times a while back.
#53 by Ricko on 08.18.08 10:54 am |
re: Texans all-red, “it really wasn’t as bad as I thought it would be”
LOL, there’s a ringing endorsement of a uniform decision.
Since when is “it wasn’t that bad” the same thing as being good? (Definitly NOT picking on your comment, KEK, just laughing at what it says about how far things have tumbled).
Society-wide, we just keep defining our standards down, don’t we…and we all get swept up in it.
#54 by chance on 08.18.08 10:56 am |
Colin said:
All NL teams, of course. To celebrate the NL’s bicentennial. The Mets wore theirs in a couple games, from what I’ve read, but don’t know how many of the others actually saw the field.
FWIW, I love the style, and wish a team would adopt it today, even as an alt. I get a lot of mileage out of my Brewers version, though it is obviously a fashion cap and not a 1976 throwback.
#55 by LI Phil on 08.18.08 10:58 am |
Kek said:
now now douggie…the yellow boxes call the shots…and i thought the ‘don’t start with the yankees uni’s are boring shit’ broadside was perfect…i think we’re all aware that marty dislikes the yanks and penn state unis…remember, sports are fun and uniforms should be too…ugh
as far as dissing the brown pants ahead of time…what else are we gonna do? we can’t discuss (or at least, we can’t have any ticker support for) the LLWS, the olympic unis are played out…we’re in the dog-days of august…
and as far as the anti-swoosh…i agree…i am surprised there hasn’t been more, but i have a hunch bryan may have a soft spot for the greek winged goddess of victory but has to toe the yellow box line…
#56 by Stan aka The Took on 08.18.08 10:59 am |
Anthony Verna said:
I have madden 09 for Wii and I thought it would be really cool… but I am a little disappointe; Can’t make your own player, no one is online, the controls are ok at best, and I can’t even see what my unis look like.
If I only had a 360.
#57 by Jim on 08.18.08 11:01 am |
Please. The box I comment in is tan. Get your monitor calibrated.
lol, awesome. Best commment so far…
#58 by MPowers1634 on 08.18.08 11:07 am |
In response to the picture of Brett Favre wearing Schutt AiR:
While at Southern Miss, he wore Schutt Air, with a non-traditional, skill-position type facemask, made popular by Eric Dickerson:
http://cache.viewima...
http://static.zoovy....
He continued the trend while with Atlanta, both Schutt AiR and the “ED” mask!
http://graphics.json...
#59 by MPowers1634 on 08.18.08 11:13 am |
Here’s an interesting find: Southern Miss with a gold alternate ala Missouri:
http://grfx.cstv.com...
BTW, I recall seeing a pic of Favre in college wearing this lineman style mask, worn by Jason Taylor:
http://usversusthem....
Very nice, Jordan Brand Retro XIV PE cleats as well!
#60 by Tim on 08.18.08 11:15 am |
pulled from the Orange & Brown Report forum….
Brown pants, brown socks
http://img.photobuck...
Brown pants, striped socks
http://img.photobuck...
Of those 2…..which looks like a football player, and which looks like somone preparing for a dance recital?
#61 by The Ol Goaler on 08.18.08 11:21 am |
Ricko said:
I can confirm (from memory… alas, I can’t find pictures) that the Cardinals did, indeed, wear “pillbox” caps and striped batting helmets in 1976. According to the “Dressed To The Nines” database,
The Ol Goaler said:
Whether any teams other than the Pirates and Cardinals actually wore those hats or not, I can’t say… the other “pillbox” hats I’ve seen were fan hats, and not worn on the field.
#62 by HuacFan on 08.18.08 11:23 am |
On the A’s pillbox:
I have the Cleveland Indians version of that hat. It has the block C that the team wore from 78 to 84. I’m pretty sure the indians didn’t ever wear pillbox hats in 76 and the hat (adjustable) is more polyester than your average 70s hat. I’m guessing it was from the early 80s. Based on the block C, though, I’m almost positive it was manufactured in that 78 to 84 timeframe.
#63 by Bryan Redemske on 08.18.08 11:24 am |
LI Phil said:
Hmmm … how best to describe my relationship with Nike? Well, in my competitive running days (marathons and such), I had at least a dozen pairs of Nikes, probably more. I have narrow feet and really high arches. My footprint only shows contact on the heel and ball. So, for some reason, Nikes always fit best. I’ve tried Mizuno, Adidas and Asics, and I don’t like any of them. So when I bought another pair of running shoes for the post-cycling season this weekend … Nike.
Also, Nike used to make a kick-ass running short. It was a slippery nylon that basically eliminated the chafing noted in that Army story above. I had a few pairs of those, too. If I were to go back to running full-time, I’d have a hard time finding similar shorts, I think.
But then there’s also the marketing side of Nike, which I do not like. Throwing out a garish design that eschews function — or even good form — for name recognition … I don’t dig that. That’s not entirely limited to Nike, though — I hold Adidas and Under Armor in the same disregard.
#64 by Jake E on 08.18.08 11:29 am |
Colin said:
You can add Boston to your list – my kid bro and I had ‘em, purchased in late 70’s at Fenway – red with blue brim. I think they were just copying the Pirates’ pillboxes of the day, weren’t they? I might have a pic of our hats – I’ll check my shoebox.
#65 by Justin on 08.18.08 11:30 am |
Tim said:
Ya know, that’s actually not bad. I would prefer it if they wore the striped white socks like they are wearing in the video game picture, but it’s not a horrible look. I have definitely seen worse.
#66 by Giancarlo on 08.18.08 11:31 am |
The link says the Browns wore mostly white pants from 1946 to 1974. Mostly? What other color did they wear?
#67 by Geeman on 08.18.08 11:36 am |
Can anyone tell me how wearing different colored football pants increases merchandising sales? What fans buy football pants to wear? Jerseys, o.k., but pants?
Notre Dame, Penn State, and UCLA have no stripes on their pants and they are the best. Also like Washington’s purple pants, which have no stripes.
#68 by subway on 08.18.08 11:46 am |
Bryan Redemske said:
Penn State, Yankees and……. NEW YORK RANGERS!
#69 by Jim on 08.18.08 11:46 am |
Geeman said:
Can you even buy official NFL pants….
#70 by Geeman on 08.18.08 11:48 am |
From the ticker, above: “Florida State is going with tackle twill numbers on its football jerseys this year, rather than screened-on numbers. Thanks to Tom Tollerton for the note.”
Why the change? And does this have any difference in the function of the jersey? It would seem to make it heavier, though it looks and feels better.
#71 by LI Phil on 08.18.08 11:56 am |
Justin said:
apparently…it will be brown pants with brown socks
/can’t wait…go g-men!
#72 by Larry McClemons on 08.18.08 11:56 am |
ScottyJ in WV said:
While the A’s apparently never wore those caps, it probably comes from the 1976 Bicentennial when the Pirates & Cardinals wore similar pillbox caps. It could be a souvenir. Regardless, it’s pretty cool.
#73 by Andy11 on 08.18.08 11:56 am |
Check out this uni-centric article.
“Skimpy but Sporty”
http://abcnews.go.co...
#74 by Bryan Redemske on 08.18.08 11:57 am |
LI Phil said:
What did I say?
#75 by Kek on 08.18.08 12:02 pm |
#76 by Kek on 08.18.08 12:08 pm |
Jeff-I’ll echo the question of “what do changing the color of pants have to do with anything?” I’m not exactly sure how you think changing pants colors are going to boost merch sales and I’m interested in your response. Look, there’s plenty of stuff to rag on the NFL about (don’t get me started on the utter ripoff that preseason is).
Ricko-you might have slightly misunderstood me, all I was saying about the all-red Texans is that I expected it to be really bad, an all-time level like those Indians 70s unis or perhaps something worn by Cuba! My point was with the person that basically said ‘let’s see ‘em in action before we go all bananas’.
#77 by LI Phil on 08.18.08 12:09 pm |
#78 by Bryan Redemske on 08.18.08 12:10 pm |
Kek said:
I think, because of Nike’s size, it seems like more attention is focused that way. But look at Adidas’ three stripes — they’re everywhere and included as a ‘design.’ BS — that’s a giant logo. And UA’s logo is generally — at least to my eyes — much larger than a similarly placed swoosh.
Of course, Paul’s opinion is much more public than mine — so his anti-Nike stance is obviously much louder. And at no point has Paul told me how to treat Nike. I don’t need to convince anybody — least of all, you.
#79 by LI Phil on 08.18.08 12:10 pm |
LI Phil said:
i believe there was still some question as to whether they’d be sporting the white stripes versus the brown turd socks
and you, mr. redemske, win a prize…that’s from last night’s ticker…post #36:
LI Phil said:
from today’s main article:
LI Phil said:
GRRRR…now fixed
#80 by Mr. Met on 08.18.08 12:11 pm |
Jim said:
Not on a retail level. Sometimes the teams have benefit auctions or someone who knows someone who knows someone from the organization sells them in an online auction (which is how I got my hands on a pair of Dolphins’ pants), but other than that……
#81 by Chad on 08.18.08 12:17 pm |
Jeff said:
new pants and socks will not boost any merchandise sales since you can’t buy either
#82 by Mr. Met on 08.18.08 12:22 pm |
NFL pants for sale:
http://cgi.ebay.com/...
http://cgi.ebay.com/...
http://cgi.ebay.com/...
#83 by Kek on 08.18.08 12:32 pm |
Bryan Redemske said:
Slow down…no one accused Paul of telling you how to “treat Nike”. I’m not sure where you got that in my post. It’s just with both of you, it seems like every time someone says “oh you’re blasting Nike”, we hear something like “I don’t like when other companies do it too”.
It just reminds me of a boss I used to have that would repeat things until people actually believed they were true…which most didn’t.
My overall point is, and this is just my opinion, is that compared to Nike bashing (I don’t care if Paul doesn’t like the term-you call the swoosh “the mark of the beast” I’m sorry, but that’s bashing) Adidas and UA get off easy. The three-stripe design element pre-dates any marketing that Nike has done.
As far as UA, they’re new school and I think they’ve taken it to a whole new level. They created those useless 1″ and 1/2″ wristbands just so they could get another logo in place (Nike, Reebok and Adidas were quick to follow). I know there have been others, but I feel like one of the few voices that has stood up and mentioned them….and I don’t even care about logo creep!
If this blog didn’t have comments (well, it wouldn’t really be a blog now would it?!) we’d have a very different picture portrayed about Nike versus other companies and their logo/branding issues. For instance, that ridiculous ticker comment about the SI covers all being Nike schools as some controversy/conspiracy would go unchallenged. I know it was tongue-in-cheek and all but still, as much as you guys SAY you would, I highly doubt if five Adidas schools would have been on SI there would have been a word mentioned.
#84 by Mark on 08.18.08 12:41 pm |
The Minnesota Timberwolves have unveiled their new uniforms: As you can see it says at Noon (Central, and I am posting at 11:40), so they did a great job hiding them on the day of.
Link:
http://www.canishoop...
http://www.nba.com/t...
Not as bad as the original Love picture. But…eh, we’ll have to see them in Game Action.
#85 by Ed on 08.18.08 12:43 pm |
Mr. Met said:
Dude, put a shirt on!
#86 by Ricko on 08.18.08 12:48 pm |
http://img.photobuck...
reduce the image, squint…
looks likes he’s playing sans pants.
In other words, look for a lot of doubletakes from folks channel surfing.
#87 by Bryan Redemske on 08.18.08 12:49 pm |
Kek said:
When you say things like “you yellow boxes,” it’s kind of implied, as if there’s one opinion circling around Uni Watch HQ. (incidentally, I hope to actually go to Uni Watch HQ someday. I’ve heard it’s lovely.)
#88 by LI Phil on 08.18.08 12:53 pm |
Ricko said:
how do you figure that ricko? what if brady quinn were similarly photoshopped…would you say the same thing?
#89 by Ricko on 08.18.08 1:02 pm |
LI Phil said:
Of course not, don’t make it a racial thing. Just saying the black players may get, and give, a fair amount of kidding about that once they actually wear them tonight.
I looked at the shot and at first didn’t think he was wearing high socks (in the un-photoshopped version), and that’s when I realized the Browns players will, trust me, notice it, at least among themselves (”Hey, Cribbs, you forgot your pants”). Just another reason the white striped socks would be better than the brown.
#90 by Jet on 08.18.08 1:04 pm |
Jim said:
Does…not…compute…
-Jet
#91 by Michael on 08.18.08 1:04 pm |
LI Phil said:
Where are the ‘home’ saints uni combo possibilities
#92 by Robert on 08.18.08 1:04 pm |
LI Phil said:
Only if the pants were paste-colored.
#93 by Andy11 on 08.18.08 1:05 pm |
Ricko said:
Imagine what it’d look like if a team were to play in white-person-skin colored pants and socks… Sick!
#94 by LI Phil on 08.18.08 1:07 pm |
Michael said:
see the prior comment (last link) … or just click this
#95 by Kek on 08.18.08 1:07 pm |
Bryan Redemske said:
No, not exactly. I think there is a difference between two people (Paul and yourself) having a similar opinion versus there being “ONE” opinion. I don’t believe that, never have. Honestly, as contrarian as I am on Nike/logo creep issues, I don’t think Paul would have ever let me guest write a post if he truly believed that.
Now, below is a quote from today’s ticker:
Kek said:
Now, you compiled today’s ticker, did you not?
Well, I feel that’s the same tongue-in-cheek type of jab that Paul would have had also, that’s all.
#96 by Kerry P on 08.18.08 1:28 pm |
Geeman said:
Agree to disagree. As a die-hard Saints fan, I CRINGE everytime I see the black pants. Keep wearing the gold with the large black stripe. The black-on-black look makes me want to shove my head in an oven.
#97 by Bryan Redemske on 08.18.08 1:32 pm |
Kek said:
Ah, well that would be where Paul and I have similar opinions. Nike does tend to swooshify everything. That doesn’t mean Adidas, et. al don’t, too — that’s just what Andrea Kramer was wearing the other night.
#98 by Kek on 08.18.08 1:45 pm |
Bryan Redemske said:
True.
I didn’t mention it before, but I’ll mention it now: why was that even a relevant ticker item? Kramer is a network employee working a sideline reporter gig, not an athlete in uniform. Is it because that is her “uniform” as a reporter?
I guess what I’m digging at is that if it was another maker’s logo, it would have probably been a non-issue.
#99 by Geeman on 08.18.08 1:49 pm |
Kerry P said:
I do like the gold pants, but sans piping. Generally gold, silver, or white pants look better than reversing the home image anyway. Stick with the black shoes, though.
#100 by Tom Farley on 08.18.08 1:50 pm |
pulled from the Orange & Brown Report forum….
Brown pants, brown socks
http://img.photobuck...
Brown pants, striped socks
http://img.photobuck...
Of those 2…..which looks like a football player, and which looks like somone preparing for a dance recital?
The dance recital effect is brought out even more by how skinny Joshua Cribbs is, and the fact that he’s playing without thigh pads. I think they’ll look a little better on, say, Joe Thomas. The striped socks improve the look substantially.
I don’t object to brown pants per se. But I otherwise find myself, as I often do, in agreement with Ricko. Stripe-less pants in 2008 are college football to my eye.
I think Don Hutson looks great in a stripe-less pair of pants, but that’s because he’s Don Hutson and there’s a leather helmet atop his head.
http://www.nytimes.c...
#101 by Johnny Poontang on 08.18.08 1:51 pm |
Kek, you are questioning the powers that be too much. Beware.
Although I will give Mr. Redemske credit: He has at least attempted a dialogue with you. The other one who also posts in a baby-shit colored box, Paul Lukas, would have told you you were wrong then told you to pipe down and ordered you to stop talking about it any further.
Then shortly after that his followers would have been forced to pull themselves away from weaning on his teat long enough to tell you that this is Paul’s website and he can say and do whatever he wants.
At least Bryan Redemske changes it up a little bit.
#102 by Geeman on 08.18.08 1:51 pm |
They wear the white shirts/black pants at home sometimes too. Except for hot-weather teams (Miami, Tampa Bay, maybe Carolina), I can’t figure out why football teams wear white at home for some games and colored jerseys for other home games anyway. The Saints have no excuse — stick with black at home — they’re in a dome.
#103 by cam on 08.18.08 2:01 pm |
Tree Missile said:
I know at least 1996 before the Nike redesign with the new numbers and everything. I want to say 1992-93 though. It’s also changed over the years.
#104 by MIKE on 08.18.08 2:01 pm |
In regards to the “new” Saints uniforms… Am I missing something? Are they changing their uniforms next season, or is this somebody’s photoshop hobby?
#105 by LI Phil on 08.18.08 2:08 pm |
MIKE said:
if you’re referring to this and this…those are just some fan’s proposals…however…
compared to what the aints are currently sporting, i’d say they’re quite an improvement
…….
and johnny poontang…touche!
#106 by Rick on 08.18.08 2:13 pm |
As per the new Timberwolves uniforms, I never understand why teams pick such long nicknames that they can’t fit on a jersey. They should have just named the team, Wolves. Same goes for the Diamondbacks.
#107 by Geeman on 08.18.08 2:14 pm |
Geeman said:
Any takers? Bueller?
#108 by Tony on 08.18.08 2:16 pm |
Mr. Met said:
The Titans Pro Shop sells game-worn pants, though they make no promises what player wore them. Interestingly enough, they’ve not yet added the light blue pants to the mix. Just the navy and white.
Chiming in on the comments about monochrome looks, I actually like the Titans’ blue on blue approach… although the light blue jersey with navy pants combo is my favorite. :)
#109 by MPowers1634 on 08.18.08 2:16 pm |
Mark said:
1. The piping thoroughly remind me of the mavericks unis, including that shade of green, which resembles that of the old Mavs and P.Diddy
designed alts.
2. I love the use of the tree/snowcapped mountain on the side panel…nice touch!
#110 by Teebz on 08.18.08 2:17 pm |
Johnny Poontang said:
It’s guys like this that make me realize how blind some people really are.
Look, Nike has to brand everything as Nike first, team second. As a prime example, they completely changed how hockey uniforms look by moving the manufacturer’s logo to the chest and neckline. CCM’s brands followed suit when they were awarded the contract to outfit the league, and, now that Reebok owns CCM (who, in turn, is owned by adidas), the look has not changed back to the previous, and much more subtle, look.
Can you blame Reebok/Adidas for capitalizing on a trend that Nike started? No. But you can blame Nike for starting an unnecessary “fashion” trend in hockey that was duplicated by another clothing designer.
That’s the problem with Nike. It’s not that they don’t know how to make clothing properly. It’s that you have to know that they made it before you know what it is that they made.
#111 by Mike Engle on 08.18.08 2:21 pm |
Geeman said:
Don’t think it’s a weather issue at all. Just a tribute to previous good fortune.
I was born and raised in New Orleans, and from what I remember, 2000 featured a great regular season with an undefeated record away from the Dome. Coach Haslett decided to wear white at the home playoff game because he thought the white jerseys looked nice (but he didn’t want to buy into lucky laundry). The Saints won that game (against the defending champ Rams off the muffed punt, remember?) to snap their franchise-long playoff oh-fer. Thus bringing the Saints a bit of good “white at home” mojo.
#112 by Teebz on 08.18.08 2:22 pm |
Teebz said:
Fixed the CCM link. Sorry!
#113 by Geeman on 08.18.08 2:27 pm |
Mike Engle said:
Alright. Makes sense. Like the Rockies wearing black home and away in the three playoff rounds and World Series last year.
#114 by LI Phil on 08.18.08 2:33 pm |
Geeman said:
little different w/baseball, where you can wear your “alt” jersey as either your home or away, but the “white home/gray away” rule still applies…in football, the home team can decide whether to wear white or color regardless…a better example would be the steelers wearing white (even though they were the “home” team) against seattle in SBXL…they had won 3 away games in the playoffs wearing the white aways and either for “luck” or because cowher decided that any game not played in pitty would be an “away” game, they wore the whites
#115 by Johnny Poontang on 08.18.08 2:34 pm |
Teebz said:
And it’s guys like you who constantly prove that the majority of you find yourselves forcefully removing your noses from Paul Lukas’ rectum before you post something.
This has nothing to do with Paul’s, or your, issue with Nike. I “get it”, to borrow a ridiculously overused phrase you idiots love to quote. What I was commenting on was Bryan’s willingness to at least entertain a contrary viewpoint from his and engage in something resembling a discussion.
This is markedly different from your God – Maker – Ruler Paul Lukas, who routinely shouts down anyone who disagrees with him (how many times has he busted out this gem: “You are way out of line”) and then orders that person to cease talking about it, lest he gets his comments deleted and is barred from posting on the website. I’m sure as Lukas’ proxy Bryan has the same ability to do it as well, yet he chooses not to act like a baby and instead uses the power of discussion to deal with it.
Go ahead, look back at all the times someone has dared to question Paul Lukas. And then read his response. The guy never loses, and if you don’t like it, and point out how unfair or silly his position is on something, well then all he can say is keep it to yourself or I’ll bar you from my website. Maybe that’s how the world works in his little slice of heaven, and yours, but not everyone shares your same opinion(s), and not everyone likes when someone pushes his opinion as fact and then tells everyone who doesn’t agree with him to shut up or he’ll silence you.
#116 by Talon Lardner on 08.18.08 2:34 pm |
Pro Nike, anti-Nike, Pro Paul/Bryan, Anti Paul/Bryan, it doesn’t matter to me, as long as we can discuss and argue without getting banned for, in my case, liking Cincinnati Bengals’ jersey better than Penn State’s, I’m fine here.
#117 by Teebz on 08.18.08 2:40 pm |
Johnny Poontang said:
His website, his rules. Click the red “X” if you don’t like it. No one forces you here.
Better yet, be an adult, skip past the anti-Nike comment, and don’t sweat the small stuff. You know, like 99% of the individuals do on here.
#118 by Bryan Redemske on 08.18.08 2:43 pm |
Johnny Poontang said:
While I do support a nice discussion about uniforms and related topics, this one needs to stop. I trust you can move on and talk about something other than your dislike for Paul and his policies. If not, well … you know.
Talon Lardner said:
As long as your love for Bengals jerseys doesn’t become your sole talking point, go for it.
#119 by Jon in SLC on 08.18.08 2:45 pm |
A couple of interesting news items out there today. First, the Boy Scouts changing up their uni’s. And second, a design-a-logo contest.
http://www.ksl.com/?...
http://www.ksl.com/i...
#120 by Rick White in Cedar Park, TX on 08.18.08 2:46 pm |
Johnny Poontang said:
Johhny, please don’t get the idea that I’m attacking you because I am not. I’m wondering why you would continue to visit a blog that you, apparently, dislike a lot.
#121 by Johnny Poontang on 08.18.08 2:51 pm |
Teebz said:
“His website, his rules”. Wow, didn’t see that one coming.
“His website, his rules”, “gets it”, am I missing anything else you zombies like to use to hate on anyone who disagrees with you?
#122 by Teebz on 08.18.08 2:52 pm |
Jon in SLC said:
I’m not big on that yellowish/goldenrod hat colour. What can’t it be the same colour as the uniform? It kind of sticks out like a sore thumb.
#123 by Jim on 08.18.08 2:55 pm |
Johnny Poontang said:
I usuually call people poo-poo heads…
#124 by Johnny Poontang on 08.18.08 3:00 pm |
Rick White in Cedar Park, TX said:
Are you kidding me, I love this website. The knowledge gleaned from this website is amazing sometimes. And 9 times out of 10 there is just as much relevant information in the comments as there are in the Ticker.
What I dislike is the part where someone dares to disagree with something that his Exalted High Grand Chief Paul Lukas says. That must somehow set off some sort of Nerd Alert because there is never a shortage of zombies who quickly jump on and use gems like “So-and-so doesn’t ‘get it’” or “This is his website so he can say and do whatever he wants to” simply because you dare to *gasp* question something or have a contrary viewpoint. Which of course, they learn from the Master himself, who never ceases to threaten someone who doesn’t agree with him with “this topic is now closed and if you continue with it then you will have your comments deleted and you’ll be banned from commenting”. In fact, look at the response to my post. First, it was “this guy is blind”, before going on another tirade against Nike. Then after that it was “his website his rules”. Simply because I dared to question and disagree.
#125 by Johnny Poontang on 08.18.08 3:01 pm |
Jim said:
“Poo-poo heads”? Poo-poo heads? So striking in its simplicity……
I like it!
#126 by Jon in SLC on 08.18.08 3:03 pm |
Jon in SLC said:
Oh you\’re missing something alright.
This whole discussion reminds me of the lyrics -
\’You spend your time sitting in circles with your friends, pontificating to each other, forever competing for that one moment of self aggrandizing glory in which you hog the intellectual spotlight, holding dominion over the entire SHALLOW….POINTLESS…conversation.\’
Anyone?
#127 by Jefferson D on 08.18.08 3:05 pm |
Does anyone remember? A long time ago, there was a ticker entry with an article about how like those green highway signs were designed. Does anyone know when that was from or have the link to it still? Thanks.
#128 by Teebz on 08.18.08 3:06 pm |
Johnny Poontang said:
1. For your information, I have no problem with Nike aside from what they did in hockey. I couldn’t care less about any other piece of clothing they produce. I am concerned, however, with how hockey jerseys look because I like hockey’s traditional looks over some of the new-aged designs.
2. Your personal attack on me, and subsequently everyone else, reflects your overall maturity. Which, in this case, is less than an infant. Grow up.
3. My comment was specifically how Nike brands everything as their own first. They did it in hockey, and that was my point. No longer was the team’s logo the only logo on the front. Instead, the manufacturer was advertising itself on a team’s jersey, thereby selling its name and logo above the team’s name and logo. Adidas does it in soccer and baseball. UA does it in football. I’m aware that they do. I see it in pictures and on TV everyday. However, they are following one company’s lead – Nike’s. Therein lies the problem, and that was the point I was making.
4. I don’t agree with what Paul says on some topics on a regular basis, but I also don’t whine and bitch and moan about it in the comments. Why? Because no one cares. I stick to what matters to me, and the rest of it can sort itself out. Easy solution, if you ask me.
Thanks for expressing your opinion about Paul’s site as eloquently as ever.
#129 by John Paul Jones on 08.18.08 3:15 pm |
What Messr. Poontang has brought up in his discussion is the issue of less freedom of dissent in an age of increasing information and technology. Despite unlimited content, speech becomes restricted in a strange inverse ratio…BUT this is not the blog for that discussion.
Hockey season can’t come quickly enough, I’ve had quite enough of Double Play Derek Jeter and this waste of a baseball season….
#130 by Johnny Poontang on 08.18.08 3:16 pm |
Teebz said:
Which came after your attack on me. My original post was not directed at you nor did it reference you or solicit any feedback from you, yet apparently you felt the urge to respond with, I quote, “It’s guys like this that make me realize how blind some people really are”.
I am neither blind nor do I fail to see what the issues with Nike are. As a matter of fact, I agree with all of you. I agree with every point you made in your post.
Unfortunately, in your zeal to somehow get over on someone you have no clue about, you start your post with a jab at me. Which is fine. Maybe it makes you feel superior. Maybe you get off on stuff like that. Certainly, there are weirder fetishes on this site. I don’t know and I don’t care. But in the end, don’t accuse me of stooping to some childish level when you could just as easily have made your point without that opening line.
And so while you may think that my maturity level may be on par with that of an infant, the level of your hypocrisy is nothing to sneeze at either.
#131 by Talon Lardner on 08.18.08 3:22 pm |
Teebz said:
As an aside, personally, I love hockey for how the jerseys can both have traditional AND new-age designs coexist so well together. For every Detroit, Boston, and Phoenix hockey jersey, there’s your 90’s Mighty Ducks, a whole host of minor leauge specialties, all in the same sport. Can any other sport claim to sport the sme range of jersey design? I doubt it.
#132 by Jim on 08.18.08 3:26 pm |
John Paul Jones said:
I’ve been waiting for hockey season to start since the draft and since free angency died down. Thank god for the Olympics to distract my hockey cravings seeing I don’t like baseball or football.
#133 by Johnny Poontang on 08.18.08 3:26 pm |
And one more thing, you may find it insulting and a “personal attack”, when I said that you pull yourselves away from weaning on Paul to respond to dissenters with “it’s his website and he can do whatever he wants”. And yet, when push came to shove, what did you respond with? “His website his rules”.
So where exactly was the “personal attack” perpetrated? Did I not speak the truth?
#134 by Teebz on 08.18.08 3:35 pm |
Johnny Poontang said:
If you agree, then why did make a huge deal out of the anti-Nike stance? And why rag on Paul if you agree with everything that I just said… which is precisely what the “logo creep” manifesto is all about?
Isn’t that hypocrisy at its most empirical form?
The “jab” was merely an emphatic “not this again” comment. If I offended you by insinuating that you were somehow blind to the concept of logo creep, I apologize. But if we agree on the concept, why is there such a backlash towards Paul?
Again, I don’t necessarily agree with everything that Paul says on the subject. But there’s no need to drag someone through the mud when’s he’s not here to defend his views.
#135 by Bryan Redemske on 08.18.08 3:36 pm |
Hmmm … you guys know what I just figured out? How to ban people. Seriously — I didn’t know how before. Paul told me once, like last year, but I kind of spaced it off.
Anyway, that’s kind of like figuring out the combination for “the button,” or at least your old man’s liquor cabinet. You kind of want to use it, but you’re trying to think of the reasons not to.
Johnny Poontang, Teebz, whoever else: stop now. Talk about unis. Talk about Nike. Talk about not Nike. Whatever. Just stop talking about each other. Now.
#136 by Jon in SLC on 08.18.08 3:41 pm |
Teebz said:
Agreed, the hat sticks out too much. And where did they find that model? There wasn’t a 10 year old hanging around tht they could use?
#137 by Teebz on 08.18.08 3:41 pm |
Done and done, Bryan.
My apologies to everyone for the philosophical debate. And Johnny, no ill will on my part, I assure you. :o)
#138 by LI Phil on 08.18.08 3:42 pm |
LI Phil said:
your old man kept his booze locked up? that’s fucked up man
anyhoo…
bryan…any pics/commentary from/of the little league world series? i was hoping maybe we could discuss that instead of calling paul names
#139 by Teebz on 08.18.08 3:47 pm |
The CBC’s coverage of the Olympics brought about some interesting uni-coverage yesterday in the men’s baseball game between Canada and Japan.
At one point, the commentators made remarks about Japan’s pyjamas.
#140 by Dane on 08.18.08 3:48 pm |
Mark said:
What is that thing on their shorts? Looks like a 5th-grade baking soda volcano science project. meh
#141 by Bryan Redemske on 08.18.08 3:52 pm |
LI Phil said:
Actually, there was no liquor in our house when I was a kid. I had to do research to figure out what a liquor cabinet was.
No LLWS. Come on, you know that. I don’t have time to deliver my entire manifesto on the subject.
Yeah, that’s a joke. I know.
#142 by Ricko on 08.18.08 3:52 pm |
Dane said:
Funny thing about that, there is one, count ‘em one, legitimate mountain in Minnesota (Eagle Mountain in the Sawtooth “Mountians” north of Duluth along the North Shore). Not that it’s FLAT here, but it’s hardly Colorado
#143 by S. Bennett on 08.18.08 4:07 pm |
LI Phil said:
Did any of them wear eye black?
#144 by ChrisS on 08.18.08 4:11 pm |
Am I the only one who is excited to see the Browns in brown? I prefer a side stripe, but I still think it will be fun to see. Not really any better or worse, just kind of cool. Then again, I love that they use brown because not many teams do.
#145 by LI Phil on 08.18.08 4:17 pm |
LI Phil said:
yes
LI Phil said:
enjoy
LI Phil said:
no…not cool
LI Phil said:
there’s prolly a reason for that
#146 by ChrisS on 08.18.08 4:23 pm |
My apologies for being wrong about 100% of what I said.
#147 by Rick White in Cedar Park, TX on 08.18.08 4:28 pm |
ChrisS said:
I don’t pay a whole lot of attention to preseason games. But, I’m going to switch over to ESPN-HD for at least a couple of minutes to see the brown pants. Again, morbid curiosity. But, who knows, maybe they’ll end up looking good.
#148 by LI Phil on 08.18.08 4:28 pm |
ChrisS said:
i was just bustin’ on ya…i hope you knew that
you can never be wrong in your opinion…that’s why it’s an opinion
i’ll be watching the game…if only because of the g-men, but i spose it’ll be interesting to see how bad the browns do actually look…and i fully expect to see a full ‘brownout’ (similar to the vikes all purple, the texans red-out, and the myriad other monochrome looks the nfl is sporting these days)…
some teams can pull it off…i just don’t think dressing a 400 lb. lineman in all brown is gonna look like anything but…well…shit…and i truly think the browns should be wearing the white stripes and not the brown leggings
anyway…chriss…cheers…
#149 by Happy Joe on 08.18.08 4:29 pm |
ChrisS said:
No need to appologize. We are all friends here (exceptTeebz and Johnny Poontang).
#150 by LI Phil on 08.18.08 4:30 pm |
LI Phil said:
*later in season
#151 by Tim on 08.18.08 4:31 pm |
bryan,
the whole anti nike thing is a joke. you’re like the guy who hates walmart. And i mean hates walmart… who bashes its practices and how it makes smaller stores close. But this same idiot will naturally love target, essentially the same thing only less successful. You are even worse in that you appreciate the good products they make, but, you know, hate the fact that they are a capitalist corporation.
#152 by Patrick on 08.18.08 4:31 pm |
The most disappointing thing about those new Timberwolves unis – the fact that they kept that awful, awful number font.
http://assets.sbnati...
So much potential there, and yet they went ahead and stuck with clown suits that look like they were designed by 5th graders.
#153 by Teebz on 08.18.08 4:41 pm |
Happy Joe said:
I’m alright with Johnny. I don’t mind a good debate.
#154 by ChrisS on 08.18.08 4:43 pm |
I was just joking too, I just thought it was funny how fast the pants got crapped on over here (no pun intended). I guess I must be abnormal because I really don’t think there is a bad color. You could dress a football team in pink if you wanted to, it’s just a color (except when Hayden Fry paints the locker room walls). I’m just interested how different colors have such strong connotations attached to them, it’s a fascinating thing to think about…
And don’t take that to mean that I don’t care about unis, I just think that with the right color scheme and patterns, any single color can be redeemable.
#155 by duckstyle on 08.18.08 4:47 pm |
LI Phil said:
Though the idea of all brown pants kinda makes me shake my head, I do like brown, and I like the Browns uni’s for the most part. I think like a lot of folks out there I’ve got 2 pairs of work shoes, one brown, one black. Now I don’t know why but the brown ones always get worn more, and therefore the brown belt. And pairing brown with orange, that’s just ballsy, Cleveland! But I likes it, you and Bowling Green get a big thumbs up in my book. But seriously, 95% of the time football pants need stripes, and this is no exception.
#156 by Bryan Redemske on 08.18.08 4:51 pm |
Tim said:
Actually, I hate Wal-Mart because it’s noisy, dirty, cluttered and it takes 15 damn minutes to check out. I can’t say I hate Nike, because it makes the shoes my feet really like. I can say, however, that I don’t like its marketing and branding practices.
#157 by =bg= on 08.18.08 4:55 pm |
http://www.bugsandcr...
Bugs N Cranks on the Trible’s Old Wahoo
#158 by Ricko on 08.18.08 4:58 pm |
Who said anything wrong with brown? Not me. All I said was, Guess folks can’t level much criticism at original Broncos anymore if brown pants are now cool in the NFL.
And that in general I don’t like the Dark Pants Movement (hmmm, might be a straight-line there).
And, yes…also that a pants stripe or the white striped socks would help the new Browns look considerably. Not save it, just improve it. Make it less like old-style tight sweatpants (Borat would have worn them, I’m sure).
—Ricko
#159 by =bg= on 08.18.08 5:02 pm |
“guys like you who constantly prove that the majority of you find yourselves forcefully removing your noses from Paul Lukas rectum before you post something.
…to borrow a ridiculously overused phrase you idiots love to quote.”
Dude, I don’t know who you are, don’t think I have ever seen your name here. But I personally resent the term idiot. And the remark about the nose. Classy. If you’d like to compare college diplomas and GPAs, let’s see who’s an idiot and who isn’t. In the meantime, tone down the rhetoric, huh?
#160 by Teebz on 08.18.08 5:08 pm |
=bg= said:
Let it go, BG. Bryan has his finger on the button, and no one wants that. ;o)
Seriously, it’s ok. Johnny and I, in my view, are fine in terms of being on speaking terms, and that’s ok. We simply let a little emotion get into our debate, and Bryan cut us off at the pass (as he should).
Let bygones be bygones. No need for more animosity or angry-typing. :o)
#161 by chance on 08.18.08 5:08 pm |
Bryan Redemske said:
Frustrating, because I hate some of what Nike does, and I love some of what Nike does.
Nike’s design for collge football has been, on the whole, terrible. Their NFL designs have been worse.
But in recent years, Nike has producted the classiest, best looking kits in World football.
I’m glad that they don’t have the contract for the Packers anymore. But I’m so glad that they outfit Arsenal.
Wonder how that fits?
#162 by LI Phil on 08.18.08 5:08 pm |
LI Phil said:
15 minutes? that’s it? where do you live, iowa? try buying anything in 15 minutes here on lawn guyland
LI Phil said:
i hate starbucks…frikkin hate it’s marketing and branding practices…but i LOVE LOVE LOVE their orange mango banana vivano (smoothie with the whey thrown in)…get one every day…so…they make a product i really like but i don’t agree with their whole philosophy…but i can’t have it both ways, so i don’t bitch about starbucks…if you asked me to take a side, i guess i’d side with $tarbux…
would you side with or against nike?
/just curious
#163 by ChrisS on 08.18.08 5:10 pm |
ChrisS said:
Okay, now we actually have something we can fight about! ;)
#164 by Jeff on 08.18.08 5:11 pm |
Chad,
You are correct in that the brown pants and socks are not officially sold so that doesn’t boost their merchandise sales. However, I was refering to the whole ‘uniform’ which includes jerseys and helmets. Granted, the Browns haven’t touch their helmets (yet) but in the case of the Bills and Lions what a nightmare they have created especially when compared to their past designs.
#165 by Chuck on 08.18.08 5:19 pm |
The Cleveland Browns web site will have a poll asking opinions on the brown pants tonight. That makes me feel better, because if they look awful, the fans will speak.
#166 by duckstyle on 08.18.08 5:25 pm |
A fan poll question to all.
Why do teams hold fan poll questions regarding things like uniform changes, logo changes etc, and time after time, choose to go another route rather than with what the fans choose? And for the most part, outside of this blog, no one seems to care. And yet when it comes to friggen all-star game voting, the fans seemingly have all the power. I don’t “get it”. But don’t get me wrong, I don’t want fans having say in uni’s, or all-star games for that matter, I’ve read one too many reports about recuirts and how they love the Oregon football unis.
I’m just curious like a cat I guess. I’ve got a couple of friends that call me whiskers.
#167 by =bg= on 08.18.08 5:26 pm |
Teebz said:
Fine by me. I just don’t like seeing that type of stuff here.
#168 by Juan Grande on 08.18.08 5:31 pm |
Jon in SLC said:
I posted the BSA uniform change about two months ago as I am a Scout leader and was privy to the info before it became public. The new uniform is very nice. Many of the old-school volunteers didn’t like the change (go figure, as we uni-watchers know so well) but know that the new uniform has ben released, there has been a lot of positive support behind it. The old uniform is still “official” until it wears out. The BSA surveyed hundreds of boys and adults about new features for the uniforms. The last uniform change took place around 1982. Oscar de la Renta designed the BSA uniforms then. It took about 3 years for all of the old uniforms to fade away. Here’s another link for the BSA uniform that shows off the new features better.
http://kudu.net/unif...
#169 by brian on 08.18.08 5:38 pm |
who says the browns wont go brown on brown even though they are on the road….they wore white on white at home in their first preseason game when they usually wear brown at home….
#170 by DenverGregg on 08.18.08 5:44 pm |
All this commentary about brown pants and no one even alludes to the French Army joke?
#171 by DenverGregg on 08.18.08 5:45 pm |
link for joke.
#172 by Bryan Redemske on 08.18.08 5:47 pm |
LI Phil said:
Hmmm … well, I guess it would depend on whether or not I ever want to run again. And I do like running quite a bit. I’d have to say “for Nike.” That seems just a tad hypocritical, huh? That said, I’ll never, ever complain about Nike running shoes … just the way they’re marketed.
My hypocrisy knows no bounds.
And I’m in Nebraska, a-hole. That doesn’t make it any better.
#173 by S. Bennett on 08.18.08 5:47 pm |
Patrick said:
Below the knee cut is great for strutting the boardwalk. Counterproductive for athletics. Stupid, stupid stupid.
SB
#174 by mark on 08.18.08 5:49 pm |
Giancarlo said:
During night games in the late 40’s and early 50’s the Browns wore a shiny (almost siver) pant to distinguish player from football which was white with black stripes(night game use)
#175 by Justin on 08.18.08 5:50 pm |
duckstyle said:
I dunno. Good question. I guess it is so they will know how many people they are pissing off when they go the exact opposite of what people vote for. That and just as it has been said today, it’s an opinion. So, maybe they’re just curious.
#176 by S. Bennett on 08.18.08 5:54 pm |
duckstyle wrote:
“But seriously, 95% of the time football pants need stripes, and this is no exception.”
Was that “duckstyle” or “Y. Berra”???
SB
#177 by LI Phil on 08.18.08 5:55 pm |
a-hole?
#178 by who cares on 08.18.08 5:55 pm |
LI Phil said:
I don’t like any brands on my clothes if I can avoid it but I do like my Nike running shoes. I’ve tried others but my feet are size 13s and about three inches wide and Nike is the only company that assumes narrow feet are the norm. The Adidas, New Balance, and Reebok I’ve tried have to have their strings pulled all the way through and still have too much give.
#179 by Mase on 08.18.08 6:33 pm |
Jon in SLC said:
i think i am the only one to get the say anything reference. i dig it.
#180 by Giancarlo on 08.18.08 7:04 pm |
mark said:
Interesting. I guess it was never a problem to have brown jerseys & a brown football. Wonder if the brown pants will cause any confusion tonight.
#181 by =bg= on 08.18.08 7:12 pm |
Scroll down on this page.
Check the blacked out wristband logo on Ben, and the patch on the Bills with what appears to be a maple leaf on it, aka the ‘how to p*ss off your loyal fan base by declaring love for another city by moving one of your few home games there’ patch.
http://playerexclusi...
#182 by jtrip on 08.18.08 7:29 pm |
Jefferson D said:
This one?
http://select.nytime...
#183 by =bg= on 08.18.08 7:57 pm |
Browns brown pants, 2 minutes ago:
http://img.photobuck...
#184 by Tim on 08.18.08 8:05 pm |
the players who have the higher whites for the browns dont look too awful but those who didnt pull their whites high look TERRRRRRIBLE
#185 by Dave on 08.18.08 8:15 pm |
Right now I’m not hating the Browns’ pants as much as I thought I would. I’d like to see then with the old striped socks – I hate those solid ones.
Anyway, I voted “never again” on the web site. Stick with the all-whites – if it was good enough for Jim Brown, it should be good enough for anybody.
#186 by =bg= on 08.18.08 8:23 pm |
what IS that logo bottom left on his jacket?
http://img.photobuck...
#187 by Taylor on 08.18.08 8:32 pm |
1. The brown/brown is awful. The Browns have a classic look and should stick with it.
2. White jerseys/black pants should be banned. It looks like something a JV high school team would wear.
3. The new TWolves jerseys are definately an improvement over teh previous ones, but still kinda tacky. They’re just too busy. It’s possible to be “modern” without looking bad (Heat, Lakers, Magic)
#188 by =bg= on 08.18.08 8:34 pm |
One more for the Brownies;
http://img.photobuck...
#189 by Bill on 08.18.08 8:38 pm |
The brown pants are actually fine, but they should wear one of the striped sock designs with them. I hope they try that.
#190 by David on 08.18.08 8:46 pm |
IMO, it would be a huge step up if the browns added two orange stripes (orange stripe, brown stripe, orange stripe) to these pants to match the stripe treatment on their sleeves. it would be a much more complete look. otherwise, these pants (and the saints’ black pants and the jags’ black pants) just make the players look like they have big upper bodies and chicken legs and it looks terrible.
#191 by Dave on 08.18.08 8:56 pm |
I know I said I didn’t hate the Brown pants; but if the Browns are always gonna play this $#!tty in them, I hope they never wear them again!
/yes, I know it’s a meaningless preseason game
//but still!!
///and yes, the $#!t pun was intentional
#192 by Leo on 08.18.08 8:57 pm |
These Browns unis definitely don’t look as bad as I thought they would (wasn’t there a similar comment to that earlier today), but they just don’t look right on Cleveland’s National Football League Team.
The one nice thing I can say, they are better than the unitard look.
#193 by Kevin on 08.18.08 9:00 pm |
Well, the Browns are getting DESTROYED and its only the first quarter.
Must be the pants…
#194 by who cares on 08.18.08 9:03 pm |
I once had a pair of pants that had PANTS written on them.
http://www.gettyimag...|1&axs=0|82404026%2c82404022%2c82404004%2c82403992%2c82403979%2c82403976%2c82403963%2c82403940%2c82403921%2c82402887%2c82402883%2c82402788%2c82402787%2c82402785%2c82402684%2c82402678%2c82392956%2c82392242%2c82392028%2c82391883%2c82391662%2c82391650%2c82391577%2c82391570%2c82391543%2c82391533%2c82391524%2c82391501%2c82391494%2c82391490%2c82391473%2c82384385%2c82384362%2c82384347%2c82384342%2c82384335%2c82384328%2c82384325%2c82384324%2c82384318%2c82384314%2c82384310%2c82384307%2c82384273%2c82384266%2c82384206%2c82384201%2c82385389%2c82385380%2c82384196%2c82384190%2c82384173%2c82384168%2c82384158%2c82384157%2c82384151%2c82384145%2c82384143%2c82381150%2c82381118|0&id=82391570
#195 by ChrisS on 08.18.08 9:15 pm |
Eh, they look black on TV to me. I’d like to see them in person so I could get a better feeling of the shade of brown…
#196 by TD on 08.18.08 9:20 pm |
Brady Quinn isn’t wearing the Revolution helmet anymore..
#197 by LI Phil on 08.18.08 9:39 pm |
browns pants look shitty…they’re too shiny (and i like shiny things)…they’d be better in a matte finish
they need white stripe socks, the brown stretch socks look horrid…ESPECIALLY with white shorties
despite our feelings…mark my words…next time the g-men and browns meet on a monday (10/13) in cleveland…the browns will sport ALL BROWN — that will replace the viking all purple from last year as the NFL’s WORST uni ever
but hey…it could be worse
the browns COULD look like this
#198 by Brandon Davis on 08.18.08 9:42 pm |
Not sports relate but more on Esky, the Esquire mascot that appeared as that sleeve patch in Friday’s column. He’s been in use by the magazine, in varying appearances, since the 40’s, in the Esquire logo, as the cover feature, and as the statue in today’s column, which was used as a “Seen in Esquire” statue to set next to products seen in the publication. Esky has had a makeover and is now given as an award in the annual music issue. The smiley still appears on the spine of the American Esquire magazine and a few other versions of the magazine.
#199 by Dan on 08.18.08 9:44 pm |
David said:
The brown pants are great, but could be much better. They definantly need stripes (white-orange-white would be best) and striped socks.
#200 by LI Phil on 08.18.08 9:47 pm |
=bg= said:
ugh…new reebok ’system control’ jacket
#201 by besty on 08.18.08 9:49 pm |
The A’s hat with the stripes has to be from 1976 when all teams wore those old-time hats for at least part of the season to celebrate the country’s bicentennial. The Pirates continued to wear them through their “We are Family” Championship in 1979 and maybe even a few years after.
#202 by LI Phil on 08.18.08 9:54 pm |
besty said:
except that they were celebrating the NATIONAL LEAGUE CENTENNIAL, not the USA bicentennial…so it’s odd the A’s would have one
we had a similar instance of a detroit tiger wearing the pillbox during a japanese goodwill/all star series featured on this site about a month ago…we’re pretty sure no AL cap ever saw game action since the AL wouldn’t have been celebrating anything in 1976
#203 by Patrick S. on 08.18.08 9:59 pm |
who cares said:
Why does that link take me to a pic of a female Brazilian beach volleyball player?
#204 by LI Phil on 08.18.08 10:00 pm |
Patrick S. said:
cuz…
she’s wearing a bra with the word “BRA” on it?
#205 by LI Phil on 08.18.08 10:13 pm |
why is david carr
a) wearing a lineman’s jersey?
b) ditching the michael jackson homage?
#206 by Ricko on 08.18.08 10:23 pm |
besty said:
One more time. In 1976 A’s wore kelly, not forest.
#207 by Jon in SLC on 08.18.08 10:26 pm |
Mase said:
Winner, Winner, Chicken Dinner.
#208 by Ricko on 08.18.08 10:39 pm |
The Browns brown pants aren’t inherently bad, just very, very minor league. Don’t look like the Browns. Other than the orange pants of the Brian Sipe era and the ridiculous orange alt jerseys, they have worn essentially the same unis their entire existence.
If the idea is simply to be “different” than usual, okay, they’ve succeeded. They’re different. But they’re also a big step down. Way down. Unless, of course, they WANT to dress like the Missouri State A&M Teachers Tech Fightin’ Mudpies.
Just not an NFL-caliber presentation. Lose ‘em. Get back to looking like the team that made a city so proud it refused to give up the nickname and the colors.
—Ricko
#209 by Michael on 08.18.08 10:42 pm |
David said:
I agree adding a orange stripe, brown stripe, orange stripe would really be an improvement.
#210 by S. Bennett on 08.18.08 10:46 pm |
Jon in SLC said:
#211 by Ricko on 08.18.08 10:51 pm |
ESPN crew just gave the Browns pants a unanimous “never again.”
#212 by Mark K on 08.18.08 11:11 pm |
LI Phil said:
Say what you want but this site’s “regular” traffic cop wouldn’t have posted that crap.
#213 by LI Phil on 08.18.08 11:16 pm |
Mark K said:
i’ve been called far worse
…just never by a moderator
#214 by James Craven on 08.18.08 11:27 pm |
Black pants look horrible, and most of my fellow boardies wholeheartedly agree that the all-black look in JAX and BAL (and to an extent) NO are really Harry Highschool looking.
If Cleveland went all-brown (jersey, pants and socks), would they look like a piece of shit?
#215 by Nick on 08.19.08 12:16 am |
Mike Engle said:
I remember reading that because the Saints had lost to the Rams at home the previous week wearing the Black home jerseys, that Jim Haslett wanted to change the team’s luck by wearing White in the rematch at home one week later, particularly since the Saints had beaten the Rams in Saint Louis a couple of times before that while wearing White on the road.
Later that week I heard Haslett on a radio talk show state that the White jerseys were cut to fit tighter on some of the linemen than the Black jerseys (couldn’t something like that be pretty easily corrected?), and that it would solve the problem of some of the Saints D line being thrown around by the Rams offensive line.
I am more inclined to believe the luck angle – similar to the Steelers chosing to wear White a few years back in the Super Bowl because they had already won three road playoff games in a row wearing white.
#216 by Nick on 08.19.08 12:24 am |
Bill said:
RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE – The Browns White/White are clasic, the brown pants look like a JV bargain rack mistake.
HIDEOUSITY !!!
#217 by Nick on 08.19.08 12:29 am |
Ricko said:
Well Said !!!
#218 by Brendan on 08.19.08 12:29 am |
Jon in SLC said:
Those caps are for Cub Scouts, not Boy Scouts. The only reason you’d see that hat paired with a tan shirt is because an adult is wearing it. Cub Scouts wear blue shirts, while Boy Scouts and all adults wear the tan ones.
#219 by Stan aka The Took on 08.19.08 12:45 am |
What a bunch of cry babies you all are. Everyone gets so damn defensive lighten the fuck up people we’re talking about fucking uniforms not exactly religion, abortion and gun control.
You don’t like the Nike bit skip it! I couldn’t careless about Paul’s or Bryan’s views about logo creep or Nike or actually most of the stuff they say (Sorry guys). I come here to look at the weird uniforms that pop up sometimes.
#220 by Juan Grande on 08.19.08 12:50 am |
If the Brownies wore white socks to go with the brown pants, it might just work.
#221 by Mr. Met on 08.19.08 12:54 am |
David said:
Ironically enough, the Jags used to have a stripe on the side of their black pants, which approximated the multi-color border around their uniform numbers. They only wore it for one season, if I recall correctly, before going to the plain black with a Jag-head on the hip.
#222 by Mr. Met on 08.19.08 12:59 am |
Mr. Met said:
You can sort of see it here, but I’ll see if I can find a better picture:
http://images.sports...
#223 by Mr. Met on 08.19.08 1:02 am |
Here’s a better image of the Jags black striped pants:
http://www.baltimore...
I don’t know; I don’t think it looks good even with the stripe. The jersey also has teal numbers, so it looks like they went with the black numbers and stripe-less black pants the following year.
#224 by Mr. Met on 08.19.08 1:05 am |
Best shot:
http://knightsrealm....
#225 by Mr. Met on 08.19.08 1:06 am |
Another good one:
http://www.baltimore...
#226 by Justified on 08.19.08 3:51 am |
The A’s used to have a short season farm team located in Medford, Oregon. They used Oakland’s colors and logo until the 90’s. I can remember getting the “pillbox” cap at Miles Field. (where they played)in 84 or 85. I cannot recall if the team wore these caps but They were selling them in Medford, and I had one.
http://en.wikipedia....
http://us.st12.yimg....
#227 by max on 08.19.08 8:33 am |
Most will disagree, but Brown on brown would be sweet. I actually want to see dookie catching passes of dookie.
Plus the name Browns makes me thing of… well what do we normally associate the color brown with.
as for a side note…The Texans all red uni’s were awesome. It almost brought back a forgotten retro look. How many teams wear red white and blue? But the all red with a navy or “deep steel” blue helmet was killer. I miss the baby blues and the oil derrick. The Texans should wear red all the time…with red pants. Not just 2 times a year.
#228 by Joe Bowling on 08.22.08 9:29 am |
Thanks for all the comments about the A’s pillbox hat! All very interesting!