UFL Branding & Uniform News 2024

[Sec19Row53]

35 minutes ago, leopard88 said:

 

This graphic really shows the color issue.

 

Just at first glance, the uniforms look more red than plum/maroon.  Then, when you look at the places where the uniform images touch (or at nearly touch) the helmet, you can really see the difference in color.

Thumbs up for your assessment, not for the color used or the color matching

[leopard88]

It reminds me of comparing the pre-Lombardi (Commanders) to the Lombardi (Commanders) . . . except that was intentional (or at least Lombardi didn't care that the new color didn't match the old one).

 

 

EDIT -- The board automatically replaced the team name that I typed with (Commanders).  Interesting.

[BadSeed84]

27 minutes ago, leopard88 said:

It reminds me of comparing the pre-Lombardi (Commanders) to the Lombardi (Commanders) . . . except that was intentional (or at least Lombardi didn't care that the new color didn't match the old one).

 

 

EDIT -- The board automatically replaced the team name that I typed with (Commanders).  Interesting.

 

Interesting is one way to put it....

 

[Sykotyk]

46 minutes ago, leopard88 said:

It reminds me of comparing the pre-Lombardi (Commanders) to the Lombardi (Commanders) . . . except that was intentional (or at least Lombardi didn't care that the new color didn't match the old one).

 

 

EDIT -- The board automatically replaced the team name that I typed with (Commanders).  Interesting.

That's been a thing on this board for a while.

 

For historical context, I would prefer it not to be that way (the perfectionist in me wants to say the 1936 Boston ******** rather than Commanders, simply because Commanders is a recent name change). If anything, I'd rather it just be censored or as I just did, asterisked, and not try to retcon historical records with a name that didn't exist at the time.

 

As for colors in old photographs, there's a lot of factors. Film fades. Photographs fade. Different light/speed settings, ambient lighting with clouds or stadium lights, angle of the sun, sweat, fabric... And also the NFL and most leagues didn't become particularly annoying about color consistency until much more recently. I'm old enough to remember as a kid having Cleveland Browns shirts/hats/jackets in various shades of orange or brown and yet nobody questioned it. Nobody cared about the exact specific shade of orange or brown. As long as all the uniforms matched on game day it didn't matter if the shading was slightly lighter or darker.

[DCarp1231]

I’ll be honest… I’d welcome the idea of Michigan exploring blue socks to be worn with the “plum” pants

[Sec19Row53]

12 minutes ago, Sykotyk said:

As for colors in old photographs, there's a lot of factors. Film fades. Photographs fade. Different light/speed settings, ambient lighting with clouds or stadium lights, angle of the sun, sweat, fabric... And also the NFL and most leagues didn't become particularly annoying about color consistency until much more recently. I'm old enough to remember as a kid having Cleveland Browns shirts/hats/jackets in various shades of orange or brown and yet nobody questioned it. Nobody cared about the exact specific shade of orange or brown. As long as all the uniforms matched on game day it didn't matter if the shading was slightly lighter or darker.

The change from maroon to burgundy that happened under Lombardi was an actual change, not an artifact of lighting. I think you know that, though. I totally agree that leagues have gotten more consistent (or vigilant, not sure which is more correct) regarding color presentation.

[MJWalker45]

4 hours ago, DCarp1231 said:

Does Fanatics make the UFL jerseys? Good lord that paneling is awful

Under Armour has had this issue for a while. It's easier to see on white uniforms. That's why we already knew that if a USFL team came in with side panels they would be removed. 

 

 

 

[burgundy]

What's crazy about the Panthers' colors being wrong is that Under Armour has more accurate colors available in their uniform builder. Maroon and Powderkeg Blue are right there, yet they chose to go with Cardinal and Carolina Blue.

 

 

[tBBP]

7 hours ago, DCarp1231 said:

I’ll be honest… I’d welcome the idea of Michigan exploring blue socks to be worn with the “plum” pants

 

Time out...just time all the way out.

 

What is going on with this pants stripe here?? That's NOT how you do that there, Michigan/Under Armour. What was wrong with the simple brasher? That's how you start ruining the best uniform set the USFL UFL had/has.

[HOOVER]

8 hours ago, burgundy said:

What's crazy about the Panthers' colors being wrong is that Under Armour has more accurate colors available in their uniform builder. Maroon and Powderkeg Blue are right there, yet they chose to go with Cardinal and Carolina Blue.

 

 

This uniform builder is for the sublimated uniforms only, which are actually manufactured/fulfilled by Alleson Athletics.

 

UA’s cut & sew has less available colors.  Sadly, no Plum or equivalent, which explains the change.  In textile manufacturing, there are limitations on color availability, which I never quite understood, but is frustrating.  Plum could be made, but to do so, a certain amount of fabric has to be dyed and used, and if it’s not all going to be used, they won’t make it.   This is where sublimation came in handy, at the expense of quality.

 

There is simply no forgiving them for :censored:ing up the pant stripe, though.

[DCarp1231]

Other than the stupid pants stripe, the only other thing I do not like about Michigan’s uniforms is the dark jersey not having a middle blue stripe on the sleeve that matches the white jersey striping

[McCall]

2 hours ago, HOOVER said:

This uniform builder is for the sublimated uniforms only, which are actually manufactured/fulfilled by Alleson Athletics.

 

UA’s cut & sew has less available colors.  Sadly, no Plum or equivalent, which explains the change.  In textile manufacturing, there are limitations on color availability, which I never quite understood, but is frustrating.  Plum could be made, but to do so, a certain amount of fabric has to be dyed and used, and if it’s not all going to be used, they won’t make it.   This is where sublimation came in handy, at the expense of quality.

 

There is simply no forgiving them for :censored:ing up the pant stripe, though.

Michigan's "Plum" is pantone 505, a very common shade of maroon used by many colleges. You'd think, given how many schools use maroon in general, Under Armour would be able to create some maroon uniform that would be available for general usage.

[burgundy]

2 hours ago, HOOVER said:

This uniform builder is for the sublimated uniforms only, which are actually manufactured/fulfilled by Alleson Athletics.

 

UA’s cut & sew has less available colors.  Sadly, no Plum or equivalent, which explains the change.  In textile manufacturing, there are limitations on color availability, which I never quite understood, but is frustrating.  Plum could be made, but to do so, a certain amount of fabric has to be dyed and used, and if it’s not all going to be used, they won’t make it.   This is where sublimation came in handy, at the expense of quality.

 

There is simply no forgiving them for :censored:ing up the pant stripe, though.

 

Well dang. That does explain some of the more unusual colors on there. But maroon is a pretty standard uniform color that any manufacturer should have available, so it's crazy that UA doesn't have it. 

 

I wonder what the timeline was for UA taking over uniforms for the USFL teams. They probably didn't have enough time to dye new colors before the team needed them. I would hope they can manufacture the proper color by next season, if there is a next season.

[DCarp1231]

It’s hard to tell from this highly edited photo, but it seems like DC dropped the camo shoulder yokes on the white jersey as well as only having one pair of red pants (and shorts, apparently)

[HOOVER]

8 hours ago, McCall said:

Michigan's "Plum" is pantone 505, a very common shade of maroon used by many colleges. You'd think, given how many schools use maroon in general, Under Armour would be able to create some maroon uniform that would be available for general usage.

I agree.  I can't find a UA team color card with PMS codes.  In my days in team sporting goods, Maroon was one of the trickiest colors across manufacturers; one college I outfitted, for example, called their color "Maroon"...but it was much closer to Nike's Team Cardinal than it was to Nike's Team Dark Maroon, so we chose Cardinal for all of their gear. 

 

Didn't help that the designer who rebranded the school - which had been Nike school for a very long time and still is - paid no attention to Nike's color palette when designing all of their new marks.  The Maroon was not a match for Nike's Team Dark Maroon OR Team Cardinal, and the Orange was not a match for Nike's Team Orange or Bright Ceramic (Tennessee Orange).  So, all of the campus & facility branding never perfectly matched the team apparel or uniforms, and if coaches did were not careful, things like helmet decals and other printed equipment or accessories would be off, too.

[oldschoolvikings]

The USFL returned with some really nice branding a few years ago.  All nice updated nods to the original 80s looks.  One helmet, one pair of pants, two jerseys.  No monochrome, no leotard pants and socks combos.  Nicely done all around. The XFL’s comeback arrived with some really terrible uniforms, to no one’s surprise.  Ugly monochrome, gimmicky crap everywhere.  I’m also not surprised this merger has made the former USFL teams go more in the direction of the nasty XFL styles.  Disappointing but not surprising.  
 

I’m thinking about a concept series where the designs go in the opposite direction… the XFL teams take on the old USFL feel.  

[Saturn]

49 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

The USFL returned with some really nice branding a few years ago.  All nice updated nods to the original 80s looks.  One helmet, one pair of pants, two jerseys.  No monochrome, no leotard pants and socks combos.  Nicely done all around. The XFL’s comeback arrived with some really terrible uniforms, to no one’s surprise.  Ugly monochrome, gimmicky crap everywhere.  I’m also not surprised this merger has made the former USFL teams go more in the direction of the nasty XFL styles.  Disappointing but not surprising.  
 

I’m thinking about a concept series where the designs go in the opposite direction… the XFL teams take on the old USFL feel.  

 

Preach. Someone should do a concept series using the defunct teams with more USFL style jerseys.

[DCarp1231]

1 hour ago, oldschoolvikings said:

I’m thinking about a concept series where the designs go in the opposite direction… the XFL teams take on the old USFL feel.  

The DC Defenders in the style of the Federals?

 

Hell yeah.

[MJWalker45]

14 hours ago, oldschoolvikings said:

The USFL returned with some really nice branding a few years ago.  All nice updated nods to the original 80s looks.  One helmet, one pair of pants, two jerseys.  No monochrome, no leotard pants and socks combos.  Nicely done all around. The XFL’s comeback arrived with some really terrible uniforms, to no one’s surprise.  Ugly monochrome, gimmicky crap everywhere.  I’m also not surprised this merger has made the former USFL teams go more in the direction of the nasty XFL styles.  Disappointing but not surprising.  
 

I’m thinking about a concept series where the designs go in the opposite direction… the XFL teams take on the old USFL feel.  

Memphis looked bad last year and with the UA yoke they look just as bad. I like the Panthers pants better this year. DC not having white pants makes no sense to me. Rebranding them in green, black and white would help add more color to the league as well. As far as throwbacks, I don't know why the UFL didn't consider changing up the Renegades to something similar to their 2020 look. All they needed to do was give them black jerseys with blue sleeves. It'd improve them significantly. I know the dark grey jerseys are the Brahmas primary but I'd love to see them use the yellow jerseys as their primary jersey instead. Mainly because it's the better jersey design they have, and secondly because there's no other lighter color at home team. 

[leopard88]

On 3/8/2024 at 3:58 PM, Sec19Row53 said:

The change from maroon to burgundy that happened under Lombardi was an actual change, not an artifact of lighting. I think you know that, though. I totally agree that leagues have gotten more consistent (or vigilant, not sure which is more correct) regarding color presentation.

 

I always thought the team has always called its red(dish) color burgundy even though the actual color changed when Lombardi came to town.  However, Trucolor refers to the pre-1969 color(s) as maroon and the post-1969 color(s) as burgundy.

 

I've never heard anyone else refer to any Washington uniforms as being maroon.  Not to Washjack this thread, but does anyone have any insight on this.