Ted Cunningham

That's B1G football* my friend! My dad once said about a particularly low-scoring Nebraska-Penn State game (while we were flipping stations on a Saturday some years back), "I tell ya, they'd run the ball underground if they could." *Admittedly, Ohio State and Michigan are not generally included in this tongue-in-cheek characterization.

This got me thinking: While I like color vs. color as much as the next person (as long as there's enough contrast), USC/UCLA feel more "right" than others to be color vs. color in a major rivalry game because of the game's location. While this game was played at USC's home field, both teams call LA home. It would be odd to me if Ohio State wore red in Ann Arbor, for instance. And then on the other side of that statement, if a rivalry game were played at a neutral site every year, then by all means, both teams should wear their color/home jerseys. (Though the only consistent example of that that I can think of is Army/Navy, and there wouldn't be enough contrast there with their regular home jerseys.)

Ehhhh. I can see the logic behind your reasons here, but I wouldn't say this is a "stinker" or otherwise bad-looking game: There is no monochrome at all, so that's a huge plus to start. And black is technically one of Rutgers' colors. Plus, this was played in bright sunlight, so even from far away, the difference between black and navy is pretty clear. And the red is prominent enough (logos and numbers, as opposed to just outlines or some other smaller application) to add that much more contrast. I would argue that a game like Kansas/K State looked worse because Kansas wore predominantly non-school-color monochrome uniforms (after dark). Edit: Just to be clear, I understand that this is your best-of list (and to a larger extent, all of this is opinion-based), so my response is just that: a response. That's not to dunk on your list. As a matter of fact, I appreciate the effort of including pictures!

Yeah, I was just thinking the same thing. The orange detailing really puts it over the top, too.

Understood. Apologies I didn't see the post. Thank you!

Just for the sake of posting visual aids and because I watched part of this game last night, Wyoming at UNLV was pretty solid:

Hello mods! Hopefully this is not a request that has already been addressed somewhere else: Would it be possible to simply merge 2023 NFL Season week by week uniform match-up combos: From HOF Game to Super Bowl LVIII and NFL 2023 Changes and call it something like "NFL 2023 Season Discussion" or something similar? While having two threads isn't necessarily harming anything, most of the discussion is happening in the week by week matchup thread (at least of late) and as a result, the differentiation doesn't seem necessary anymore. If I recall correctly, the matchup thread was originally started so that the matchups could be posted each week, and members could discuss updates, etc. strictly related to what teams were wearing that week. And then the "main" thread was for all the rest of the discussion about the given season. Now, it just seems like each thread has roughly the same topics (or at least the same subject coverage), but canzman posts the matchups in the matchup thread. Otherwise, there doesn't appear to be a thematic difference anymore. (I feel like I even remember seeing members post stuff along the lines of "I can't remember if it was said in this thread or the other one, but..." indicating ambiguity in where it is appropriate to put a particular post/topic.) As such, would it be possible to just merge the two?

As far as the Seahawks go, I think the throwback is the superior look. As others have pointed out, the royal and kelly together, offset by the silver, especially in sunlight (which, I know, is rare in Seattle), is a great look. Plus, the color balancing and size of the individual elements make that uniform visually pleasing. (There aren't many overly fussy details.) However, with the general discussion in this thread about throwbacks and how they're nice as throwbacks occasionally throughout the year, I was curious what the look would look like with the Seahawks' other two colorways (modern and 00s) as a way to modernize. So here are (roughly) the three colorways on the same picture: Throwbacks: 2000s colors: Current colors: A couple observations: 1) The 00s colors need navy to offset the other two. The Puget/gunmetal blue is too washed out on its own, especially near/up against that lime green. So I think that would be out, unless all of the silver elements become gunmetal blue, and all of the royal elements are navy. (That was too much effort, frankly, for me to quick-and-dirty photoshop that. Haha.) 2) The modern colors work well with the throwback look. That might be the key to a somewhat conservative modernization a la Minnesota or Cleveland.

Same. Well, in so much as I wanted to see the endzones in silver. I never went to the Kingdome with my dad. Haha.

I'm sure it will be worse/more contrived/trying hard to be "clever" compared to those shorts.

Not to kickstart an "intellectual dishonesty"/Browns & Ravens debate, but a hypothetical: If the impossible came to pass and the city of Houston/Texans ownership got a hold of the Oilers IP, would anyone miss the Texans or their identity if the NFL/Texans did an NBA-Bobcats/Hornets switch, in which the Oilers history ends in 1996, and restarts in 2002 (or even go farther and just say the Texas were a separate team that ceased to exist)? I'm not arguing the practicality of the situation (as I don't think it's practical or that it would ever happen). But if it did, would anyone miss the Houston Texans beyond "Their logo was pretty clever"? Forgettable color scheme, forgettable uniforms, only four double-digit-win seasons, never made it past the divisional round of the playoffs. I guess it's been so long now that there's a generation of football fans who grew up only knowing the Texans, so maybe? I guess it would depend on how long this hypothetical would take to play out. But while the Texans identity is OK, it's just that: OK. The Oilers brand was/is much stronger and more recognizable. Anyway, this post made me think. Mods, if this is appropriate elsewhere, please move it.

From a few months back in the other thread: a discussion about "Athletic Gothic" and its variations:

Ah yes, the Standford Carolina Gamecardinal!

I know what you mean. There was something a little more "dead" about the kelly green that the Eagles used in the 80s/90s. It wasn't dark green/forest/hunter/whatever. It was still kelly green. But the throwbacks (both these and the ones they wore in 2010) are a very vibrant shade, compared to what they were throwing back to. And I agree: I certainly don't think it was a bad uniform. I would prefer them to wear these throwbacks to what they currently wear, in fact. But they definitely looked different from what Randall Cunningham et al wore.

How do I retweet on here...

I go back and forth in my thoughts on the Buccaneers uniforms: Both looks, the original orange and the pewter/red, are solid. For both, it's more about what combinations they wear and how they wear them than any major design elements putting one above the other. When I conceptualize what the NFL would look like if I picked all the uniforms, I go back and forth on which look the Buccaneers would go with. All that to say, I think they're both solid, so I really don't care which way they would go, so long as they use them. As for this logo vs. the current iteration: Not only is this the superior mark (with its simpler, more consistent design employing a "ragged" look throughout), it's also fits the era from which it comes: the mid 90s. It feels similar to some styles of clipart that were popular then, especially in Office 97. It has a similar look to these: While certainly not the same, these all evoke a certain current that was popular at that time.

Agreed. When I caught highlights of that game vs. SF, my first reaction was "Oh, wait, who is that? That's a really good looking game." Then when I realized it was Arizona, that kind of confirmed what I had figured: the away uniform, especially, is a massive improvement over what they had been wearing. I think the white sock phase is just a phase that we'll have to deal with temporarily. Red socks would look better with this look, so it can certainly improve. But even with the white socks, this looks like nice.

While they are big, I think the stripes look about right. The Oilers (at least of the early 90s) had pretty wide striping too. As for the logo, I am presuming it's harder to place the decal (at an accurate size) in the middle because of the various ways that facemasks attach to the helmets now. And the Titans' equipment folks must have been instructed not to either have the facemask/clips overlap the decals or not to cut the decals where that would have been required to center them. "Protect the integrity of the mark" or similar thought, I suppose.

They could just solve this by going back to the not-a-gradient gradient! *ducks*

Likely a pretty unpopular opinion, but I would be very pleased with Ohio State wearing this full time, as long as the pants were grey. I love how bold (downright gaudy) the stripes are.

(Uhhh, what's the "Tennessee notch?" Is that the serif thing?)

Yeah, within the bounds of all of Tennessee's possible current combinations, I feel like this would probably be the ideal away combo for me. (Maybe light blue pants with navy socks would be tied with this look? Though I feel like that might be a little bottom-heavy for my taste.) Again, within the bounds of their current options, I like the following: Is it ideal? Not really. But I could live with it. Fun fact: as far as I could tell from the GUD, they've not worn columbia blue socks with their white pants away before. (I had to make that graphic.)

I don't necessarily think that's what Cujo was going for, though, unless I missed something. That replica isn't intended to be a faux leather helmet. It's just another iteration of the Browns' current helmet in their color scheme. It just happens to be brown (because that's one of Cleveland's colors). I also don't think characterizing this Brown's helmet as "white for white's sake" is accurate either. Their first helmets were white, so there is precedent for using a white helmet. The stripes and brown facemask also modernize that look a bit while better tying it to the rest of the uniform (at least from a color balance perspective; a white helmet with grey facemask and no stripes would stick out a bit more than what they're going with). My personal preference would be for the stripes on the helmet to match the pants stripes.

It's wild how much more "normal" that makes that helmet style look. And while not having the "brow bar" (is that the actual term for it? I like it) was the norm for several years in the 50s/60s and into the 70s for certain players, not seeing it on modern helmets is kind of jarring, especially when the facemask color contrasts with the shell.

And then there was the time that Iowa dressed like the Stee--oh wait. (Haha.)