VDizzle12

I don't know, I feel like the ram logo is generic and feels like clip art. Guess these hats aren't terrible. A bit meh though. I'm surprised the NFL doesn't do more to make them fit into the host cities.

I guess I'm in the minority. I would rather see throwback uniforms be as accurate as possible. The Bucco uniforms would never work with pewter helmets, the Browns uniforms don't make sense with orange helmets, the Packers uniforms shouldn't have yellow helmets, etc. If a team wants to wear an alternate helmet for 2-3 games a year, who cares? We've already seen several teams switch out facemask colors or decals. To me that's just an unnecessary change. The Bills or Jets saying hey look at us how cool we switched from gray to white facemasks for one game! or the Chiefs wearing a gray facemask and calling it a throwback uniform.

I think the alternate/throwbacks can only be worn a combination of 3 teams. Most teams don't mix in their color rush or throwback pants with the primary home/road uniforms. When I think of Oregon and college football it's 5 jerseys, 5 pants and 5 helmets that create a different combo every week. With new uniform designs ever other year. That will never happen in the NFL.

When Nike took over, everyone thought every NFL team would become Oregon. There's been some good and some bad design with modern touches. But I think it's safe to say no team has "become Oregon". Closest examples we have are probably Seattle and the LA Chargers when it comes to jersey and pant options. Luckily they are smart enough to not go crazy with options. College football has no higher power to regulate brands and limit uniforms. Schools can basically do whatever they want. The NFL has a crap ton of rules in place to keep teams in line. If anything an alternate helmet will be treated like an alternate jersey. Only 3 uses allowed and probably required to be used with the alternate jersey.

Technically the Browns should be like this if they are going back to their original 1946 set: I would assume they are settling for a plain orange helmet instead. They didn't start wearing orange helmets until 1950 and not full time until 1952. There's a lot of irony in that a team that basically started out wearing multiple helmets is only allowed to wear 1 color now.

I don't think the 49ers ever needed black in their identity. Like KC it's fine in the logo, but just because it's in the logo doesn't mean it needs to be in the entire uniform. Also don't think many teams want to jump right back one set when deciding a throwback. I mean could you imagine any of these being throwbacks this season?

Seems unnecessary and pretty poor execution of the Erie Otters "chrome" helmet. Seems like if college and AHL teams can do chrome or gold, an OHL team should be able to figure it out.

The alternative helmet can only be worn with the alternative jersey 3x in the regular season. Problem solved. I couldn't care less if a team wanted a throwback or color rush specific helmet. As long as the main helmet is worn for most of the season.

Has every team with green in their color scheme tried volt/highlighter green at some point? Sure seems like it. I liked it when Oregon first started because their colors are yellow and green. Volt felt like a combination of both. All these other teams just seem like poor imitations.

This is my favorite set Oregon has ever had. The colors just look so awesome and the patterns are well done without being over the top.

Erie Otters 25th Anniversary alternate: Big "meh" from me. Seems like their uniforms just keep getting worse and worse. They took a step in the right direction a few years ago bringing back the otter logo. But still botched it by forcing "Erie" in the helmet. Maybe I'm biased because I grew up with the red/blue/gold look.

You're probably right. Looked into it more and found that they have a 10-year deal for $90 million. Only paying $4 million more than they did Cal. Not a bad deal when put into perspective.

I'm assuming Notre Dame will be the next UA casualty? Hopefully all 3 teams go with Nike and not Adidas.

All I see is this:

This. I'm actually annoyed that schools that use Jordan Brand for football and basketball, don't carry that to all sports.

I actually see SDC more than those. Overall it just seems outdated and a bit boring.

I feel like the XFL knew the Vipers were a risky bet and went overly generic on purpose. Maybe they just expected the AAF to fold and move the team to Orlando after a season or two. Almost every other team has a nickname or logo associated with the city.

I really like the IS state logo, but not as a read-through. That alone, with a star in the bottom left. Done.

Seattle's are so close. One of the best helmets along with NY. But the mismatched side panels drove me insane. Makes no sense.

Shoot my bad. Completely forgot it was Starter.

I'd assume it's because they couldn't get deal with a big apparel company. Seems like this would have been perfect for Under Armour or Adidas since they had an AAF deal. I'm actually shocked that the uniforms nice though.

I was wondering the same thing. I think some solid secondaries could really round out a good set of logos. Monograms for teams like NY and St Louis, more detailed logos for Tampa Bay and Los Angeles.

Two good logos so far. Like the simplicity of the Tampa Bay Vipers.

It's usually better for smaller schools to just stick with UA. Typically they end up with more unique designs as opposed to a generic Nike template. Nike doesn't seem to care unless you're Syracuse, Duke, UNC, etc.

Not only will fans hate it, but how terrible would this be for the players and employees of the organization? Imagine having to move your family 1500 miles away to a different country in the middle of the baseball season.