Blandest Uniforms in Modern History

[DTConcepts]

9 minutes ago, DC in Da House w/o a Doubt said:

 

Uhh nope.

[tajmccall]

I think a better, or at least more-interesting way to phrase this would be most "characterless" jerseys. 

 

Which team's uniform most abandoned the charm/aesthetic of it's team (or city.)

 

To me, the Dallas Stars mid 2000s jerseys is the most glaring example.  Going from the NorthStars classic ID - to the updated relocation- to the All-Star jersey...to a bad college rip off, and worse making their gold a flat khaki.  

I'll always see them not rebranding as the Lone Stars (irony of the plural of that aside) a major miss.  But the 2000's "blandification" is just plain lazy and bad branding.

 

The Sonics rebrand before they left is also on that list.  The jerseys are...okay.  The logos and typefaces are an absolute disaster, and such an utter downgrade from anything prior.

[AstroCree]

Went from having a bit too much to having nothing at all.

[mcj882000]

2 hours ago, Carolingian Steamroller said:

To be bland a uniform cannot be just simple. Blandness implies a tasteless, generic feel. So for me, bland cannot simply be an absence of many design elements but a design where the feature that are present are lazy, cut/paste, or uninteresting.

And yet both of these descriptions are exactly why I consider

 

2 hours ago, Carolingian Steamroller said:

...to be such a boring look: the Leafs had design elements that were part of their signature look...



...but then they replaced them with a generic, cut-paste "create-a-team" template.

[SFGiants58]

9 hours ago, slikye1 said:

 

I wouldn’t call them bland at all, but rather refined and minimalist (really working with the colors). However, this uniform set had terrible timing, coming out in the season following “The Decision.” After the Cavs’ previous, more complex uniform set:

 

 

...it looked like the team had gone into “post-Lebron austerity mode.” The poor play from the team in the years following Lebron’s exit didn’t help matters. They played like a rec league team, so it was easy to see their minimalist uniforms as a “rec league” look. I disagree with that assessment, but I can understand it.

[Cardsblues02]

1 hour ago, DC in Da House w/o a Doubt said:

This is why threads like these end fairly quickly. Once the easy ones are nailed, people run out of ideas.

 

I get the Jazz set being called bland, but I see it more as a minimalist uniform. And that navy is the only one in their set that could be considered “bland”. Dont see it with Denver.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

Nets. [/thread]

 

Complared to that artless tripe, every other uniform is a masterpiece.

[IceCap]

I see we've quickly devolved into "post anything you don't like and/or troll." Good job, guys.

[Toronto206]

49 minutes ago, mcj882000 said:

And yet both of these descriptions are exactly why I consider

 

...to be such a boring look: the Leafs had design elements that were part of their signature look...



...but then they replaced them with a generic, cut-paste "create-a-team" template.

Not the case here. All the elements on the uniforms today were used at one point in their history. 

[Carolingian Steamroller]

21 minutes ago, Toronto206 said:

Not the case here. All the elements on the uniforms today were used at one point in their history. 

 

I agree. The double stripe sleeves and socks, the single stripe hem and breezers were all present on past Leafs sets. More importantly, the new crest and numbers successfully expanded on the team's past identity. 

[VDizzle12]

I've always thought the Bills were very bland. Generic color scheme and inconsistent striping.

 

[DC in Da House w/o a Doubt]

2 hours ago, Cardsblues02 said:

This is why threads like these end fairly quickly. Once the easy ones are nailed, people run out of ideas.

 

I get the Jazz set being called bland, but I see it more as a minimalist uniform. And that navy is the only one in their set that could be considered “bland”. Dont see it with Denver.

 

I stand by the Denver pick.  There's nothing notable or exceptional about them.  They're bland in every sense of the word to me.  Especially when compared to their uniform history.  They're forgettable.  In 10 years no one will remember that they existed, same with that Jazz set. 

[GriffinM6]

1 hour ago, VDizzle12 said:

I've always thought the Bills were very bland. Generic color scheme and inconsistent striping.

 

Inconsistent? Their helmet and pants striping match as do the sleeve and sock striping. 

[MJWalker45]

1 hour ago, VDizzle12 said:

I've always thought the Bills were very bland. Generic color scheme and inconsistent striping.

 

 

7 minutes ago, Griffinmarlins said:

Inconsistent? Their helmet and pants striping match as do the sleeve and sock striping. 

The colors have also been the same for over 50 years. They aren't bland just because it's red, white and blue and other teams use the same colors. 

[Gr3g3]

This thread has shown me apparently I really like what you guys consider "bland".

[M4One]

[eRay]

Taking "Bland" to mean 'devoid of strong or unique characteristics and therefore uninteresting'...

I'd say the most recent Phoenix Suns uniforms qualify, despite their unique color scheme. They just feel lifeless compared to the rest of their history.

Also, I'd throw in the Dallas Mavericks new black alternate. Color scheme is unique, again, but feels uninteresting and we'll forget it very soon hopefully.

[GatorNate1022]

 

Florida's Peter Pan outfit......

[Cardsblues02]

40 minutes ago, GatorNate1022 said:

 

Florida's Peter Pan outfit......

Ugly? Hell yes...Bland? I don’t see it

[andrewharrington]

6 hours ago, MJWalker45 said:

Unfortunately this look is gone too, they took the sleeve stripes off a couple years back. 

 

These were the throwback look and meant to be celebratory and/or have a shelf life. Note the lack of the signature CU italic type.