NFL 2022 Changes

[AnPheitseog]

NFL rules used to be that alternates had to either be a throwback or a colour swap of a primary. I'm sure they've been relaxed, but that's why we see so many throwbacks in the NFL.

[WSU151]

On 10/7/2022 at 5:08 PM, fouhy12 said:

Yep, it's the Sullivan endzones but not filled in.

 

 

 

 

These end zones look great...I think I love that it uses the entire end zone.

 

The Pats' social media team may be easter-egging us. I think - based on what I can remember - that the  wordmark in the bottom right corner (under the digital Pat logo) is close to the end zone wordmark used from 1990-92. It's pretty similar.  Also close to the wordmark used on the back bumpers of those early 90s years. 

[TBGKon]

On 10/7/2022 at 9:13 PM, Ark said:

I want to see Patriot Pats vs. Bucco Bruces

Couldnt happen until 2025 due to the conference division rotation.

[Carolingian Steamroller]

On 10/6/2022 at 3:14 PM, Sec19Row53 said:

Nor is it necessary.

 

In the case of your great suit, that suit isn't your brand (you are). If you change your clothes, you aren't affecting your brand. The same isn't true of a sports team (or other franchise).

 

Clearly, it's about the ability to make more money. If it weren't, you'd see McDonald's outfit their employees in throwback uniforms. I don't have to like it, because my preference for sports teams is to always look your best. I won't convince people that I'm right (because who know if I am), but it's what we do here

 

So about that. 

 

Best can have different meanings depending on the context. For example, your best suit might be black but that's not going to the best look if you have to go to court. It will definitely look off if instead of going to court, you go camping. Similarly, context matters for uniforms.

 

Take for example the Los Angeles Chargers.

 

IMO their best look is the powder blue jersey over gold pants. I think its top 5 in all of football. We can debate that but this is my opinion.

 

However, would that pairing be ideal on a day the Green Bay Packers or Pittsburgh Steelers come to town? Those teams sole road uniforms look like this and this:

 

So on that occasion, to avoid an all yellow pants affair, the Chargers would be better off, and look better aesthetically, by wearing their white pants. Not their best look but the best for the situation:

 

 

An alternate or throwback can give a team the opportunity to wear something that fits the opponent a little better.

 

To give another example, I confess my own bias but I adore the Chicago Bears navy blue over white home uniform. A. D. O. R. E. it. I think its THE best in football. (Long standing, capital S, SUFFERING Bears fan that I am).

However, I admit that this:

 

 

Looked better than this:

 

 

Context matters and alternates make for opportunities. Teams don't always take proper advantage but at least the option is there.

[fouhy12]

52 minutes ago, TBGKon said:

Couldnt happen until 2025 due to the conference division rotation.

It can actually happen next year if both teams finish in the same place in their respective divisions.

 

So yeah, it isn't happening until 2025. 

[BBTV]

23 minutes ago, Carolingian Steamroller said:

 

So about that. 

 

Best can have different meanings depending on the context. For example, your best suit might be black but that's not going to the best look if you have to go to court. It will definitely look off if instead of going to court, you go camping. Similarly, context matters for uniforms.

 

Take for example the Los Angeles Chargers.

 

IMO their best look is the powder blue jersey over gold pants. I think its top 5 in all of football. We can debate that but this is my opinion.

 

However, would that pairing be ideal on a day the Green Bay Packers or Pittsburgh Steelers come to town? Those teams sole road uniforms look like this and this:

 

So on that occasion, to avoid an all yellow pants affair, the Chargers would be better off, and look better aesthetically, by wearing their white pants. Not their best look but the best for the situation:

 

 

An alternate or throwback can give a team the opportunity to wear something that fits the opponent a little better.

 

To give another example, I confess my own bias but I adore the Chicago Bears navy blue over white home uniform. A. D. O. R. E. it. I think its THE best in football. (Long standing, capital S, SUFFERING Bears fan that I am).

However, I admit that this:

 

 

Looked better than this:

 

 

Context matters and alternates make for opportunities. Teams don't always take proper advantage but at least the option is there.

 

You're not wrong, and as a fan of aesthetics, I just want the best looking game possible even if it means mixing and matching to avoid clashes - however, it's not any team's responsibility to think like that and sacrifice their look in order to accommodate whatever their opponent is wearing.  A team should have the mentality that it's all about them, and not the bigger picture.  I feel like I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth because I'm saying that what I personally like is different than how I think a team should act, but if I'm a decision maker for a team, I'm wearing the look that best represents our team's brand regardless of what the opponent is wearing.

 

 

[Sec19Row53]

51 minutes ago, Carolingian Steamroller said:

 

So about that. 

 

Best can have different meanings depending on the context. For example, your best suit might be black but that's not going to the best look if you have to go to court. It will definitely look off if instead of going to court, you go camping. Similarly, context matters for uniforms.

 

Take for example the Los Angeles Chargers.

 

IMO their best look is the powder blue jersey over gold pants. I think its top 5 in all of football. We can debate that but this is my opinion.

 

However, would that pairing be ideal on a day the Green Bay Packers or Pittsburgh Steelers come to town? Those teams sole road uniforms look like this and this:

 

So on that occasion, to avoid an all yellow pants affair, the Chargers would be better off, and look better aesthetically, by wearing their white pants. Not their best look but the best for the situation:

 

 

An alternate or throwback can give a team the opportunity to wear something that fits the opponent a little better.

 

To give another example, I confess my own bias but I adore the Chicago Bears navy blue over white home uniform. A. D. O. R. E. it. I think its THE best in football. (Long standing, capital S, SUFFERING Bears fan that I am).

However, I admit that this:

 

 

Looked better than this:

 

 

Context matters and alternates make for opportunities. Teams don't always take proper advantage but at least the option is there.

Lifelong Packer fan. Hate the Bears. LOVE their uniforms.

 

Never will I agree that the top picture is a better look for the Bears.

[VikWings]

I think the NFL needs a rule like soccer where teams can't wear the same color pants

 

(unless it's a team with only 1 pants option).

[Carolingian Steamroller]

1 hour ago, Sec19Row53 said:

Lifelong Packer fan. Hate the Bears. LOVE their uniforms.

 

Never will I agree that the top picture is a better look for the Bears.

 
Didn’t say better look for the Bears. Better for that specific game.

[Carolingian Steamroller]

1 hour ago, BBTV said:

 

You're not wrong, and as a fan of aesthetics, I just want the best looking game possible even if it means mixing and matching to avoid clashes - however, it's not any team's responsibility to think like that and sacrifice their look in order to accommodate whatever their opponent is wearing.  A team should have the mentality that it's all about them, and not the bigger picture.  I feel like I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth because I'm saying that what I personally like is different than how I think a team should act, but if I'm a decision maker for a team, I'm wearing the look that best represents our team's brand regardless of what the opponent is wearing.

 

 

Generally there’s a lot of overlap between a team’s best look and best for that specific match up and usually the home team gets to set the tone unless you’re dealing with a very specific opponent who has limited option of their own. 
 

For example, Bears at Seattle. The Seahawks favor the mono blue. It’s their signature look, love it or hate it. I’ve hated it when the Bears go white over blue for those games since it’s a sea of blue pants and helmets. It’s one of the few instances I would want the Bears to go mono white. But last year was great when Seattle went blue over grey. 

[BBTV]

4 minutes ago, Carolingian Steamroller said:

Generally there’s a lot of overlap between a team’s best look and best for that specific match up and usually the home team gets to set the tone unless you’re dealing with a very specific opponent who has limited option of their own. 
 

For example, Bears at Seattle. The Seahawks favor the mono blue. It’s their signature look, love it or hate it. I’ve hated it when the Bears go white over blue for those games since it’s a sea of blue pants and helmets. It’s one of the few instances I would want the Bears to go mono white. But last year was great when Seattle went blue over grey. 

 

if ever the Bears should break out their long-rumored orange pants, that would be the time,

[Sec19Row53]

2 hours ago, Carolingian Steamroller said:

 
Didn’t say better look for the Bears. Better for that specific game.

I understand. My hill to die on is that your best look is your best look, regardless of situation. 

[MJD7]

8 hours ago, Sec19Row53 said:

I understand. My hill to die on is that your best look is your best look, regardless of situation. 

I know I won’t change your mind on this (which is completely fine & understandable), but I’m going to make a case against it anyway.

 

One could argue that the purpose of a sports uniform is to visually distinguish one team of players from the other team. Rarely will you see a sports uniform in isolation and not contrasted against another team. So, when the Bears play in Seattle and both teams have navy helmets & pants, the game looks muddied and it’s more difficult to tell the teams apart than it needs to be. Thus, both teams are somewhat failing to fulfill what a sports uniform is meant to do. Usually more of the onus is on the away team in this regard, since they would adjust to what the home team chooses, although the home team can help to make it a better matchup, too.

 

Another example would be the Bengals and Ravens playing tonight. Neither team helped with the contrast in this matchup, with the Bengals wearing black pants and the Ravens going complete black-out. My ideal matchup in this specific case would be the Ravens going purple over white (or maybe even purple pants) and the Bengals breaking out the white pants, maybe even with orange socks, even though I wouldn’t endorse that combo in most scenarios.

 

Essentially, my rule-of-thumb would be that if two teams that are playing each other share a color, or at least shades of similar value, then both teams should generally avoid that shared color as much as possible in favor of the other colors in their respective palettes. Oftentimes this would lead to visually appealing, contrasting matchups.

 

The extreme extension of this argument would result in every game being head-to-toe all-white vs. all-dark color, but I think we can all agree that no one would want that. Then again, maybe that’s part of the appeal of modern day monochrome and white-out looks.

[Sec19Row53]

13 minutes ago, MJD7 said:

I know I won’t change your mind on this (which is completely fine & understandable), but I’m going to make a case against it anyway.

 

One could argue that the purpose of a sports uniform is to visually distinguish one team of players from the other team. Rarely will you see a sports uniform in isolation and not contrasted against another team. So, when the Bears play in Seattle and both teams have navy helmets & pants, the game looks muddied and it’s more difficult to tell the teams apart than it needs to be. Thus, both teams are somewhat failing to fulfill what a sports uniform is meant to do. Usually more of the onus is on the away team in this regard, since they would adjust to what the home team chooses, although the home team can help to make it a better matchup, too.

 

Another example would be the Bengals and Ravens playing tonight. Neither team helped with the contrast in this matchup, with the Bengals wearing black pants and the Ravens going complete black-out. My ideal matchup in this specific case would be the Ravens going purple over white (or maybe even purple pants) and the Bengals breaking out the white pants, maybe even with orange socks. although I wouldn’t endorse that combo in most scenarios.

 

Essentially, my rule-of-thumb would be that if two teams that are playing each other share a color, or at least shades of similar value, then both teams should generally avoid that shared color as much as possible in favor of the other colors in their respective palettes. Oftentimes this would lead to visually appealing, contrasting matchups.

 

The extreme extension of this argument would result in every game being head-to-toe all-white vs. all-black, but I think we can all agree that no one would want that. Then again, maybe that’s part of the appeal of BFBS and white-out looks these days.

I totally understand your take on this. Thanks.

 

You're also right that neither of us will change the other's mind

 

My aesthetic preference is from a time when most teams had a single pair of pants. It's why mono-white doesn't bother me, because it was the frequent default for football teams.

 

I've had my say and should let this drop, but I know myself better than that lol

[BBTV]

37 minutes ago, MJD7 said:

One could argue that the purpose of a sports uniform is to visually distinguish one team of players from the other team. Rarely will you see a sports uniform in isolation and not contrasted against another team. So, when the Bears play in Seattle and both teams have navy helmets & pants, the game looks muddied and it’s more difficult to tell the teams apart than it needs to be. Thus, both teams are somewhat failing to fulfill what a sports uniform is meant to do. Usually more of the onus is on the away team in this regard, since they would adjust to what the home team chooses, although the home team can help to make it a better matchup, too.

 

I thought I read at one time that one of the reasons the Bills went from white to red helmets was that all the other AFCE teams had white helmets and one of their QBs thought that there wasn't enough contrast when he was looking down the field.  I may also have just made that up.

[DCarp1231]

There should never be white pants vs white pants games. Always color vs color or white vs color

[Sec19Row53]

11 minutes ago, BBTV said:

 

I thought I read at one time that one of the reasons the Bills went from white to red helmets was that all the other AFCE teams had white helmets and one of their QBs thought that there wasn't enough contrast when he was looking down the field.  I may also have just made that up.

Or was it Ken O'Brien with the Jets? The Jets went green when the other 4 teams still wore white shells.

[smarisca03]

1 minute ago, Sec19Row53 said:

Or was it Ken O'Brien with the Jets? The Jets went green when the other 4 teams still wore white shells.

Jets went to green way before then

[BBTV]

4 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said:

Or was it Ken O'Brien with the Jets? The Jets went green when the other 4 teams still wore white shells.

 

Yeah it must have been someone on the Jets, since upon further review (per GUD), they deviated from white before Buffalo did.  But,  ALL TIME EAGLES GREAT KEN O'BRIEN - RESPECT THE MAN didn't come around until around 8ish years after the change.

[Carolingian Steamroller]

39 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said:

I totally understand your take on this. Thanks.

 

You're also right that neither of us will change the other's mind

 

My aesthetic preference is from a time when most teams had a single pair of pants. It's why mono-white doesn't bother me, because it was the frequent default for football teams.

 

I've had my say and should let this drop, but I know myself better than that lol

 

It's at least interesting in the sense that it's fun and enjoyable to articulate our positions with the knowledge that we may only add shade and texture to each others positions. Especially since this is a discussion without enmity.

 

With that in mind, let's jump in the Way-Back-Machine Sherman.

 

If we look at the NFL when it really expanded into TV in the 1960's we were still talking about a limited number of franchises. 

 

In 1966, the year of the first Super Bowl, there were 15 teams in the NFL an expansion of 3 since the 1958 Sudden Death OT game which we who grew up on Pete and Pete know was broadcast to the stars.

 

Lets look at the teams that year. Five wore some variation of lighter blue (Giants, Cowboys, Lions, Colts, Rams). Two wore black with the Steelers going black and gold and the Falcons in black with red lids. You had two teams in green with the Eagles being the only green helmeted team. The Cardinals and Niners were the only teams in red jerseys. The (Commanders) wore Burgundy, the Vikings were in purple, the Browns... brown, and the Chicago Bears were the only navy blue team in the league.

That's not a lot of overlap in terms of color palette. Even at a time when 9 out of 15 teams had only white pants, you could have two teams playing and unless the Lions were playing the Cowboys, it wasn't too hard to distinguish between teams based on color alone. As a marketing strategy, teams at the time preferred to distinguish themselves with unique colors, helmet designs (Eagles, Rams, Steelers, Browns).

 

What's happened since then is the homogenization of color palettes. If I told you a team wearing black jerseys and pants played a team going white over navy blue, would you know who I was talking about? I'm not talking about alternates, I'm looking at baseline default uniforms.

 

To an extent, this is just the marketplace we're living in and I'm not going to scream "Get off my lawn" just because the Titans wear a navy helmet (Lord knows there are bigger fish to fry in this world). There's a lot more teams both due to the merger and expansion.  Teams are probably all looking at similar marketing data and with one manufacturer, there's undoubtedly convergent evolution.

There's more overlap in design and I think it's fine to use alternates as a way to add contrast to a game where that would have been obvious just based on colors or design back in the 60's, 70's, or 80's.