Chromatic

The problem with the yellow helmets is that they don't match the shade of gold used on the uniforms.

I think they're grossly overrated, but not bad. I know this is going to be an unpopular opinion, but my main problem with the bears uniforms is that they still have GSH on the sleeves. I understand he had a massive impact on the history of football, especially in Chicago, but I think like every other memorial patches it doesn't need to be a permanent fixture on the uniforms. Then again, I'm not a bears fan, so I'm not advocating it be taken off, I understand how important he was to the franchise, I just think it doesn't look good.

I could sort of understand this if Garth Brooks were from Edmonton, but even that would be dumb. This is ridiculous. Especially considering he has not even played 9 shows at that venue.

And yet oddly enough I think the Yankees do it the worst out of all of them. I unabashedly think the Yankees home pinstripes are among the worst looks in the league. I think out of all of them the Phillies probably do it the best, while still looking bad. I also don't think the Magic copied the Yankees. I disagree about the NNOB thing, I think any team that does it is just trying to look "Old School". Same with using offwhite.

I hate pinstripes. All of them. Yankees, Rockies, White Sox, Phillies, Magic, etc. Even suits. I get that some of those uniforms are "untouchable" but they look like pajamas or clown clothes to me.

Agreed. Also perhaps this is because I grew up with hockey, but it really bothers me that the sponsor's logo takes front and centre on the shirt while the team's crest is relegated to a small patch on the chest.

They're definitely a step up from their old sweaters but I'd be hard pressed to put them anywhere near the top 5. I hate that the chest stripe doesn't wrap all the way around, and the absence of blue from the striping despite being such an important part of their colour scheme bothers me.

I wouldn't call it underrated, its pretty popular. Underutilized perhaps. Its pretty iconic for the Packers and Athletics, and once Seattle gets the Sonics back, and if it gets an NHL team, there will be a solid presence in all 4 leagues once again.

I think Red and Green make a fantastic and underused colour scheme, and I don't understand the "but it looks like Christmas" criticism. Nobody rags on the Flyers for wearing Halloween colours.

I see where you're coming from (minus the love for the Orca). In the case of the Canucks though it has to be blue and green. It represents the location perfectly, and its a lot more unique and particular towards the Canucks than any of the other options they've worn in the past.

That works great too. I'm not insistent on a white helmet, I just wanted to show how bad the silver looks. The worst offender is the white uniform. The jersey, pants and socks are all white, black and with a tint of blue, yet the helmet is silver which looks entirely out of place.

Agreed.

The Carolina Panthers would look much, much better if they dropped silver. Black, Carolina blue and white already mix perfectly well together, with the right amount compliment and contrast. Adding silver just muddies up whats otherwise a great look. I spent 30 seconds in paint to show what I mean.

This. On top of that, a team doesn't need to be named after some intimidating predator or ferocious warrior either. Nobody is intimidated by a team's nickname. Calling yourselves the Lions or Spartans when your team isn't located in Africa or Greece, just for the sake of looking "intimidating", is just silly. A name with regional or significance is always better.

Not unpopular at all.

No.The Canucks have never had an iconic logo, I'll give you that. Though that's more because they've never stuck with a logo. Aside from that, their identity is great. Best colours in the league, classic but distinct striping and the name is great (it's been around as Vancouver's hockey team name since the 40s, fans would not take kindly to a nickname change). Changing all of that would not help the identity crisis, but only exacerbate it. The millionaires identity is bland enough, changing to that would be a significant downgrade. There's no reason for the Canucks to rebrand, they just need to change the logo. Their 40th Anniversary Jersey would make a great road jersey.Agreed. They would just need to put the modemized SIR on it.

No. The Canucks have never had an iconic logo, I'll give you that. Though that's more because they've never stuck with a logo. Aside from that, their identity is great. Best colours in the league, classic but distinct striping and the name is great (it's been around as Vancouver's hockey team name since the 40s, fans would not take kindly to a nickname change). Changing all of that would not help the identity crisis, but only exacerbate it. The millionaires identity is bland enough, changing to that would be a significant downgrade. There's no reason for the Canucks to rebrand, they just need to change the logo.

Kind of. Speaking of the Hurricanes, I actually like the "toilet bowl" logo, and I know that's an unpopular one.

I think the Lightning have nice looking uniforms too. I just think it encroaches too much on another team's identity. I want teams to look good yes, but I also want them to look unique. They need to go back to blue, black, silver and white.

Wrong, I don't see anything wrong with him in a Senators uniform, the Islanders though... yeah that's odd.HE WAS DRAFTED BY THE ISLANDERS!!!!! Why does nobody get that? People do get it. The whole point of this thread is players who look out of place in certain uniforms. When people think of Big Z they think of Boston or sometimes Ottawa. He started his career as an Islander, yes, but he isn't associated with New York. When I think of Markus Naslund, he seems out of place in a Penguins uniform. Martin St.Louis looks strange in a Flames jersey. Peter Forsberg, though technically the same franchise, doesn't look quite right in a Nordique's jersey.

NBA branding is a mess. This picture illustrates whyI'd still take any of those over the "logos" that are just a script in front of a ball.

I agree, now that everyone has a colour tv, there isn't a point to wearing white at home anymore. You're in your home, you should be wearing your colours.

I agree about St. Louis, they look like just another red and blue team to me. Not really bad, just boring and forgettable. I think their cap logo is straight up bad though.

You wonder if this is unpopular? Anything blue and orange is miles ahead of that black crap they used to wear...the grey/silver script looks terrible, and makes the entire think look horrid. still think their grey/white/now gone cream/sky white looks best though The grey is not ideal but its certainly better than black. I'm not an absolute hater of BFBS (I actually think its a big improvement on teams like the Flames and Lions) but it just doesn't work here. The blue and orange contrast perfectly with each other, and the black out of nowhere is just that, out of nowhere. It looks out of place and really brings the uniform down, especially when you've got both blue and orange in the script. The grey isn't the best the Mets have ever looked but I'll take it over the black every time. If you want to see blue and orange done well you need to look no further than Houston and the Tigers roads.

For the longest time as a kid I thought the Wild logo was just an oddly shaped patch of wilderness. I guess I didn't spend a lot of time looking at it though. It was actually after discovering this website and reading it's description that I saw the head, and it did blow my mind. So, thanks CCSLC.