Lights Out

Regardless, it looks a lot better than the crap they're currently wearing.

They look like they were made in MS Paint. The score banner is just an uglier version of the old one. Pretty disappointing compared to the graphics that FOX introduced last year.

It's just the lighting in that particular photo making the colors look darker. The shade of blue that the Cavs used back then was much lighter on the court than the Wizards' slate blue.

And instead of learning from these situations, the NFL instead allowed the even more disgraceful and ill-conceived relocation of the Chargers to LA.

Luv Ya Blue is probably never happening for the Texans, but I could see them pulling off a more "rustic" color scheme that comes close enough.

Looks like the Senators considered keeping the "swoosh" jerseys during the Reebok Edge era: https://www.ebay.com/itm/ONE-OF-A-KIND-OTTAWA-SENATORS-PROTOTYPE-NHL-JERSEY-DANIEL-ALFREDSSON/324078463203

Apparently the Cavs were going to have a powder blue alternate at some point in the pre-LeBron era:

Interesting prototypes for the Hawks and Bucks:

Denver's uniforms were designed by Nike, and Baltimore's were designed by Starter.

Kornheiser is wrong. "Washington Football Team" is and has always been a copout. Just because some people are bound to complain about whatever name they choose doesn't mean they aren't obligated to stop this nonsense and pick a new name ASAP. This isn't soccer. As for the argument that WFT fits a team that's been around since the '30s: football teams had actual names in the '30s. This particular team was founded in 1932 as the Boston Braves, not the Boston Football Team. Their current non-name and non-brand would have stuck out like a sore thumb back then just like it does now.

They've been due for a new set since the day they unveiled their current clownsuits. I'm convinced that the only reason they didn't rebrand years ago is because Mike Brown is too cheap to commission it.

To each their own, but in my opinion, the fact that their current brand can only either be boring or a mismatched mess just further proves that they need to start from scratch. If they were to do what some people in this thread have suggested and undergo a total rebrand that emphasizes powder blue, they could still stand out from the rest of the SEC without dressing like a low-budget high school team.

Ole Miss' uniforms (at least in football) have been a disaster for nearly all of their existence as a program, so I agree, they need a rebrand desperately. As it stands now, they can't even decide whether they want to be a red team or a blue team. On the increasingly rare occasions when they still wear the traditional silver pants, they look even worse than usual because the jerseys and pants look like they came from two entirely different uniform sets. And that's not even getting into the extra issues that the powder blue helmets add in.

I'd say this year was less Notre Dame "getting the benefit of the doubt" and more the rest of college football failing miserably to put together a better (or even comparable) resume than them.

I'm as sick of Notre Dame as anyone else, but I don't get why people are pointing to Oklahoma as a better choice when they've gone winless in all their playoff games and haven't played any defense in any of them (last year's performance was particularly embarrassing). They also lost to 4-6 Kansas State this season. Cincinnati played a weaker schedule. Texas A&M's only quality win (Florida) wasn't as good as ND's win against Clemson, and they lost to Alabama by a larger margin than ND did. Same deal with Georgia - if you're upset about Notre Dame getting owned by Alabama, why would you want a team that didn't do any better against them? Maybe Northwestern could have made a valid argument if they didn't inexplicably lose to a terrible MSU team in November. It sucks, but I understand why the committee did what they did this year. There really weren't any clear-cut better options than ND, unfortunately.

Only great uniforms there are Clemson and maybe Notre Dame. Alabama's look isn't bad, but it is boring. As for Ohio State, their regular uniforms are way better than the throwbacks. I've said this in other threads, but I've never liked those gigantic double-decker sleeve stripes on any team that wears them. They look horrible on any modern template.

I thought the blue helmets would look nice, but for some reason, I'm not really liking it - even with the blue pants to match. They look like Kentucky when the camera's zoomed out.

I still say that's the best the Islanders ever looked. I don't even mind the phantom yokes. The front numbers were pointless but still don't bother me either.

From the neck down, it's not bad at all. It's just the awful helmet that sticks out like a sore thumb.

Purple and black is fine for TCU, just like how it works fine for the Ravens. It also represents their entire modern history as a successful football program. Why would they switch back to purple and white - to remind people of when they were in the basement of the SWC for 36 years? The change they should actually make is to lean into the "bloodshot eyes" thing and add some subtle red trim to the color scheme. For the record, Arkansas is not a great counterexample at the moment. They're never going to be Oklahoma or Alabama no matter how many times they try to dress up like them.

Can't say I agree that they look great. These new uniforms are dreadfully boring. And between them, Alabama, and Arkansas, that's three teams in the SEC with similar color schemes and similarly plain uniforms. At least Mississippi State and South Carolina have extra trim colors and sleeve stripes to differentiate themselves. The number font, which is the clear focal point of their new uniforms (since it's not like there's any actual design elements to compete with it), is a downgrade. The old font was identifiable and matched the wordmark. The new one looks like an amateurish free font. The cherry on top is that - like always - Adidas' TechFit template makes every uniform look worse by stretching and warping everything. People complained about how college football uniforms were becoming overdesigned in the early-mid 2010s, but honestly, that wasn't any worse than the current era of manufacturers mailing it in with the laziest possible uniforms. Texas A&M is the poster child for this trend. They already had a great classic look, and they threw it away to chase the new fad of making your uniforms look like practice gear.

Sure, but it doesn't change the fact that this is an entirely performative gesture on Wisconsin's part and does nothing.

This is a major downgrade. Not sure what they were thinking with the lopsided C, and the even more lopsided "CLT" mark is even worse.

Not really.