Carolingian Steamroller

From reading the press releases, it looks like the Jazz front office wanted to simplify the brand and go minimalist.

There are no black and yellow teams in the NBA, despite that being a fairly popular scheme (Steelers, Penguins, Bruins..).  The Salt Lake Bees wear black and yellow in the same market. And the Jazz have worn black and yellow in different combinations over the last two seasons.

Bears and Patriots actually played each other in the regular season in 1985, giving us this gem of a spectacle:

4 hours ago, truepg said:

Exactly, and it would look much better with black stripes on yellow and yellow on black and white.

It might be a similar kind of "chrome" thing they put on the court, but comes across only as a gimmick that doesn't do much visually on the unis.

I think it's not so much silver as it is sublimated on the white/black jerseys. It's as close to the base uniform color as they can get. For the yellow uniform, the stripes are either white or the same slight silver as the white uniform.

It looks like they want to evoke the previous design while going opting for a minimalist look at a distance.

It looks like the side view is keeping the current angled stripes, just rendered in grey scale.

2 hours ago, dont care said:

Literally every other team is identified by their color scheme regardless of championship success. If the jazz ever decided to stick with a color scheme longer than 5 years before changing they too would be identified by their color scheme. But now they are making the waters more murky by not being able to decide if they want to be a purple team or a yellow team, this all after being a blue team last year.

In a literal sense, of course teams are identified by color scheme. We who played NBA Jam are well aware of that.

However, the specific reference to those three teams is telling us something more. Lots of teams in the NBA have had long standing color schemes, however, he didn't mention the New York Knicks or Orlando Magic or Portland Trailblazers. He mentioned the three teams that, until last week, had won the most championships.

The Bulls color scheme is great, but they aren't the only team in the NBA to wear red and black. They are the only team in the league to win six rings while wearing red and black.

2 hours ago, fouhy12 said:

The Patriots' red throwbacks are officially back.

 

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-8lt9yxNdY

Richard Dent says hello.

11 hours ago, DJT said:

In a interview Ryan Smith (the Jazz owner) talked about being envious of the Celtics, Lakers, Bulls how they are all identified by their color scheme. 

Those three teams have one thing in common: multiple rings.

The Lakers have had other color schemes but only when they started making multiple finals appearances and winning titles did the purple and gold cement itself as THE Lakers brand. Without Magic and Kareem, would the Lakers have attempted a rebrand in the 90's like the Jazz? 

If Utah beats the Bulls in one of those finals, do they ever move away from purple and blue (and brown and turquoise et al.)?

14 hours ago, Ark said:

 

It seems like people disagreed with this? Why do you disagree? What are your thoughts on stirrups?

K, I'll bite.

Because that style of stirrups has next to zero effect on the overall picture of the uniform. The pants are covering 90% of the stirrup. There's very little separating wearing stirrups like that, as opposed to going full pajama pants, which is why that changeover happened in the first place. To get that look to even work, you also need to wear your pants pretty tight, which looks chaffing and restrictive to me, at least for a game as leisurely as baseball.

With stirrups (or even plain socks) showing above the calf, you get a nice burst of color (for the record, I don't like the late 70's style which was mostly strap either) that complements the cap and undershirts and provides an medium for colorful designs/stripes.

From a purely person perspective, the players just look faster to me with knickers and plenty of sock showing.

@Toodles1980 well that's a lot of interesting history. 

Thank you very kindly for that.

20 hours ago, fouhy12 said:

If this website is correct, they have not worn the new navy jerseys at home.

That's interesting because looking at that data, the Brewers wear their pinstripes and cream uniforms nearly the same number of times. 2021 was a 41-40 split and 2020 was 15-14 with pinstripes getting the extra game each season.

Really they don't have a primary home. They have a weekday home and a weekend home. Sweet deal. Makes me happy because the pinstripes are one of my favorite uniforms in baseball right now.

46 minutes ago, mjd77 said:

 

No...prior to this season, they had occasionally worn the navy at home.

Any chance you have a photo?

59 minutes ago, mjd77 said:

 

It actually makes sense that the navy is now designated as a road alternate only...they can mix in the city connect at home instead.

I believe the navy jersey has always been road only. They have two road jersey and two home jerseys.

Pretty elegant way to divide it up.

The whole rebrand has been terrific. Thinking about investing in the all navy cap myself for trips North.

30 minutes ago, Old School Fool said:

Just noticed the Brewers wore their road alternate hat with their regular road uniform against the Cubs awhile ago. Surprised they haven't worn it at home yet.

 

Brewers have been wearing the gold front panel cap for all road games this year.

1 hour ago, sitboaf said:

Excellent points, and I thank you for dropping some knowledge on us.

I will amend my assessment of the ChiSox to "drew on several local inspirations to make a beautiful uniform that, to an outsider, might appear as just another alternate set." 

Certainly the team was aware they were not creating something fully unique, and that might dampen outside sales, but the ultimate arbiter is the team's own purchasing base, and I'm guessing in that regard, the money will talk–loudly.

It's an interesting story because the Sox explicitly wanted a set that they would be able to use as an alternate for many years. They wanted to design something that would emotionally resonate with Sox fans generally and South Side fans explicitly. That being said, I don't think they remotely anticipated that it would resonate with the fanbase like wind on the Tacoma Narrows bridge.

At least if we measure fan resonance with a design by completely selling out of jerseys/tshirts/sweatshirts with an hour of being offered for sale and the consistent presence of them on the street and at the ballpark.

On 6/9/2022 at 11:32 AM, sitboaf said:

But to me, the ChiSox and Angels failed, making delightful alts, while misreading the assignment.

I'm going to disagree with that sentiment.

It is mostly changing the name on the front to Southside but for a section of town that takes a lot of garbage, not just locally from North Side and suburban residents but on a national level, to openly proclaim yourself the Southside meant a lot. 

It wasn't mentioned in the reveal but the reverse pins also drew a lot of comps locally to the Chicago American Giants who represented Black Chicago and played only a few yards away from 35th and Shields.

To blend in with that the association with the Sox brand and its connection to hip hop with the Polo G song in the reveal struck a nerve in terms of pride of place. It's messy because there's a lot of chicken/egg stuff going on since the gothic font has been used by the Sox for ages and that found its way into hip hop and then back into the uniform but its there.

12 hours ago, fouhy12 said:

As someone within the Boston media bubble, it was funny to come on here to see that City Connect uniform ranked so poorly. It's very well liked by people in the city. It may be garish, and it may not use team colors, but it nailed the CITY part. 

 That's something I noticed and I think there's something to that.

The connection with the city and the fanbase to feel represented.

8 hours ago, Discrim said:

everybody hates the Yellow Red Sox city connect, but you at least know what they were going for...

I actually like the Boston City Connect.

I think I appreciate the degree to which they incorporated all the finish line elements. It's also, from an outside observer, found some love in Boston. So if it connects with the city, I suppose that's the whole point.

This is just my subjective opinion.

35 minutes ago, DarthBrett said:

Noticed the Dodgers wore black shirts with their '22 version of their city connect unis on this past Saturday (they wore blue last year).

 

 

I really think they need to wear a white or black belt with this uni though, there is just too much blue and it needs some contrast in it. But at least it still looks a bit better than last year's version of the uni. 

 

 

Also, they're FINALLY wearing the 'Dodgers' road jersey tonight at Comiskey (yes, I still call it Comiskey).

Seeing the black undershirts and black brimmed caps, now I want the socks to be black too. The fading transition from the blue to black on the sleeve works and it would behoove them to put the same effect on the socks.

California here we come, right back where we started from. California. Californiaaaaaaaaa. Here we come.

The Cowboys have had diverging fonts, stripes, shades of silver, shades of blue, shades of metallic blue all built on top of each that its like a Medieval city.

Trying to impose uniformity would be like slapping the a bunch of neoclassical facades in Siena. Sure it'd be coherent but it would lose some of its soul.

8 hours ago, Sec19Row53 said:

Thanks. It's where I assumed you would go, and I don't disagree with the assessment (you make your points really well, by the way). I just have a hard time accepting dark jerseys as the norm.

Which I understand. 

This is my particular point of view. Part of it is my interest in pre-WWII uniforms and part of it is that I've been doing concepts with monochrome schemes for 7 years, so my eyes are probably more accustomed to that look than most.

2 hours ago, coco1997 said:

Try it with the alternate style lettering with the blue outlined in white with an orange drop shadow, adding in the all black alt cap.

10 minutes ago, adsarebad said:

lots of dislikes..... but why not, since the white jersey have them!?

 

can anyone skilled  make a photoshop to see how it would look?

Hard to spot the pins. You'd need matching pants but it probably looks very similar to the Orlando Magic:

41 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said:

Hmm - why do you think so? I'm genuinely curious..

The Cubs City Connect has the traditional template with the undershirt, socks, belts, and (frequently) cleats all the same color. It uses one type of solid soutache on the sleeve cuffs and pants on a traditional button-down jersey with a roundel stye-sleeve patch. The socks even have classic Northwestern stripes.

The old California Angels have, to my eyes, piping of three different widths between the collar, sleeve cuff, and pant leg. They have blue sleeves/belts with red stirrups/cleats. They've used pull over style collar piping on a button down jersey, which has forced the manufacturer to adjust the seam line in the placket to compensate.

If the Cubs uniform was white with navy blue lettering and everything else stayed the same, you might call conventional.

Another small detail is that the Cubs uniform has space on the sleeve between the soutache and the undershirt (which are the same color) so the former doesn't just fade into the latter like it does for the Angels (its hard to spot where the jersey sleeve ends and the undershirt begins).

Small tweak:

The sleeve stripes are brown/orange/gold and the pants stripes are brown/gold/orange.

Probably should be one or the other.