Blandest Uniforms in Modern History

[the admiral 28,295]

They should have kept purple and light blue as their main colors. They never needed navy and still don't.

[eRay 362]

Do All Star uniforms count?

[cheo25 301]

7 hours ago, Ray Lankford said:

More so than any one team, I dislike the trend of downplaying secondary colors in baseball on road jerseys to the point that they're practically invisible on TV. Some examples: 

These are teams with good home and/or alt jerseys (yeah, I like the Rays' look) but the life is sucked right out of them on the road. 

 

That's been exacerbated by the Astros' recent switch to wearing the solid blue caps on the road, too. At least when they've been in the field on the road (Astros are guilty of not having a matching helmet to whatever cap they wear), they had been wearning the orange-billed caps, which are my favorite. I'm afraid those may be on their way to being phased out completely.

[whitedawg22 888]

20 hours ago, Cardsblues02 said:

Ugly? Hell yes...Bland? I don’t see it

 

I also think these were bland. You're right that in a still photo in a studio, with perfect lighting, they're merely ugly. But in action, it looked like they were wearing some kind of mismatched military fatigues. Any resemblance to a gator was lost, and with that, they became bland.

 

[Prince Harry 235]

 

Every Sharks set in history has been pretty interesting up until the switch in 2013. I picked the white one specifically because there’s so much teal on the other one that it’s not as bland. 

 

 

Not a bad look but with the colours the Jets have at their disposal, could be better. If you’re gonna go with double blue, could do it in a more interesting way.

[scraw28 381]

Do movies count? 

[MJWalker45 5,517]

3 minutes ago, scraw28 said:

Do movies count? 

Every team in that movie except New York and Dallas fits that category though.

[Chromatic 2,420]

I do have an issue with using the term “bland” as a critique. It doesn’t really mean anything. It feels like something you say to describe a uniform you don’t like without actually having a reason for why it looks bad. One man’s “bland” is another’s “traditional”. I think context and history determines blandness a lot more than actual design.

[EddieJ1984 1,626]

1 hour ago, Chromatic said:

I do have an issue with using the term “bland” as a critique. It doesn’t really mean anything. It feels like something you say to describe a uniform you don’t like without actually having a reason for why it looks bad. One man’s “bland” is another’s “traditional”. I think context and history determines blandness a lot more than actual design.

 

How else would you describe the padres current look? 

[Mitch B 680]

19 hours ago, seasaltvanilla said:

Besides the shade of green there is nothing interesting about these at all. If they were red or blue or black they wouldn't get nearly the amount of love they do now. And the logo looks straight out of Create-A-Team.

 

I love the colors, but I despise that logo.

[oldschoolvikings 17,618]

1 hour ago, EddieJ1984 said:

 

How else would you describe the padres current look? 

 

Not brown enough.

 

 

 

 

This thread is kind of dopey.

[Bruins 1,358]

1 hour ago, oldschoolvikings said:

This thread is kind of dopey.

 

I resent that. But it's getting there.

 

*Ahem* The definition of bland is as follows, "lacking strong features or characteristics and therefore uninteresting." I also think you could exchange bland with boring.

 

As far as I'm concerned, the scale goes in order Desperate, Unique, Simple, and Bland, and either of the middle two are fine. The new Stars and Leafs jerseys are somewhere on the bland edge of simple in my eyes, especially the Leafs because I think the longer you've been around the less room you have to make a jersey classified as boring. It's "Classic". the Stars jersey I would also define as simple, because it has enough defining aspects (unique shade of green, unforced bevel on logo, fairly unique # font) and is overall just aesthetically pleasing. A perfect example I think is the Dallas jerseys before this set, completely uninspired, with no unique or defining elements, when they already had unique jerseys before w/ the same logo set. I think @Carolingian Steamroller summed it up pretty well on pg. 2, and I agree now that the Nets are going for a certain aesthetic, and even though it could be better it's not one of the blandest in history, it's one of the simplest in history. Probably could've explained this better in my initial post, but I like seeing these discussions play out anyway.

 

[Kaz 1,370]

22 hours ago, insert name said:

Can we stop posting the Jaguars. They've been posted 3 times already. 

No.

[Bathysphere 1,758]

bland

/bland/

• adj. Describes a uniform that disappoints one personally

-I don’t know how to explain exactly why I don’t like this uniform that isn’t decked out with gaudy 21st century design innovations and bells and whistles and Nikespeak, so im just going to call it bland.

 

That’s what I’ve gotten from this thread.

[whitedawg22 888]

21 hours ago, Chromatic said:

I do have an issue with using the term “bland” as a critique. It doesn’t really mean anything. It feels like something you say to describe a uniform you don’t like without actually having a reason for why it looks bad. One man’s “bland” is another’s “traditional”. I think context and history determines blandness a lot more than actual design.

 

I think the definition of "bland" is exactly what's being debated here. We all know what the uniforms of Penn State or Jacksonville look like, with their relative lack of design features. But we're basically trying to identify how the context and history you mention work. And I think that's kind of interesting.

[ScubaSteve 992]

New York Yankees, Penn State football, San Diego Padres, Chicago Bears, Winnipeg Jets

 

I didn't even plan it but I'm sensing a theme..

 

 

[oldschoolvikings 17,618]

Wait... am I doing this right?

 

 

As long as I don't like it, I'm allowed to call it bland, right?

[MCM0313 2,705]

On 6/19/2018 at 9:28 PM, fouhy12 said:

 

Other than the font, these completely lack character. In an effort to make the set mix and match, this uniform has no defining features and does not feature both red and grey together in any element except one helmet. 

Poor Wazzu. As much of a bust as Ryan Leaf was in the pros, and as bad of a human being as he seems to be...they looked really good when he was there. The combination of the shiny silver helmet and pants with that nifty (to me; YMMV) logo looked so sleek and modern. Now they have decided that the silver should be a flat grey and they should have a bunch of mix-and-match uniform options, and they look so. much. worse.

[andrewharrington 4,695]

43 minutes ago, MCM0313 said:

Poor Wazzu. As much of a bust as Ryan Leaf was in the pros, and as bad of a human being as he seems to be...they looked really good when he was there. The combination of the shiny silver helmet and pants with that nifty (to me; YMMV) logo looked so sleek and modern. Now they have decided that the silver should be a flat grey and they should have a bunch of mix-and-match uniform options, and they look so. much. worse.

 

For what it’s worth, the school colors are crimson and gray, not crimson and silver. They just don’t use the right combinations to showcase this properly.

[insert name 5,002]

Bland to me is something uninspired and doesn't leave any reaction from me. As pointed out 5 times, the Jaguars are bland because they don't leave any lasting impression on me and there's nothing unique about them. The Yankees are not bland because those uniforms left a huge legacy behind. When people see pinstripes, they think Yankees.