What would you rather see return...

[powersurge]

The whole reason for stirrups in the first place is no longer valid, so if players went back to them, they would be doing so just for the sake of being 'retro.'

Stirrups were meant to replicate colored socks, so just wear colored sock.

Call me old-fashioned, but I would never wear colored socks for any athletic activity.

I realize that with the material nowadays, colored socks don't pose a threat to your feet that they once did. But there's something about wearing colored socks that just doesn't seem to go with wearing a baseball uniform. Kind of like wearing white socks with a suit and tie -- it just isn't done.

Bring back the stirrups. Sure, the original reason for them isn't there, but they just look like they belong with a baseball uniform.

I thought that stirrups were originally to hold up socks, at least thats what my old ball coach used to say. Of course he also used to say that we should NEVER swing at the first pitch. I proved that wrong because I always did and got most of my hits out of that so I question his baseball knowledge.

[bulldogbarks55]

This whole topic has got me steamed, so I'm not taking it out on you guys. Like others, both. But going strictly by your ground rules, I have to say sleeves. Frankly, today's football jerseys look like hell. They've ruined the classic Colts jersey. The insert, if you can call it that, they do use is a joke. Looks like a cheap knock-off that you could buy at Wally-World.

And the NFL uniform police. They have a hissy fit because Dick Nolan, Jr. wants to wear a suit to honor his dad. Or they spaz out because some players had the audacity to wear, God forbid, WHITE shoelaces with their black shoes.

Most of today's bozo "linemen" wear shirts that only Ted Kluzsewski would be proud of. Today's uniform designers probably don't know a football from a hockey puck. But they fob off their hideous designs on teams because they (Nike, Reebok, Adidas, et al) are paying the freight.

In the old days Champion (ND, Bills, Bengals), Russell ('Bama, Auburn, Oklahoma, Falcons, Bucco Bruce Bucs), SandKnit (Steelers, Dolphins), Wilson (da Bears), Southland Athletic, (original Cowboys contrasting shoulders, Cowboys first uni change), Spanjian Sportswear (original Chargers powder blues) and Rawlings (Bills from '63-on) made NFL and NCAA uniforms that looked like uniforms.

I've been selling uniforms for the past 40 years. I've visited the plants and seen uniforms actually made by Russell, Champion, Betlin, Alleson and Athletic Knit in Toronto. Most of today's designers are wet-behind-the-ears Gen-Xers that do things because they look "cool." They have no regard for tradition. And before some of you Gen-Xers spaz out that I'm an out-of-touch neanderthal, well, I AM! But I still think I have some taste and good judgement. There has got to be some middle ground that we all can be happy with. I just don't like today's cookie-cutter templates and designs. Teams should still have their own identity, not a fill-in-the-colors style that lets the manufacturer cut a gazillion pieces at the same time so that THEY can make mo' money on their overpriced replicas that they sell.

[JRose5]

Definitely the sleeves.

JR5

[ltravisjr]

I think the proper argument should be sleeves vs hiked pants. I don't care whether it is a whole colored sock or a stirrup (heck, I don't even know what they wear under there these days). I thought for a while the one color socks we used to see were just stirrups with a very small cut-out. Maybe they still are for that matter, I don't know. Nevertheless, I prefer the hiked pants regardless of whether socks or stirrups are underneath. Knicker style had been around forever with both socks and knickers underneath at times.

Oh yeah, I like the "Soriano" style, but I have another name for it: the "Crede" style :-)

LT