sky1324

Yeah, in fact, the reason they went with that shade is it was between Carolina blue and Duke's royal blue. So it's purposefully not Carolina blue.

People are saying both electric and Carolina blue, both of which are wrong. The official shade is "Panthers blue", or PMS Process Blue.

This might be my most unpopular opinion yet - while the creamsicle will always be the Bucs' best look, I actually prefer their Winston-era uniforms to the Super Bowl ones. In the months since they were revealed, I've really soured on them (especially that terrible pewter alt) and I just really like the color balance of the Winston-era unis. This image in particular looks freaking fantastic to me. The pewter yoke balances out the pants very nicely and the bright red really catches in the Florida sun. I don't even mind the massive helmet logo, it looks perfect on Winston in particular (but too big on #68 there). There are a couple caveats to this, however: the number font is baaaaad. Like, really bad. It should've been a more traditional block. Second, the mismatching sleeve logos was not a good decision, it should've been the pirate ship on both sides. Third, red socks only, please. Those changes and I think this would be essentially the best "cannonball" look the Bucs could have. It'll always be inferior to the creamsicle, but it's still better than the Super Bowl look.

No clue how popular/unpopular this is, but I hate the manufacturer-specific designs in soccer. The adidas three stripes in particular are annoying (especially the MLS template where it goes over the shoulder on one side) and I wish it was more like other sports where the manufacturer doesn't have a "design element" outside of their logo on the jerseys.

I'll clarify my position on this: the Buffaslug is the best logo they've had, but it's not the logo they should have, if that makes sense. From a design standpoint, I like it more than "Charging Buffalo, Crossed Swords" and the Goathead. It's similar to my opinion on the Pistons: I prefer the horse logo, but I recognize that their current logo is the one they should use due to nostalgia.

The biggest change the Panthers have ever made to the design of their uniform (aside from updating the logo, of course) was removing the logo from the pants in 2018 when they updated templates. The Panthers are a very traditionally-minded team in terms of uniform design and quite honestly they should stay that way.

Houston's got really solid uniforms, but they're nothing special. They are very much fitting for the Texans franchise: solid, but forgettable. The best thing the Texans could do is make the red jersey, white pants, red socks their default home uniform.

That's awesome, it's about time another team became the Monarchs. Much better than T-Bones and the logo's not half-bad. That KC monogram is great as well.

I understand why people want helmet stripes (and I agree that they'd look much better with them), but I'm pretty sure the reason they don't have any right now is to not give fans any design elements to be attached to during the Football Team era. I guarantee you we'll see them when the team has a proper name.

Actually, I'll add to that: the Buffaslug is the best logo the Sabres have ever had. It is far, far better than their current logo and it's obviously better than the goathead.

Probably because they're the one Arizona team that has never used "Phoenix". I agree that Phoenix is a better identifier than Arizona.

It's not on the pants anymore, and hasn't been since 2018.

Yeah, a bigger stroke is one of the things I'd improve if I redid the concept. Yeah, a 25-year-old team with two Super Bowl appearances and two other NFC championship appearances is historically bad. A gimmicky rebrand would be a disaster for our brand identity.

While I get where you're coming from, I personally really like how white over white looks with blue socks, so I'd rather they keep that. Plus, having blue socks but no blue pants completely avoids the possibility of a leotard look, just like the most recent Chargers update. If they had blue pants, I'd want only black socks, which could work pretty well.

Yeah, that's the point. The silver is superfluous in the identity and axing it in favor of a blue helmet is the right way to go. Not to self-promote, but I did explore this concept about a year ago: I removed silver, burned the black socks, and replaced the sleeve logo with TV numbers. As long as there are no blue pants, this set would be pretty much perfect. The only thing it requires is a new logo with a preferably black stroke, to avoid the awful blending that happens too often with the current logo.

On the contrary, what they should do get rid of silver and only go with blue socks. A blue helmet would be almost completely unique in the league, since every other blue helmet is either navy or royal blue. Silver pants would be fine, I guess, if they were actually metallic and not a dull gray. They looked much better back when metallic fabrics were used.

I actually prefer the NBA logo on the back of the jerseys. It doesn't get in the way of the team's design if it's on the back and it looked a little out of place without something opposite it. Now, moving it to the back to make room for ads? That I'm not a fan of.

I keep seeing this combo get posted (usually with people hating it) but I cannot for the life of me dislike it. Somehow it all comes together perfectly for me. In fact, this might be my favorite Ravens combo. Also, white at home is lame and really unnecessary nowadays. The only sport that should keep white at home is baseball.

The other issue is that Golden State is a stupid name and very unfitting for a state where the most popular NBA team plays. I'm pretty firmly against regional nicknames as identifiers for anybody, forget a collegiate-sounding wannabe traveling team that already has historical precedent for the dignified "San Francisco Warriors".

I wouldn't mind it if it didn't look bad.

Not sure how unpopular this is, but I absolutely hate how the Flyers have contrasting nameplates. I'd understand if it was tradition, but it only started in the late 2000s. Their original jerseys had normal nameplates, there's no reason for them to continue to do this, it's simply different for the sake of being different.

I've thought that "Milwaukee Schooners" was a nice name, inspired by the start of the Milwaukee Bridge War. I don't know much about Milwaukee to be honest, it's just a name that appeals to me. Louisville is trickier, but Louisville Brawlers (or Kentucky Brawlers, if you prefer) for Muhammad Ali would be neat. I can see either a really vintage, old-style identity or a really cutting-edge, hardcore brand.

I think that they're fine as they are, but if you're unhappy with them then the right choice is to move them. I can't really give you ideas for those cities, but whatever you do make will be good, that's for sure.

If we're splitting hairs like that, than the Braves should have four cities: Boston, Milwaukee, Atlanta, and Cumberland, their new home. I know you're joking, but for accuracy's sake I'll chime in.