throwuascenario

And people also love BFBS, GFGS, mono white, leotard socks, and NBA city edition uniforms (which are only slightly more off-brand than throwbacks). So what?

The logo on their current uniforms are 1000x better than the ones on the throwbacks. I don't really love any of their logos they've had, although I like the concept in general. They just haven't quite gotten the execution down. I'd like to see them split the difference in cartooniness between their 90's logo and their current logo, with the overall shape of the 90's logo. A perfect example of how not to use throwbacks.

Easy. Use the throwback full time and dump the garbage main uniform.

What did we get this design for - 2 years? It was perfect and should be brought back and never touched again. Side note: the midfield logo was noticeably larger with the old logo this past week than in the photo shown. I liked the bigger size but yeah, this wordmark is 1000% better than the old one. PPS: This past week was the exact right way to use a throwback. It should be as a once-in-a-blue moon special occasion with a REASON behind it. Using throwbacks as standard alternates drives me crazy.

This is not at all how businesses work. The Coyotes - as an entity - would be the ones agreeing to the 30 year clause, not the owners. Any subsequent owners would still be beholden to it. They are agreeing to it by buying the team that has the clause in place. The city can't stop the owners from selling, but they can stop the team from bailing on its agreement. I also don't get why everyone here is acting like this is so abnormal. Every stadium or arena that gets built - or even renovated - using public money does this exact same thing. Why would a city put money into a building just for the team to move two seconds later? This is how teams get public money for stadiums, by giving up the right to relocate within a certain period of time. Here in Indy, I believe the Pacers just agreed to a 20-year lease just to have the building renovated. The Colts signed something similar when their stadium was built.

What's worse is that many teams insist on sticking the anniversairy logo at center ice, where the team's primary branding is supposed to go.

I just don't like either the Senators or Coyotes uniforms. The Senators logo looks like it was drawn with a pencil and the uniforms are way too dark. The Coyotes having a million different colors and all of them being dark just doesn't do it for me. The reason I don't like them isn't because they both went back to an old uniform. Those uniforms just weren't that good in the first place.

I seriously think cricket might have a bigger following in the Raleigh area than NASCAR. It's probably the place in NC that follows NASCAR the least. Nevertheless, the numbers are my favorite thing about the jerseys. They're not trying to be Boston, New York, Toronto, or Chicago. Raleigh is a non-traditional market and these numbers reflect that. Plus, they're bold and look great.

I don't think that when the jerseys come out has any impact on how good they look. These just happen to be both their oldest design and their best. The two have no correlation, but in this case they overlap. The numbers on the other reds are so much weaker and more generic that they bring down the entire jersey. Add the warning stripe (the most signature element of the jerseys) being smaller and ghosted and it isn't close. If they changed those two things, I'd take the modern jerseys. As both stand today, I'll take the ones with character and identity over the ones that look "less dated". Comparing these to other teams who have gone to old jerseys is pointless. The Senators old/new jerseys stink. It's not because they're old. It's just because they're bad. Same with the Coyotes. Some teams pull it off (Buffalo in hockey, Tampa Bay and Cleveland in football) because they never should have switched in the first place. I put the Hurricanes far closer to the latter category than the former. We are in complete agreement on the black jerseys. I hate them. I'm not a huge fan of either of their last two iterations of the white uniforms either.

What looks dated about them? They're far and away the best uniforms in franchise history. The reds they just got rid of have some elements that are better (replacing a lot of the silver with black) but its flaws (ghosted warning stripe, generic/weak number font) bring it down. Their perfect jersey would be the 2017-2021 reds but with the NOB/numbers of the originals and a non-ghosted warning stripe. The black ones are fine as an alternate, although I much prefer the old stick and flag logo to the new one. If they can't wear them responsibly (not as a primary and NEVER in the playoffs), then burn them. Every iteration of the Whalers jerseys has been puke-inducing. I'm thrilled to see their signature look finally come back after a decade. I just wish it wasn't an anniversary year one off.

Either Jacksonville has been breaking the rules or the Panthers don't know them. Based on the actions of their current regime, I'd be willing to bet the latter.

I'll never understand this take. Please explain to me how a helmet with branding and colors that haven't been used in nearly 60 years is more on brand than their current branding on a different team color helmet. The Cowboys have had their current logo for decades, it is their look. Their current logo on a different color helmet looks much more "Cowboys" than a logo the majority of fans were never around to see used. I don't get why throwbacks get a pass from the "no alternate helmets" crowd. They are even more off brand than the alternate helmets. The orange Bears helmet says "Bears" far more than that striped contraption they wore a couple years ago. Neither are good but I'll take alternate helmets that at least have their current branding over throwbacks anyways. No alternate helmets at all > recolored alternate helmets > throwback helmets

I was reading about this on panthers.com. There was a QandA and someone asked about why they were only wearing blue once. The response: Apparently, the preseason is counted in the total of 3. And the Panthers absolutely refuse to wear black on the road early in the year (including preseason). So between the game against WAS that was just too darn hot to wear black and the NFL totally unfairly forcing them count their "second primary" helmet as an alternate, there's only one game left to wear blue. See, they're the victims. They had no say in the matter at all. (Ironic if you can't tell)

So is this confirmation that the Panthers have made the blue jerseys the primaries after 27 years of the blacks? This seems like something they would've mentioned. Side note: Say what you will about the Dolphins' current logo, but it's the best logo they've ever had and it's not particularly close.

The odd thing to me about this unveil, is it seems this helmet is universally liked by non-Panthers fans, but not so with Panthers fans. Not sure I've seen that dynamic with an unveiling before. Black would be my 4th choice for the primary helmet color, after blue, white, and silver in that order. I'd be interested to see an color inverted version of the logo on a black helmet, just to see how it looks. If the logo was primarily blue and therefore, visible, my opinion might be different. I will say that if they MUST wear black pants, the black helmet looks the best with them. I'd much rather see both of them thrown out though. I don't think there was really a problem with silver being in the color scheme, but a white helmet would be a better solution to eliminating it.

Upgrade over their preivous set, mostly by default.

As long as they don't change the jerseys, they won't reach full on disaster mode. But this was about the worst thing they could do short of that. I knew the logo would disappear on the helmet, a blue helmet would've looked 1,000x better. This helmet would've looked much better paired with the blue jersey too. Although I disagree that they should switch to the blue jersey full-time. Blue helmet/black jersey/blue pants would be their ideal look to me. That would have been almost impossible to apply consistently.

Am I the only one that missed the Jazz' 360? I must have missed something and can't find anything about them reverting to their old jerseys.

I don't think it blends into purple from a distance. These numbers still look the same color as the pants to me. Besides, the red jerseys have red touching blue and doesn't look purple. I actually prefer the striping you've presented on the bottom to their actual striping. The logo looks awful but that has more to do with all that being smushed together into a small space. It wouldn't look nearly as bad if you made the blue H the size of the white H instead of keeping the blue outline.

Actually, the white coming between the red and blue reminds me more of a milksteak with ketchup than anything. One outline is the exact correct number of outlines in all cases, sorry. Single color numbers and double/triple outlined numbers just aren't as good. Even worse when one of them is a ghosted outline. Even worse than that is when the outline is ghosted and then the outer outline is the same color as the number. So at least they don't have that.

I think that the Canadiens' current white jerseys are more dated than their '70s counterparts. That ghosted number outline is awful and has been dated since about 2005.

I liked the orange as an alternate when it had the royal blue numbers and stripes. The navy on it looked awful and nothing should ever be their primary except what they just brought back. So basically I think they had it exactly right in 2016.

No but how many times did they really wear that? Side note, I do think it's interesting how different sports have evolved to have such different norms. Mismatched jersey/shorts looks so out of place on a basketball court, but most people here woud agree that it's how football uniforms should always be worn.

I didn't like these at all when they came out but they really grew on me. Swap out that green for yellow and these jerseys are some of their best in team history. I really don't like their current uniforms. They're both bland and garish at the same time.

I was pointing out that it's extremely inconsistent to say having multiple of the same logo on a uniform is redundant. There are multiple of plenty of things on uniforms and nothing else is called redundant.