Ted Cunningham

The excesses and drabness of the late 90s to mid 2000s exemplified.

Question in good faith: Are you proposing a name change along with the concept uniform for East Carolina? Since it's a concept, that could very well be the case. "Eastern Carolina" caught my eye because I'd never heard of it referred to that way.

I don't mean to be pedantic for the sake of being pedantic, but since this is a forum built around design: It is essentially gothic. "Gothic" is simply another way to refer to a sans-serif alphabet. There's a reason why Century Gothic includes the word "Gothic" in its name. Helvetica, Arial, Futura; they're all gothic typefaces. One could make the argument that the 2 in the Rams numbers technically has a slab serif, but otherwise, that set of numbers is very close Helvetica Bold Condensed. What I'm presuming you're thinking of is blackletter, sometimes referred to as gothic script. While blackletter may be what a lot of people think of when they hear "gothic font", a lot of people also apparently thought that the Bengals uniforms from 2004 to 2020 were essentially the same as those prior to it.

Same here, @CC97. No need to prorate mine. Thanks!

Hey @CC97, thanks for setting this option up. I've been posting here since 2007, and these boards have been a go-to destination for me consistently since then. So paying a little to support it and getting a better experience in return makes a lot of sense. I signed up roughly 15 minutes ago. My Patreon account is under the email address theodore.j.cunningham at gmail dot com.

I work in DC frequently and lived there for a while. 1) I've never heard that term before, nor have I heard anyone from DC use it. But 2) I did immediately understand what it was referring to. (Again, likely only because I have experience in/with DC.)

If I'm not mistaken, that goalie's number is 1. The Flyers had some odd 1s back then where the serif (for lack of a better term) came halfway down the number.

I kind of like that ridiculously huge C Citadel wordmark.

(For some reason, the picture isn't showing up for me. I don't know if others can't see it, but I'll post it for reference.) There are other variations on these two uniforms at this time (with minor differences in striping, explaining the guy with the single red stripe on his pants in that picture a ways back in the thread, and differences in helmet and pants colors). But this was the basic idea and the shadows were only worn in 1955 and 1956. The white jersey was decidedly a "change kit" as opposed to being a regular away uniform. For instance, in 1955, they wore them once against Washington (who was also wearing their darker shade of red). Admittedly, the GUD is a fan-made resource, so it might not be accurate. However, it also strikes me as the kind of pet project that is meticulously researched and cared for, so I'd have to figure it's accurate for the most part. My guess would be that whomever designed the 1994 throwbacks (which, as has been pointed out, are notoriously half-measure, inaccurate throwbacks) kind of guessed the white jerseys were "opposite" of the red jerseys, not realizing the majority of the stripes were actually black. As for the current iteration, I was never quite clear: were they throwing back to '94? If that's the case, the jerseys (and pants, I suppose, too) are accurate. Or was it actually a throwback to the mid 50s? I really like that black drop shadow. I don't know why, necessarily. It kind of feels like one of those quirks of the time: the shadows made the numbers easier to read at distance or something? And as a result, they're grandfathered in? In any event, I think the jerseys look good. But they decidedly clash with the gold helmets and the red-white-red braisher stripes. As I'm thinking about it, does this look weird? Instead of adding gold to the throwback, add the drop shadow treatment to the classic/current uniforms. (I think it at least ties with the black in the logo, but it doesn't go full-on dark-mode like the late 90s 49ers did.)

I don't know if you can get those two looks to be harmonious simply because the elements that make them what they are don't work together without feeling overdesigned. The argyle is intricate and fussy compared to the almost overly-large, bold stripes of the throwback. The pants stripes match the sleeve stripes match the helmet stripes in terms of line weight on the throwback. Using argyle on two of those elements (pants and helmet) while having plain stripes that don't match anything else on the sleeves would look disjointed. Now I say that with it being my understanding of what you're saying above. Two other options you may mean instead are: Add the argyle to the middle portion of the stripes on the various uniform elements. That, however, is what I meant by "overdesigned" above. That's like saying "I like pickles. I also like cake. I will put pickles on my cake." They just don't go together without feeling obviously forced. Just adding drop shadows to the current uniform and reducing the weight or width of the numbers. That seems like a lot more doable solution, though it would just be the modern look with drop shadows. I'd argue that, besides any nostalgia, what makes the throwback successful is that it includes a fair bit of variation in color because the stripes are so large while still staying within the rough definition of "traditional" stripes. So many college uniforms have plain/solid-color pants sometimes with the addition of (again) fussy, overly-intricate elements that don't necessarily translate well at distance (e.g. team names, piping instead of stripes [though that fad has faded somewhat], logos, patterned stripes, etc.). Seeing big stripes like UNC's (or even just complete waist to knee stripes, generally) is refreshing. And my argument against "fussy" detailed elements isn't even necessarily an indictment of UNC's argyle. I think it works alright for them. I do think argyle is disproportionately viewed as positive on these boards because of so many designers working it into their concepts. But I also don't think it's bad in practice. It's just not the best option for football.

I believe the Mets or Pirates did this at one point for the surname "d'Arnaud". Just flipped a P. It was a bit more effective for that name because there was no E.

To preface: this isn't an attack directed at you, JTernup. It's simply a counterargument to the views you expressed here. 1) "In life, perfect can be the enemy of good, but in uniform design we shouldn't settle for good when perfect is attainable" This seems contradictory to me, unless you mean to extract uniform design from life generally. If perfect has the potential to work against good, then why would one work to attain perfect at the potential cost of good? (I'll come back to this in a moment.) 2) While the mock-up arguably presents better color balance between the three main uniform elements (which could make it a better uniform in your opinion [I don't think we can say "objectively better" simply because aesthetics rely so heavily on personal taste]), it also deviates from those elements that make Ole Miss look like Ole Miss. Adding another color between the white shoulder hoops is the big one there. Ole Miss football, generally, has had double white shoulder stripes on its color/home jerseys. Yes, there are examples of them with other stripes, but the most identifiable and most used look is the double white shoulder stripes (be that on navy, red, or even powder blue). As for the particular uniform yesterday, the white pants definitely changed the look, arguably, more drastically than the change in jersey color. But because the general idea behind the jersey remained the same, Ole Miss still looked like Ole Miss. I think this is interesting because it gets at a discussion we come back to on these boards from time to time: thinking of the appeal and attractiveness of an identity "in a vacuum" vs. in the context of the look in a team's history (be that context based on success in that uniform, longevity of the look, etc.). The former, "in a vacuum", is "perfect" as you've described above. Sure, a perfect look, applying all of the "generally accepted axioms of good uniform design" (which don't necessarily have to be explicit, but stuff like "color balance", mirrored elements between home and away uniforms, symmetry, etc.) could be attained for every team. However, that ignores the other elements that factor into why identities are successful or "good": identifiability, nostalgia, success, longevity, or simply because it looks cool even if it goes against one of those axioms of good design. In an effort to attain perfect, what makes identities like Ole Miss's good, can get stripped away. For example, adding red between the white shoulder stripes takes away from a key identifying feature of Ole Miss's football uniforms. They also look like Louisiana Tech in the mock-up. The mock-up doesn't have that quintessential Ole Miss look, even if it has arguably better color balance. The look could be improved, but without respect to the context in which the uniform exists and why it looks like it does, it wouldn't be Ole Miss because it doesn't have those characteristics that are tied to Ole Miss's football identity. (As for my own opinion on the uniforms they wore this past Saturday, some others pointed it out above: the regular grey pants would have made more sense. Rough Photoshop:)

Nice.

I have never liked racing stripes, generally, be that in football or baseball. This is the first picture I've seen to convince me that it could look OK. The consistency between the different elements on stripe width and spacing makes this a good look. Going this route, Texas A&M could distinguish themselves from the myriad other some-shade-of-red and white schools across the South.

So to try and understand what would be traditional or newer (and this is for the boards in general; not just mkg74), using the AAF as a barometer (as it's the most recent attempt at a major spring league): would the AAF's uniforms be more on the traditional or "newer" end of the spectrum? Given the XFL's uniforms the last time around compared to the NFL's of the time, I'd guess the XFL would be aggressive for it's 2.0 debut. However, I feel like the AAF was more conservative, though not necessarily traditional. I wonder if the XFL will follow the same sort of precedent and go with a more conservative, but still modern look that employs a decent color balance for each team.

While I agree with very little that mkg74 has pointed out in the latest pages of this thread, I can see how "boring" would apply to the NFL. And I also think it's a little difficult to describe why, exactly. I've been on the outside looking in on the NFL for a number of seasons now. (The last time I had a team I followed closely was when the Buccaneers won the Super Bowl back during the 2002 season.) Since then, I've kept an eye on the Steelers only because of proximity. I've watched games just about every Sunday. But I haven't followed entire seasons much; I haven't paid attention to off-season moves, storylines, etc. It seems like parity in the league has increased significantly. (I'm not sure if this is due to any direct rule changes, etc., or is just the way the business is evolving.) But that's why it's hard to describe why it's boring. On it's face, parity, as a concept, would draw in more viewers: a majority of the teams have a shot at at least making the playoffs, so fanbases stay engaged longer. Further, a roughly equal portion of talent on either team in any given match-up should make the individual games more exciting. (Any team can win on any given Sunday.) And yet, that same parity makes every team feel like the same 50ish dudes dressed in 32 different color combinations. While I'm sure that fans can point to certain vague characteristics or particular elements that make teams "unique", and while there are minute differences in talent levels between the teams, from an outsider's perspective, it doesn't matter which teams are playing or how high-quality the talent and performances are. The games and teams all feel kind of the same. (Moreover, I presume some of this also has to do with how centralized everything is within the NFL's headquarters and corporate structure. Everything about each team is property of the NFL, and all the broadcasting happens through the same national networks. I am thinking of baseball, and to a lesser extent, hockey here, where it seems like teams have more control over their own affairs. That is especially evident with the regional sports networks carrying a lot of individual games with broadcasts geared much more to the local audience. ATT Sportsnet in Pittsburgh regularly includes references to places in and around Pittsburgh, references that yinzers would get, and using color commentators who played for the Pirates and Penguins. Those teams' broadcasts feel far more tailored. NFL broadcasts on radio maintain this to a degree, correct? But admittedly, my regular exposure to the NFL is on TV, so I'm not sure.) I realize this is long and, especially with the third paragraph, a bit rambling. But I hope it illustrates how the NFL could be seen as boring, especially from the perspective of a sports fan who doesn't have a particular team or set of players I follow closely. TL;DR: I can see how the NFL could be perceived as boring. While the level of talent and play may be high, it also feels too even and too centrally controlled. No teams really stick out as unique either by players or by style of play.

It always seemed to me that the uniforms the Chargers used between 1974 and 1987 were stuck in limbo between the collegiate/powder blue era and the eventual evolution to the full navy look of 1988 to 2006. There were some elements that seemed to bridge the gap between these two periods, but it always seemed unfinished or too busy. The uniforms (even with their slight tweaks from 1974 to 1987) never seemed to commit to one distinct look or feel. (For example, the white shoulder hoops on which the bolts appear seem out of place when all the other major elements are either blue or gold.)

I liked this post, but to be clear (and more specific), there's a certain style of stirrups that I think are truly dumb: Baseball aesthetics in the 70s and 80s were at an arguably all-time low. And stirrups with enlarged loops were a big part of that: I just don't get the mid-calf, tight pants, and stirrups with only the stirrups themselves showing-look. (And that doesn't even address the pull-over jersey and sansabelt, etc.) In the 40s, 50s, as well as likely before and after that time (though the 40s are what stick out most to me when thinking of this style), baseball uniforms obviously included stirrups as well, but the openings were far smaller, showing much more color and any potential striping. Now, as with all things related to sports aesthetics (and really design and art), this is all opinion. I understand that there are many that would disagree with me because the uniform worn by Teke is one that represents baseball as it was when they fell in love with the sport. I just think that stirrups like those in the second picture can offer more the overall look of a uniform.

Any particular inspiration for the sleeve stripes here, OSV?

Got it. And no kidding, those were excellent uniforms.

Just to be clear: Are you asserting they only wore white over white in 1998? If so, I believe that's right. Or are you saying the whole time they were known as the Tennessee Oilers? That was for two seasons, and in 1997, they wore blue twice. Once against the Dolphins, and once at the Cowboys. I just wanted to make sure I understood what you meant.

It's not an awful look, but I'd have to guess that, in today's NFL, the Colts would wear solid blue socks with those pants. And that would diminish the look.

Really unpopular opinion: This is the best the Patriots have ever looked. I would change the pants stripe (as I think the stripes within the stripe which mimic the logo are a little too busy) to something simpler. Otherwise, that's it. The contrasting numbers and grey facemask MAKE this uniform for me. I mocked it up on a modern template just to get a better feel for it if it existed today:

Certainly far better than what they have now.

Man, the better the graphics get in Madden, the deeper the uncanny valley gets. Those player models look awful.