Gothamite

Very cool, but it's a little odd to find a 100 year-old ring in such perfect condition. Barry Halper have his hands on that one, too?

Yikes. Where did SI dig up that ring?

The oldest one I know of is the 1922 New York Giants:

Now where did you find that? Here are the three 1996 rings (players, staff, and shareholders):

reminds me of the pats super bowl ring. Yeah, I though of that too, but couldn't remember the team or year. Just remembered something like it. You're right - looks suspiciously like the Lombardi Trophy.

The Packers have put their World Championship rings on hold until they can get player input. And we'll have to wait longer than that to see what the shareholder rings will look like.

And, since the Brewers were mentioned, that's exactly what they did with theirs.

You're the guy!

I'm with you on those Broncos throwbacks. Sheer beauty, the best they've ever worn. My own heresy is about the Packers' untouchable uniforms. I was terribly disappointed that the rumored early 1990s switch-to-navy never happened, and I still wish that Ron Wolf had the guts to pull the trigger on his redesign in 1994. It's not too late, Green Bay. The Rodgers era is just beginning.

I think it would be more confusing for the Big Ten to change its name. They've had the same name for nearly a century. You can't buy that kind of brand equity. Even casual fans knows what the Big Ten is, but I think very few know (or care) that they have had eleven teams for the past twenty years. Adding another (or even a couple more) won't really change that.

I know, I know, we hear that all the time, but I just don't see it. If anything, the current Brewers uniforms evoke the Coors or Schlitz scripts, sharing very little design with Miller.

'Bout time. Three pages before somebody posted that? I like this one, the intended 1970 Brewers uniforms (left). They only had a week to put their uniforms together, and by Opening Day they were wearing the uniform on the right. Guess taking the Pilots' trim off the sleeves was too much. The neck and sleeve piping were added when the Brewers made their first uniform tweaks a couple years later:

Yeah, the Big Ten has wanted Notre Dame for a long time. I understand why - seems like a great fit.

I can confirm this - Rutgers has some footprint in the market, but that's very recent. Before 2006, I doubt any New Yorkers could have told you where Rutgers is (and to this day, I doubt that many could tell you it's a public school). Syracuse has been trying like heck to get in with ad campaign claiming they're NYC's local college. I don't think either claim is very strong at this moment. NYC is unusual, a large city without any real hometown college football program. I think the only claim Penn State has on the city is their occasional appearances on YES (the Yankees' network), which extends into Pennsylvania. For what it's worth, Notre Dame has a presence on YES as well.

Hmm. I found two: I'm guessing that the top one is a souvenir ring and the bottom one is the real deal? Top one doesn't have any personalization.

I think it's very unlikely, because the rings just aren't important enough to the NFL's branding. Who but hardcore fans even know what the rings look like? At least with the trophies, you can say that they're going to start promoting them more, make them part of the public perception of the conference championship games. But in an atmosphere of streamlining, of making the Lombardi Trophy front and center in the Super Bowl brand, I'd doubt that the NFL's marketing department is interested in muddying the Super Bowl waters by promoting another prize for the winners.

Getting back to league championships, this 1982 Brewers ring came up for auction last year. First one I've ever seen.

You're right - strange.

Umm the Yankees def didn't win 125 games in 2001. That ring must be from 1998. Just an FYI, I'm fairly certain this is just a prototype 1998 ring, its got nothing to do with 2001 anyway. True enough. Here are the four rings Jeter won before last year - 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000 (that's the Yanks' 1923 ring in the upper right): Personally, I prefer having the team logo against a contrasting background - diamonds for one, colored stones for the other. The logo seems kind of pointless if you can't see it from any distance over three feet.

I can't agree. That 2009 Yankee ring is worlds better than that of the 2008-2009 Penguins, to pick just one.

Yes - as far back as 1987. Pretty common to put the other team's name on a ring, with the game or series score. Less common, although not unheard of, to also use logos. What's interesting to me is that they list all the teams they beat in the postseason. The only thing I can think of close to that is the 1969 Jets, who listed the result of both championship games - the AFL championship over the Raiders and the World championship over the Colts:

Other than the screen printing, I couldn't disagree with you more. The skin-tight leotard look is awful. Give me real sleeves any day.

But which Ram uniform will he be considered a legend in? or Gotta be the first - he won a Super Bowl in it. In a decade, I think we'll largely forget that he wore the modified uniform.

But unlike baseball, wearing authentic period garb in an NFL game is liable to get a player killed, or at the very least put in a huge competitive disadvantage. True - I wasn't trying to place a value judgment on it, only meant it as a statement of fact. NFL throwbacks are inherently modern, so there doesn't seem to be any reason not to use the C patch (other than the arguments against C patches in general).