Changes aren't permanent

[SabreGuy]

In the year 2030, some NFL team (probably the Bills) will change to some completely OUTRAGEOUS uniform...outrageous by 2006 standards, that is.

If I'm still on this board in 2030, hopefully the Steelers will still be wearing the same unis that they are today. 

LOL, how come YOUR team gets to wear the cool classic unis, and MY team has to be stuck with the cr@ptacular cr@pathon??

*grumps*

[Telemundo219]

had Nike, Reebok, etc molded the existing team schemes instead of trying to turn them into THEIR corprate signatures (as opposed to the team's signature) they would have been less despised.

I totally agree. In this day and age, professional sports teams and other (especially WWE ) are forgetting about the most important thing when it comes to success and that is the FAN!!! These leagues have been come SO business-like, that all they care about is money. They don't care if the fan prefers classical/ traditional unis (or characters) and to stick to certain colors (or wrestlers). They just want to make money.

[Gothamite]

Wait, you're including WWE in the category "professional sports teams"?

[whitedawg22]

My $0.02... I don't think that chang in and of itself is either bad or good. Many teams have changed uniforms, even recently, that have been classy-looking changes for the better (e.g. Buccaneers-despite the push for retro, Grizzlies, Heat). But certainly not all changes are good, as noted in 90% of the posts on this board.

The difference between most uniform changes in the 60s and most uniform changes today is the goal of the change. For most of sports history in America, uniforms were intended to serve as a classy-looking symbol of team identity. This school of thought can still be seen in international rugby, and to some extent, soccer. Many teams or countries have signature striping patterns (e.g. Spain or Argentina soccer or Scotland or Australia rugby) that symbolize the team at a single glance. Whether or not they're currently "in" (for instance, does anyone think that Australia jersey has been in style since the 70s?) is irrelevant; they simply are the team identity.

However, now we are in the TV age and the marketing age, where it is more important for uniforms to be easily merchandised and for companies to develop unity among their products, for instance, by using certain templates for multiple college football and basketball teams (coughcoughswooshcough). Therefore, if a team isn't careful when doing a uniform change today, their uniform will turn into something that reflects a company template and the fashion trends of the day rather than reflecting a classy, timeless team identity. Most of the uniform changes that are decried on this site can be explained by this pitfall.

Change isn't all bad or all good; anyone trying to argue either of those points will have a tough time proving their point. You can find plenty of examples purporting to support just about any side you want to take in those arguments. What matters is the motivation behind the change.

[powersurge]

My $0.02... I don't think that chang in and of itself is either bad or good. Many teams have changed uniforms, even recently, that have been classy-looking changes for the better (e.g. Buccaneers-despite the push for retro, Grizzlies, Heat). But certainly not all changes are good, as noted in 90% of the posts on this board.

The difference between most uniform changes in the 60s and most uniform changes today is the goal of the change. For most of sports history in America, uniforms were intended to serve as a classy-looking symbol of team identity. This school of thought can still be seen in international rugby, and to some extent, soccer. Many teams or countries have signature striping patterns (e.g. Spain or Argentina soccer or Scotland or Australia rugby) that symbolize the team at a single glance. Whether or not they're currently "in" (for instance, does anyone think that Australia jersey has been in style since the 70s?) is irrelevant; they simply are the team identity.

However, now we are in the TV age and the marketing age, where it is more important for uniforms to be easily merchandised and for companies to develop unity among their products, for instance, by using certain templates for multiple college football and basketball teams (coughcoughswooshcough). Therefore, if a team isn't careful when doing a uniform change today, their uniform will turn into something that reflects a company template and the fashion trends of the day rather than reflecting a classy, timeless team identity. Most of the uniform changes that are decried on this site can be explained by this pitfall.

Change isn't all bad or all good; anyone trying to argue either of those points will have a tough time proving their point. You can find plenty of examples purporting to support just about any side you want to take in those arguments. What matters is the motivation behind the change.

I'm eager to hear your $0.98...

[Viper]

It seems to me that in most cases, the amount of resistance to a team's "new look" is directly proportional to the winning tradition established by the team in the "old look". Making major changes to a team's uniform, logo and/or color scheme is a way of symbolically leaving the past behind. But if your team has a long tradition of winning championships, why would you want to leave all that behind?

For example, my guess is that, as lame as the New York Islanders' "fisherman" jerseys were, they probably wouldn't have been nearly as hard for Isles fans and NHL purists to swallow had the team not won four Stanley Cups while wearing the old jerseys. On the flip side, had the Tampa Bay Buccaneers waited until this year to make the switch from "Bucco Bruce" and the orange-dominant color scheme to the sword-and-flag logo and red/pewter color scheme, it's a good bet that the Bucs would have a full-scale fan revolt on their hands, because the old style would have been associated with both the best (the Super Bowl win) and worst (losing their first 27 games) of times in the franchise's history.

Granted, there are some exceptions to this (the St. Louis Rams, who ditched their classic but ugly old uniforms immediately after winning a Super Bowl in them, come to mind), and it also doesn't necessarily apply to minor cosmetic tweaks (e.g. the Pittsburgh Steelers getting a new style of jersey numbers and letters a few years ago), but the rule of thumb is that if your team's current look is associated with a glorious history, you should really, really think twice before messing with that look.