Now to totally bury myself. Not so much a specific uni but something I’ve seen Paul refer to that I really dislike. I love stirrups. But sorry Paul, I in no way shape or form like the bloused baseball pants. Give me a nice set of stirrups with some high riding elastic cuffed pants. Please no blousing.

Also, in the spirit of commenting on what drives us CRAZY: I am struck with complete and utter incomprehension about the White Sox wearing black socks. Every other element of their uniform is completely irrelevant until they fix the biggest nick-name/uniform incongruity in sports.

I completely, wholeheartedly agree. The White Sox should always wear white socks, and the Red Sox should always wear red socks. The End.

Italy’s Confederations Cup kit, on display today against the US, is truly hideous: light blue jerseys, brown shorts, brown and blue socks. Ew.

It’s an homage to the World Cup-winning teams of 1934 and 1938, who wore the lighter blue shade. They say they went with dark brown for “aesthetic” reasons; I suspect it was because they didn’t want to wear the black shorts and socks they really wore back then to avoid people saying they were Fascist sympathizers.

Throwbacks, (kinda sorta).

Maybe it’s double standards, as I wouldn’t like to see a huge Nike swoosh or Reebok vector mark across a shirt, but the three stripe trim looks right to me. Many in England who pine for simpler designs compared to today’s overcooked mostrosities would point to adidas kits from the 70’s and 80’s as an example of correct design.

Nick said:

My all-time uni anti is watching my beloved Saints play in white jerseys and BLACK LEOTARD PANTS.

hardly fits anyone’s definition of “classic” tho ;)

Only 16 of 239 comments have come after 10pm …

This is the most wholesome, Calvinistic group of “early risers” that I have ever been involved with !!!

Mike Engle said:

Beardface said:

War Damn Eagle said:

The problem is that the Nats also claim that 1924 title – they have a penant hanging at Nats Park.

Don’t tell this to the Mets, or they’ll start claiming all the titles the Brooklyn Dodgers and New York Giants won when they were in the city…

Everybody knows the Mets won’t try to claim Giants history. Just black the Giants just happened to wear in New York once.

The Nats even have an homage to the 1924 team in the PNC Diamond Club bar – the boxscore from game 7:

http://nationals.mlb...

It’s hard to see in this pic, but they have flags for the 1924 world champs, the 1925 american league champs, and the 1933 american league champs:

http://2.bp.blogspot...

Any recognition to a previous championship is only simply to honor Washington baseball, not the Expos/Nationals franchise. For a team with as few championships as the original Nats/Senators team, and then Senators II, it’s important that they work with what they’ve got.

My “Anti-Uni Secrets”:

One more thing related to uniforms that a lot of people think is good but drives me up the fucking wall: having game-used helmets and jerseys autographed by the player who wore them. I feel this ruins the relic as an athletic artifact. It probably adds value to the item. but to me it destroys the aesthetics and adds an element that was never there when the piece was worn during games. If you want an autographed helmet, have the player sign a replica, and please leave the game-worn ones alone. If having game-worn helmets and jerseys autographed by their respective players was actually appropriate, everything in Canton would be signed! Even the busts would have signatures across the foreheads! Hopefully this illustrates how foolish I think getting authentic athletic artifacts autographed by athletes is. (How’s THAT for alliteration, bitch?)

I collect game worn hockey jerseys, and an autograph on a jersey is considered to lower the value of a jersey for the reasons you mentioned. It is not how it was when worn on the ice. I know a lot of collectors that will not buy jerseys with autos or will pay significantly less for them. A few of mine are auto’d, but everything I buy is for my personal collection, not to sell. I prefer mine without an auto, but if it is something that fits my collection, and it is auto’d, I will still buy it.

JimV19 said:

Clyde said:

My gosh, what about Jennie Fitch? Are you crazy????

Just trying to give a proper, subdued (married) response…

Come on, she’s married too. She’s a beautiful woman. There. Easy and non-offensive. If I were married, it would still be harmless for me to say that because it’s true.

My original comment was just playing up to the UW stereotype that only we would see a beautiful woman in a dress pitching a softball and say, “I agree with the decision not to go with stirrups.” You have no argument from me, Mike…

Also, in the spirit of commenting on what drives us CRAZY: I am struck with complete and utter incomprehension about the White Sox wearing black socks. Every other element of their uniform is completely irrelevant until they fix the biggest nick-name/uniform incongruity in sports.