Teams returning to their "real" colors

[chakfu]

I was just thinking about the Bucks return to red and green - are there many other teams out there right now using color schemes that are not their classic or 'real' team colors; and will they inevitable return to their real colors?

first that comes to mind is the 76ers - surely they'll drop the black and gold and some point and return to red white and blue?

maybe the astros will return to orange/blue someday?

Wizards don't really count since the nickname change IMO; I don't think the Raptors purple was really long enough or classic enough for a future return; same with the grizzlies and teal. same kind of deal with the buccaneers - they finally established success in the new colors, and I think that they'll stay that way.

the Mavericks' green 3rd jersey was somewhat of a return to their real colors, I think...

Utah is the only other nba team that doesn't seem right to me, unless they reemphasize purple. Denver is a different situation in that they've always used blue/red/gold, but the rainbow years predominate - the baby blue and gold is vaguely in the same tradition.

Oh, and of course - the Toronto Blue Jays are the other team that are wearing absurdly wrong colors now and will eventually go back. But this seems more like an NBA phenomenon, with Detroit, Milwaukee, Philly, and even Cleveland the main offenders. Seattle wasn't really a problem until the hideous red alternates appeared...

[Old School Fool]

I'd kill to have the Sixers return to their old logo.

[wman]

I'd double kill for the Sixers to go back to their old logo. I'm so sick of the black.

[Gothamite]

This is one of the things that I love about European soccer teams - they change uniforms regularly, they change the logos, but with very few exceptions the colors stay the same for generations.

I like that a lot. I think it's a much better approach than we have in the States. It creates a bond between the fans and the club that very few clubs can match here.

[Moser316]

This is one of the things that I love about European soccer teams - they change uniforms regularly, they change the logos, but with very few exceptions the colors stay the same for generations.

I like that a lot. I think it's a much better approach than we have in the States. It creates a bond between the fans and the club that very few clubs can match here.

Finally, Gothamite, there's something you and I can agree on. I like the fact that a team like Celtic has (with a few exceptions) kept the hoops on their home shirts from their inception to the present day. They've done a few different things with the away shirts (this year, they're unveiling a design with black and green stripes that evokes the 1960's-era kit), but the homes have stayed the same for generations.

[-kj]

Just to make sure the world ends with this post, I'll agree with Gothamite and Moser on this one. Though, I'm not sure I agree wholly with the original sentiment about "true" colors. For example, the Mavs' green is a look synonymous with complete and total ineptitude. Their new look is so much better to begin with, and is connected with teams that aren't embarassing.

(Hey, Moser, I've got a Celtic shirt that's a bit too tight on me, you want it? It's marked XXL, but it's more like an XL. I'll be in Milwaukee over Labor Day weekend.)

[Gothamite]

It's great, isn't it?

As an Arsenal fan, I know that twenty years from now we'll still be wearing red shirts with white sleeves. Chelsea fans know that kits come and go, but they'll all be blue with white socks. Man United fans can rest easy in the knowledge that, whatever else, they'll be red and white with a touch of black.

If you don't like a specific shirt, you don't buy it. It'll change in a couple years anyway. When Arsenal unveiled their 2004-2005 shirt, I thought it was hideous. Still do. But we're now two years later, and our new home shirts are perfection. Two years from now, maybe we'll get an even better shirt and maybe we'll get a downgrade and I'll have to wait that one out too. But they'll all be red with white sleeves. Crests change, we move into a new stadium, kits change but red and white, that's Arsenal.

It's a little bit like college sports - Bucky Badger might get a facelift, and the W might be replaced with a new design, but the Badgers will always be red and white. That creates a strong bond between team and fan.

[TheOldRoman]

I agree, except for the Sabres. They are not returning to their old colors. Their old colors were yellow and royal blue. Their new colors are a darker yellow (IIRC) and navy blue. Navy is not an improvement over royal, it isn't an update of royal. A few teams are going down the "lets bastardize our colors and sell it off to our fans as 'tradition' while we are just getting new, trendy colors in an attempt to sell merchandise to people all across the world because we know our fans will buy any crap we put out there" path. The Brewers and Rams should be royal blue and yellow. Navy and gold has nothing to do with their previous colors. Navy and royal are very different, and so are yellow and gold.

I hope the trend of returning to their previous colors continues, and I hope more teams return to their actual colors instead of 'similar' colors.

[chakfu]

Mark Aguirre, Rolando Blackman, and 1988 disagree with the green mavericks being synonymous with futility! But Roy Tarpley strongly agrees.

Also, I think subtly (or not so subtly) altering/bastardizing the 'true' colors like rams, brewers, or sabres, or basically every team that has gone from royal to navy, is kind of a different category.

[cranium]

Just to take the conversation down a well-worn side road. I really wish teams without a traditon of Black in their unis, would remove them. The Cincy Reds come to mind first for me. I'm glad to see the Royals pulling away from black. I just ask why whenever I see the Reds.

I'd like to see the nets in Red-white-blue only. Pacers back to royal blue.

I guess, in a way, part of the joy of throwback jerseys is seeing the team in some of their "traditional" colors. Pardon me if I just stated the obvious.

[tBBP]

Mark Aguirre, Rolando Blackman, and 1988 disagree with the green mavericks being synonymous with futility! But Roy Tarpley strongly agrees.

Also, I think subtly (or not so subtly) altering/bastardizing the 'true' colors like rams, brewers, or sabres, or basically every team that has gone from royal to navy, is kind of a different category.

You forgot to include the Denver Broncos with that group. Not only did they go to navy and orange, they swapped the primary orange for navy and relegated the color they became known for earlier in their history ("Orange Crush"--ask Tom Jackson) to secondary status. At the time it was "the" new, trendy thing--and then the Rams, to rid themselves of all ties to L.A. it seems, turns to navy and gold. (The old royal and yellow was one of my favorite all-time looks...WWWAAAAHHH!!! ) Guess you can group the Sabres into that--but that's already been done.

[Korkie]

I'd double kill for the Sixers to go back to their old logo. I'm so sick of the black.

Last night I actually had a dream that the Sixers switched back to that logo.

[whitedawg22]

Also, I think subtly (or not so subtly) altering/bastardizing the 'true' colors like rams, brewers, or sabres, or basically every team that has gone from royal to navy, is kind of a different category.

Maybe this deserves its own thread, but I was actually thinking about this phenomenon with regards to the NFL last night. In the early 1990s, there were only 3 teams that could be considered to use navy blue: the Bears, Chargers, and Cowboys (on the dark jerseys). Now, there are 9 to 11, depending on what you consider to be navy: the Patriots, Bills, Titans, Texans, possibly Colts, Broncos, Chargers, possibly Giants, Cowboys, Bears, and Rams. In fact, the AFC North and NFC South are the only divisions without a navy blue team.

Thinking about the palette of teams in 1990, there were so many more colorful combinations possible. Now it seems like everyone is going to navy with a minor accent color. Is this just a temporary trend that will reverse, with teams going back to their "real" colors, or is it here to stay? Personally, I see some eventual backlash, but how much I'm not sure since everything is driven by apparel and marketing these days.

[slapshot]

I think the title of this thread is misleading. What's the difference between "real" colors and "original" colors?

I've seen a mention of Denver, and how the update went from royal blue to navy blue, starting the trend of many sports teams to do the same.

Well, weren't the original colors of the Broncos orange and brown?

I don't quite understand the furor around teams that shift colors to keep up with trends and fashion. Sometimes you have to change with the times. It's the nature of the industry that puts a big emphasis on identity as well as uniforms.

A few people mentioned the Premiership in England. Teams there are known primarily by colors alone. The teams may have nicknames, but for the most part, they're marketed by players and kits moreso than the crest on the jerseys. So Newcastle may always have the black and white stripes, Man. U and Arsenal might always wear red, etc.

But here in the States, and Canada, the industry of merchandising seems so much more expansive, so teams feel that if they are not consistently winning league championships like the Bulls or Yankees, then they have to change with the times to sell more of their product.

It's not always for the better. But it's not always worse either. Does anyone think the Tampa Bay Buccaneers' current identity would look better in orange and red than it does in red, black and pewter? What about the White Sox black and silver over the blue pajama years, or the navy and red stripe seasons?

[BBM]

It's great, isn't it?

As an Arsenal fan, I know that twenty years from now we'll still be wearing red shirts with white sleeves. Chelsea fans know that kits come and go, but they'll all be blue with white socks. Man United fans can rest easy in the knowledge that, whatever else, they'll be red and white with a touch of black.

If you don't like a specific shirt, you don't buy it. It'll change in a couple years anyway. When Arsenal unveiled their 2004-2005 shirt, I thought it was hideous. Still do. But we're now two years later, and our new home shirts are perfection. Two years from now, maybe we'll get an even better shirt and maybe we'll get a downgrade and I'll have to wait that one out too. But they'll all be red with white sleeves. Crests change, we move into a new stadium, kits change but red and white, that's Arsenal.

It's a little bit like college sports - Bucky Badger might get a facelift, and the W might be replaced with a new design, but the Badgers will always be red and white. That creates a strong bond between team and fan.

I just started watching the Premiere League this season and I'm very impressed with the uniforms and the sense of tradition. I've taken a liking to New Castle (for better or worse... probably worse) and they've worn the same black and white stripes for over 100 years. Tottenham has an old-school brown jersey that they wore in the 19th century added to the mix this year. And like you said, you know Arsenal or Man U or Liverpool when you see them, even though they have similar colors. There is a bit too much marketing in American sports, hence the constant unifrom/color/logo changing.

[whitedawg22]

To follow up my earlier post on the NFL becoming less colorful, here's a side by side schematic:

1990:

2006:

Regardless of how you feel about the upgrades/downgrades of individual uniforms, the overall palette has become less exciting. I agree with the posts about the European traditions of jersey color and design: there's nothing wrong with tweaking a kit and trying new variations, but it's nice to retain the basic elements of color and layout to maintain a timeless look.

[Gothamite]

I don't disagree, but I think I'd exempt the Colts and Giants from that list. The Giants are still wearing the same blue they always have (in fact, they've moved away from navy with the new helmets) and the Colts' change is subtle, still within a royal blue hue.

Regardless, well done. When you see it all together like that, it really hits home.

[BBM]

The only thing I'll say about that... only two teams have changed from blue (Pats and Broncos). All the rest are still just a bunch of different shades of blue. So when you say the league "lost color" I don't know if I really agree with that.

If you consider third jerseys, the NFL has probably gotten MORE colorful. For better or worse.

[NY Jay]

I don't know about everyone else here, but I would take pretty much all of those current jerseys over the ones used in the past that are shown in the picture above.

[Gothamite]

I don't know about everyone else here, but I would take pretty much all of those current jerseys over the ones used in the past that are shown in the picture above.

Not me. With the exception of the Giants (and maybe the Colts), I'd favor the old jerseys, every time.

I think they're all a step backwards, both in aesthetic terms and in establishing a distinct identity for the teams.