schtee

To me, the drop shadows are essential to their look. The Lakers look so ordinary without them. I compare it to the NY Rangers. The drop shadowed wordmark on their sweaters is iconic. For awhile they wore darker blue "New York" alternates. The wordmark wasn't italicized and it didn't have drop shadows. Why veer from a famous and beloved look?

I couldn't agree more! They should go school-wide with their gorgeous basketball wordmark: As for an "ST. J" logo, I've always liked the one on their old baseball caps, even though it's similar to the St. Louis Cards:

You've done a tremendous job marrying traditional cricket aesthetics with a more brash American look. Huge props.

The problem with this otherwise pleasant vintage Mizzou look is that the helmet's block "M" looks too much like Michigan's.

Word up, that Cleveland Buckeyes hat needs to replace the -yawn- block "C" hat ASAP. Strong historical precedent for a curly "C" as well, they wore it in the 20s and 30s:

The Ram Horn visual is so strong that it looks good no matter what colors the helmet is rendered in. I love the Flipper Anderson/Chris Evert era blue-and-yellow helmets but while they're guests at USC's Coliseum I'd rather they not wear UCLA's colors. The blue-and-whites are great for this interim period.

Amazing work. When you see it all visually the amount of D1 teams looks staggering

The LI Nets logo is awful. The "ets" looks like a pale imitation of the "ets" in the Mets' script while the "n" is super sloppy.

Tremendous observation. This is exactly why I read this forum. The awful-looking elongated stretch between the "M" and the "e" is exactly why the Mets are one of the many teams that would look so much better in a button-free pullover. Totally agree that their original "shorter/squatter" NY was much, much better. I hate that most NY Giants replicas use the modern Mets NY. And that Stengel hat shows how much better the Mets looked when they used a darker "Dodger" blue.

The wordmark stands out better with the colored chest striping then adrift in a sea of white fabric. Moreover, the awful number outlining on the alternate distracts from the wordmark. All I see is the number.

Compare "Washington" to "Atlanta" here from a distance. Atlanta, even with the poor color choices, is easier to read. Even though "Washington" is a long word, could the letters be taller? In any event, the ratio of number size to wordmark is off. And in the bigger picture I think it's better to wear a look that is both unique to a franchise and that has historical championship pedigree versus wearing one that rips off Philly and BK.

"Washington" is very hard to read on these home alternates. The chest striping on their normal unis helps the wordmark stand out better. Without the chest striping the eye is drawn to the jersey number instead. Moreover, the chest striping gives them a unique look. Not only is it unique but it's the style they wore when they won their NBA championship in 1978. Without it they look so much more generic. And stars on the side is already done by the Nets and Sixers.

But the ratio of the number size to the wordmark size is off. And the chest striping is what makes Washington look unique. These look like a bad version of the beautiful Dr J Nets jerseys

Just read this column again. Excellent work. Once you lay out the case the differences in the "B" become jarring. I feel like there's a similar problem with the NY baseball Giants hats sold these days. The current replicas use the taller "NY" as used by the Mets rather than the wider, shorter one used by the 1950s Gints and by the Mets themselves until the 90s.

I realize that Cleveland's block "C" has historical precedent from the 1910s and their 1920 World Series, but not only is it lifeless it looks too much like the "C" on Cal Berkeley's baseball caps. Slight difference in the serif on the upper right.