Super Bowl 50 Aesthetics

[CreamSoda]

11 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

 

Yeah, it looks pretty great.  Their white set is so drab since it's essentially just white and navy with very little orange.  Maybe if the "swoosh"s were orange it would be better, but as it stands, these pants really liven it up.

 

 

 

So isn't the bolded sentence essentially an endorsement for orange pants, since the white top and orange bottom exactly offset the orange top and white bottom of the home set?

 

ALso a game against the chiefs would be ugly with orange clashing against red, but that's an issue that pretty much every team has against a few opponents, so it's irrelevant.  

 

 

Let me clarify.  I personally think the white set should be either all white or use very light colored pants like silver or gold.  

 

When a team uses dark colored pants on their away set the color distribution for both home and away teams become 50/50 between color and white.  

 

There is no color heirarchy for the home teams colored uniforms. 

 

[WSU151]

12 hours ago, Heitert said:

There's too much going on. There should never be three different pieces of a uniform that prominently feature three different colors. Here you have navy helmet, white jersey, orange pants. IMO, the helmet color should match the pants as much as possible, if not, go with white pants. 

 

There are dozens of great-looking exceptions to this "rule".  Saying "never" is pretty foolish.  I can post about 40 other uniforms, but these were the quickest to mind...

[AHcreative]

I see your point, but for the most part, I stand by my opinion. Those Rams uniforms were the best, but I would argue that the helmet featured enough gold to allow for the pants to be gold as well. 

 

Honestly, I don't watch college football, so my "rule" doesn't really apply there, I suppose. That SC uni is pretty decent looking, as is the West Virginia. However, the Ole Miss uniform would look better with white pants (which I did state if the helmet doesn't match the pants, just go with white pants). 

 

As far as those 49ers uniforms go, I feel as though those were the weakest set they ever wore. These beauties were the best: 

Perfect balance of colors. Gold helmet to match the gold pants. And a well-executed addition of black to tie in their logo to the color scheme. 

[JosiahWVU]

3 hours ago, WSU151 said:

 

There are dozens of great-looking exceptions to this "rule".  Saying "never" is pretty foolish.  I can post about 40 other uniforms, but these were the quickest to mind...

Georgia(road), Redskins, and Browns also.

[TheBigFiz21]

I'm seeing both of sides of the argument over a free-for-all playoffs vs the current AFC/NFC divide. I like taking the best of both worlds and introducing potential SB matchups with rivalries, history, etc. behind it. Then, on the opposite side of it, you'd lose the need to have 2 conferences, let alone 8 divisions (unless you continue using the current scheduling system in tact). 

[IceCap]

Getting rid of the AFC/NFC divide just so you could potentially get a Washington/Dallas matchup just seems silly. Like when my dad complains about the fact that the Leafs and Habs can never play for the Cup again (like clockwork come playoff time).

These "dream" matchups probably won't happen under the free-for-all system nearly as much as you would like to think they would. You though the last decade and a half was boring with the Patriots dominating? Imagine if nearly every Super Bowl during that time span were Brady's Pats vs Manning's Colts. Yeah. At least the NFC/AFC divide forced a degree of variety.

 

Anyway, I have a theory regarding why the NFC and AFC logos aren't on the field. It's happened once before. Super Bowl XXIX. Chargers vs 49ers. The NFL's 75th anniversary season. That was during the dual helmet endzone template days. Only the second helmets didn't have the Conference logos like they usually did. They just had the NFL shields in each endzone. Why? 75th anniversary of the NFL. The AFC and NFC logos were back in the secondary helmets in both endzones for Super Bowl XXX, the last year of the dual helmet template.

My guess is that the NFL likes to downplay the AFC and NFC logos during "big" anniversaries so they can put the league's brand front and centre. We'll see if the NFC and AFC logos return for Super Bowl LI.

[Sykotyk]

2 hours ago, TheBigFiz21 said:

I'm seeing both of sides of the argument over a free-for-all playoffs vs the current AFC/NFC divide. I like taking the best of both worlds and introducing potential SB matchups with rivalries, history, etc. behind it. Then, on the opposite side of it, you'd lose the need to have 2 conferences, let alone 8 divisions (unless you continue using the current scheduling system in tact). 

 

The Arena Football League had, for years, a league-wide playoff. Even with a high of 19 teams, it was a league-wide field. It wasn't until NBC got on board that they switched to East/West (essentially). The old system was superior. You had ArenaBowls between league icons San Jose/Arizona or Tampa Bay/Orlando. It made the playoffs interesting because you could play anybody any week. And two great teams, even if regular rivals, could be paired up in the title game.

[TheRicSlick]

3 minutes ago, Sykotyk said:

 

The Arena Football League had, for years, a league-wide playoff. Even with a high of 19 teams, it was a league-wide field. It wasn't until NBC got on board that they switched to East/West (essentially). The old system was superior. You had ArenaBowls between league icons San Jose/Arizona or Tampa Bay/Orlando. It made the playoffs interesting because you could play anybody any week. And two great teams, even if regular rivals, could be paired up in the title game.

What's the point of a regular season? That format makes every NBA regular season game look important.

[Sykotyk]

Just now, rickyISking said:

What's the point of a regular season? That format makes every NBA regular season game look important.

You still had to qualify for the playoffs. It just was a field of the entire league, instead of two separate brackets.

[TheRicSlick]

Anybody else see the Super Bowl 100 logo?

[Gothamite]

55 minutes ago, rickyISking said:

Anybody else see the Super Bowl 100 logo?

 

You mean the joke one in the commercial?  Yeah.  

[zigbazah]

I thought the jersey patch looked really good, especially in the sunlight.  

[ConcreteCharlie]

10 hours ago, WSU151 said:

 

There are dozens of great-looking exceptions to this "rule".  Saying "never" is pretty foolish.  I can post about 40 other uniforms, but these were the quickest to mind...

 

 

I'll add this,

[Silence of the Rams]

Now on to Daytona. This inspired me for something. Hold one one min.

[j'villejags]

Denver's decision to avoid wearing the orange jersey paid off. 

[Cujo]

7 hours ago, rickyISking said:

Anybody else see the Super Bowl 100 logo?

 

[Pabig]

5 hours ago, j'villejags said:

Denver's decision to avoid wearing the orange jersey paid off. 

No it didn't. The jersey the wore had absolutely no effect on the outcome of the play. Don't be foolish and believe that it actually affected the score.

[j'villejags]

52 minutes ago, Pabig said:

No it didn't. The jersey the wore had absolutely no effect on the outcome of the play. Don't be foolish and believe that it actually affected the score.

I know. I don't actually believe that. I was being facetious. 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

(Something is going goofy with the board.  I am trying to quote @Sykotyk, but the board won't let me.  I have to paste the text, then hit the button with the quote marks.)
 

Quote

The Arena Football League had, for years, a league-wide playoff. Even with a high of 19 teams, it was a league-wide field. It wasn't until NBC got on board that they switched to East/West (essentially). The old system was superior. You had ArenaBowls between league icons San Jose/Arizona or Tampa Bay/Orlando. It made the playoffs interesting because you could play anybody any week. And two great teams, even if regular rivals, could be paired up in the title game .

 

I was a fan of the Arena Football League during that time -- first of the CityHawks, then of the Dragons.  And I preferred the two-conference system. A Tampa Bay - Orlando Arena Bowl just shouldn't happen.  That feels like a conference final. 

 

By the way, the two-conference system came in in 2005, two years after the NBC deal began. The absurdity of ignoring the conferences and even the divisions was illustrated in 2004 when the Dragons won the division but didn't make the playoffs, because playoff spots were given out without regard to division standings.  This was rectified the following year when the division winners were guaranteed a spot in the playoffs, and the playoffs went to conference-based.

 

But, anyway, the NFL is in a different position structurally from the Arena League or from the NBA or NHL, in that both of the NFL's conferences are nation-wide, whereas those other leagues' conferences are eastern and western (notwithstanding the AFL's nonsensical naming of its eastern and western conferences as "National" and "American").  For this reason, the NFL more than those other leagues ought to be respecting the idea of conference champions. 

 

Actually, I'd prefer that the importance of conferences and divisions be further emphasised.

 

Now that the NFL has four divisions in each conference, that league could drastically improve its playoff system by allowing only division winners into the playoffs. And to really give the divisions some juice, the tie-breakers should be head-to-head results, then divisional results. Every divisional game would be like a playoff game.

 

Furthermore, the NFL should double-down on the conference identities by dispensing with inter-conference play altogether, and by really treating each conference as a separate circuit.  With 16 teams per conference, the league is set up perfectly to have an 18-game season with no inter-conference play: 2 games vs. each division opponent (6 games), and one game vs. each non-divisional conference opponent (12 games).

 

This would replicate the best playoff system that we have ever seen in any sport, that of Major League Baseball from 1969 through 1993.  By allowing only division winners into the post-season, the Majors increased the playoff field without sacrificing the traditional requirement that a team be a champion in order to participate.  This was enormously effective, as divisional titles really meant something to teams in that period, almost equivalent to a pennant in the pre-divisional-play era.  For instance, the White Sox and Blue Jays recently held celebrations of the anniversaries of their divisional titles in 1983 and 1985, respectively.  Those teams feel like champions, despite the fact that they didn't ultimately win their league pennants.
 

The NFL could increase the integrity of its playoffs and also the importance of its regular season by implementing this kind of playoff system.

[kroywen]

1 hour ago, Pabig said:

No it didn't. The jersey the wore had absolutely no effect on the outcome of the play. Don't be foolish and believe that it actually affected the score.

That's absolutely true, but I can almost guarantee that the Broncos won't wear orange if they make it back to the Super Bowl in the next ~25 years, or for as long as Elway is involved in the organization. The only way they will is if they're the designated "away" team, and the NFC team wants to wear white. After last night's result, the "orange curse" is going to stay in the Broncos' head for a long, long time.