gosioux76

It's interesting looking back at it now, but I'm not sure I actually hated them before either. At least not on their own merits, because it's actually a nice-looking uniform with a smart upgrade to the brand that, for once, actually reflects the team name. The issue for me, and I presume many others, was that it took a franchise that, for the prior decade, had been one of the league's best and most exciting and made it look like an expansion franchise. Had they adopted this uniform, but kept the original colors, maybe the shift wouldn't have been as objectionable. They still would have made the inevitable move back to something closer to the Isiah Thomas-era look, but the shift wouldn't have been so seismic.

I'd expect to see them use this SATX mark a lot more often as they continue re-enforcing themselves as the team for both San Antonio and Austin (ATX). The "celebration of our entire region" line is pretty on the nose with that strategy.

I really like this. Developers and cities of all stripes need to think more about how projects will get people to use mass transit rather than asking, "where will people park?" Honestly, the public should welcome it. I'd go to more sporting events if it meant I didn't have to work parking costs into the cost equation. And if the mass transit system is designed well (yes, I realize this isn't always the case), then it should be easy to access. In my years living in Portland, my house was 20 miles out of the city center, but I never had to drive myself or pay to park when attending Blazers or Timbers games. My car sat at a park-and-ride while the train took me to the stadium. That's how it should be.

The team is moving there, sure. But has the league said anything specifically about the name moving, too? Again, I'm not suggesting it won't either. But to my knowledge, they've said nothing publicly to suggest they would re-apply the XFL 2.0 names. So it seems presumptuous to assume that this would be the case.

I'm not sure we can presume that they intend to recycle the XFL 2.0 names. I can see keeping BattleHawks, because of the way it resonated with its fanbase. But why wouldn't the new owners want to put their own stamp on the branding? I could easily see them looking at some of the previous league's looks and thinking they could upgrade them. I also wouldn't assume this shift from Tampa to Orlando is all about Tampa's tepid fan reaction. Disney is a partner in this league, so I wouldn't be surprised if the reference to "Magic" in that tagline isn't a hint toward a new brand.

This is a good point. Even more, I wonder whether the red-flake effect of the helmet will make the Cardinals logo -- which just appears to be a regular glossy sticker -- stick out awkwardly. It could look like a mismatch of textures -- like slapping a sticker onto a marbled bowling ball, which this essentially is doing. I get the jonesing for change with the Cardinals, but I'd want a lot more than just swapping white and gray for black. The red flakes are a barely noticeable novelty, just like they were with the Jaguars before. Put another way, I don't necessarily hate these just to hate them. Like all of the other recently released alts, they're unimaginative. These teams made the easiest (or laziest) choices possible just to not be left out of this alternate helmet trend. I'll applaud the teams that end up showing restraint.

So it's a black and red disco ball.

I'd be OK with an orange Bears helmet, but only if it were leather.

I don't know what's worse: That any of these non-throwback alternate helmets exist at all or the complete and disappointing lack of imagination in the NFL design world.

This is really a brilliant Texans concept. It emphaizes the Texas flag in ways the original logo suggests, but stops short of fully embracing. I love it. I have one minor quibble with your state of Texas secondary logo. I can see what you were trying to do by incorporating the primary mark into the state shape, but I worry the star/eye could be mistaken for a placemarker. And right now, it's placed right around Abilene, and nowhere near Houston. I presume that's why the Texans adopted this as a secondary and didn't try to do something like you attempted:

Other than these three, I see things worth salvaging in all the rest.

I see your point, but it seems like an easy solution would be to use the logo without the roundel. Why not just have the cannon on the jersey? Also, just as big of an issue with that uniform is that it completely ignores the Blue Jackets' use of red. Add some into that look in a subtle way, and you'll have something nice.

I have a hard time getting excited about a helmet that looks exactly like it would if you look at a black-and-white picture of the current helmet. It doesn't stretch the imagination enough to be interesting. You could say the same about throwbacks, but at least those designs tend to mean something to people. You don't have to think too hard to imagine what every team would look like if they were just a different color.

I agree the NY logo is superior and should remain their primary brand. But I'm a sucker for nostalgia and like seeing this as a throwback every now and then. This is probably an unpopular opinion, but I really like the 1975 double-lined NY logo. Not saying it should come back, but I wouldn't complain if it did.

This is really fantastic. I particularly enjoy how the banner pattern is repeated on the pants stripes. One suggestion: On the secondary state logo, I think the banner effect gets a little lost in all the blue. Would it look worse to have the state be white with a blue keyline, and a blue banner draped over it?

I always loved this Giants uniform, but I don't think it translates well to this era of shortened sleeves. In the '80s and '90s, you could tell the Bills and Giants home jerseys apart by the sleeve striping. The Giants were thin, the Bills were thick. But now, because of the tighter sleeve caps, if the Bills were to ever bring back the Jim Kelly-era uniforms, they'd look essentially the same as these. This might also have something to do with the shade of blue used on the jerseys. A few of you also mentioned this, but the jerseys clearly look like a brighter shade of blue than was previously worn.

That’s terrible news. These all-star uniforms are abysmal. I want to see the colors of the game on display, not this dreary gold and anthracite mess.

I don't generally have a lot of faith in the intelligence of the human race these days, but I would at least trust the fans — and the players — to understand that the home fans aren't rooting for the visitors just because they're all in white. Literally nobody is confused by this.

This is an interesting thought. Maybe it's not so much a design trend as a reaction to what they do with the City Edition program , or even a way to draw more attention to it. If your primary uniforms are super basic, then the City Editions are likely to stand out by contrast. If you look at a team's complete uniform program today, they have, what, at least four uniforms? If you look at them as a collection, rather than individual uniforms, there's likely to be some degree of balance -- from the simple to the complex, with threads that tie them together. I'd guess that for some teams, the City Editions and throwbacks already outsell any apparel related to their primary uniforms. So they strip the core uniforms down to their basest elements and lean into what has already become and alt-heavy league. EDIT: Just read the team's description of the uniforms. I'm sure there are examples to the contrary, but I've only ever seen the word "reductive" used in a negative context.

I've always been a fan of less = more and simple is better than overly complex, but I'm with most of you in finding that this set and the Jazz rebrand are taking it a little too far. I really liked the Brooklyn Nets set upon its unveiling, and still do, largely because of its simplicity. I also liked the post-LeBron Cavs uniform that also went super simple. I didn't think you could really strip those down much more, but they found a way. It's very confusing. I think I said this when the Jazz unis came out, but they remind me a bit of the late '80s reversible practice jerseys that were standard during that era.

The suggestion wasn’t to adopt the name “Oilers,” just the colors. They can continue to be the Texans. So I don’t think an intellectual property claim comes into play if you’re not using the name. I’m also no IP expert, but I’m pretty certain you can’t claim ownership over colors on their own.

I like this idea, only the base color would have to be powder blue for it to draw any connection to the Oilers legacy. And really, it’s fair game for the Houston to reclaim those colors. The last Titans rebrand is so heavy on navy and silver that red and powder are there for the taking.

This is probably an unpopular opinion at this point, but I really dislike this Texans helmet specifically because of the finish. To me, the chrome-like shininess of it will stand out from the otherwise muted tones of the jersey fabric. It's going to look like they're wearing a disco ball on their head. I'd have much preferred they had gone with more of a matte finish, like the Memphis Express example posted earlier. FWIW, I'm also in the group that thinks all alt helmets should be throwbacks, but a recolor like this is still far preferable to the atrocity the Saints will wear. This one just doesn't happen to work for me.

It could be such a thing that NFL Films does contract-for-hire work. I'd imagine the spring and early summer are pretty lean times for them.

To that point, I'd almost rather they go full retro and lean into the old two-bar style that used to be standard for helmet graphics.