Chromatic

The "badge" is part of the reason I love them so much. I think it looks great on the jersey.

Those unis were the best Disagree. These are one of, if not the best uniforms in the NBA Gotta ditch the Copperplate to even be considered the best. I don't know why everyone hates the copperplate so much. Is it great? No. Its not bad though. I think it fits with the identity just fine. You guys seriously don't think that awful western-y font they used to have is better, do you?

Those unis were the best Disagree.These are one of, if not the best uniforms in the NBA That's the point of an unpopular opinion thread.I'm discussing the post. That's the point of a thread.

Those unis were the best Disagree. These are one of, if not the best uniforms in the NBA

I understand what you're saying, but you're forgetting that you're wrong.

The inner white part is clearly a C. The blue part is an ugly C, but it's still a C. It is a C in the deformed possible sense. Honestly I've never looked at the white part, but it looking like a rectangular c doesn't justify the logo's existence. Ok, what justifies a logo's existence?Being good.So we can agree the stick in rink's existence is justified then.

The Flying Belichick

As much as I whine about the Orca, I have to admit it could have been so much worse.

Yes. The amount of love this garbage gets is truly mind-boggling. The colour balance is horrendous - to have both jerseys completely devoid of one of your primary colours looks cheap and amateurishly inconsistent. The all-red jersey with the primarily blue helmet is comical; they look like a rec team who ordered their helmets, then found out money was tight and could afford only one colour on their jerseys. Then there's the fact that the jersey designs are completely different, which makes them look like two completely different teams. Again, horribly inconsistent. And that home jersey? Literally the only non-mandated design element is the "ny" under the collar, which is so short width-wise that is looks awkward. There's minimalist design (Colts), and then there's boring. This looks like the same rec team went "Shít! We can't even afford customized stripes, either!". This might be one of the worst looks in the entire league. Do the Giants really wear two different sets of grey pants?

I disagree, I can't think of any asymmetrical uniform design that I think is good.

I agree, but it's still the best logo they've ever had which is probably why it gets so much (baffling) love. The Canucks need to blow it all up and start from scratch again. But since that logo is so (unbelievably) beloved I don't see them ever being able to escape it. I never understood the "boring" argument. It's no less "exciting" than the Habs, Leafs, Packers, Steelers, 9ers, and most other logos considered untouchable classics. They just have enough history behind them to make them see the logos with rose coloured glasses. While the Canucks certainly don't have the same degree of prestige as those teams, but the logo has a level of rapport around BC that is unmatched, especially considering the identity crisis the team has gone through. Its a point of consistency thats been with the team throughout most of its history in one form or another. The problem isn't really that it's boring. It's that it doesn't really relate to the team at all. Says nothing about Vancouver or Canucks. It's a generic logo that could be used for pretty much any team in the league (And no, that's still not a real "C"). It would actually be a great logo for a hockey league, because it's a nice, simple design. For a team, though? It could be anybody.. It has the colours of the team, and yes that is in fact a 'C'. You don't need to explicitly depict your team's nickname in your logo. By your argument Montreal's logo doesn't relate to the team at all, it could just as easily be a Carolina Hurricanes logo. The Philadelphia Eagles logo could just as easily be a Seattle Seahawks logo. And every single baseball logo thats just a roundel with the name inside could be any other team if they just switched names.

I agree, but it's still the best logo they've ever had which is probably why it gets so much (baffling) love. The Canucks need to blow it all up and start from scratch again. But since that logo is so (unbelievably) beloved I don't see them ever being able to escape it. I never understood the "boring" argument. It's no less "exciting" than the Habs, Leafs, Packers, Steelers, 9ers, and most other logos considered untouchable classics. They just have enough history behind them to make them see the logos with rose coloured glasses. While the Canucks certainly don't have the same degree of prestige as those teams, but the logo has a level of rapport around BC that is unmatched, especially considering the identity crisis the team has gone through. Its a point of consistency thats been with the team throughout most of its history in one form or another. And its just what you need in a logo. It's simple enough in concept, a rink with a stick forming a 'C' that it works as a primary logo. It incorporates the team's colours really well. Its the kind of logo you can actually build an identity around. People say it looks outdated, and I would agree if you're talking about the original from the 70s. But thats what is beautiful about it, like the Habs or Bruins logos, it can be updated to fit modern standards. Its just a nice, consistent, recognizable logo for a team that's had monstrosities like a Halloween tinted falling plate of spaghetti or an orca being birthed out of a 'C'. Let's not forget, the idea that the team needed more "exciting" uniforms is what lead to these

This is a good look. But Seattle should not go back to it. Frankly the NFL doesn't need yet another team with a silver helmet and pants and blue/white jersey. The Seahawks currently don't have the nicest look in the league, and it isn't changing any time soon, but they won a Super Bowl in them and frankly if I had it my way they'd introduce an entirely new look.

The issue with this is one uniform usually ends up looking significantly better than the other, for example Montreal's red jerseys are worlds better than their whites.

Pinstripes look bad, so its a massive upgrade.

I agree completely, it adds some much needed contrast

I'd say they both have their issues. current set is a few tweaks away from being really nice.

I'm of the opinion that the main problem with drop shadows is how rarely they're ever executed correctly. The 49ers got it right in the 1990s and its a damn shame they ditched that look. Disagree completely. The current niners look is fixed sleeve stripes away from being perfect. The only team I've ever seen drop shadow work for is the Giants, and that's because it's extremely subtle. Numbers just don't look good in drop shadow. It's a 2 dimensional piece of fabric trying to mimic being in 3D on a player's back. Blegh

Agreed

That is not unpopular by any stretch of the word.

Pinstripes look like hot garbage on a baseball uniform. I understand the Yankees get a pass because of their history. But I'm not sorry at all to see Minnesota ditch them, and hopefully the Rockies follow suit.

That's not even close to unpopular. Too many red white and blue teams in sports That's pretty much fact

The issue with their uniforms is the pattern, not the colour. I like the idea of having a gold wearing team, its a colour they can own. And we all know the NHL doesn't need another blue jersey with gold trim. They should keep the gold and fix the striping.

I agree. It looks haphazardly slopped together.

Kings wouldn't be bad if it weren't for that awful font.