Unpopular Opinions

[IceCap]

Everyone but me seems to have a rock-hard boner for these uniforms.

]

I don't get the love either. They're representative of failure.

[Lights Out]

So win/loss records now affect the aesthetic beauty of uniforms?

[IceCap]

So win/loss records now affect the aesthetic beauty of uniforms?

Do uniforms effect the on-field results? No, not really. To claim that uniforms are completely separate from the eras they helped define, however, is a very naive assumption. Those Bucs uniforms represented an era in which, for the most part, they were the butt to every joke concerning the NFL. These are the uniforms that represent the year in which they became the only team in modern NFL history to go winless in a season. You can't really divorce a uniform from the era it helped define. It doesn't work.

Aesthetically, it's a mess. I'm sorry, but that logo just sucks. Pase gay jokes aside, it's a winking pirate. He's not threatening, he's not intimidating. Given that the name relates to pirates, there's so much potential for imagery, and Bucco Bruce falls up short in that department. The colours themselves look washed out. There's not enough contrast. It's just not a bold enough look to work, in my opinion. It's the perfect example of why classic looks aren't always the best. This is one of those older uniforms that I think is best left in the past.

The new uniforms, in addition to being associated with a Super Bowl, are unique in the sense that they use a colour seen no where else in pro sports. They also take full advantage of pirate imagery without being consumed by it (cartoony numbers were avoided). The current set looks modern yet not like something that will seem dated down the line, while at the same time seeming classic, but not boring. It's a fantastic look that's associated with the franchise's best years. If it were up to me the Bucs would only wear the orange throwback look when they're honouring past players or teams.

[The_Admiral]

I 180ed on the creamsicles. Well, 165ed, since I still think Bucco Bruce is a weak logo. But I guess I decided embracing a Floridian color scheme was preferable to embracing a pirate-based visual identity. I was never enamored of the redesign; I found them too gimmicky in spots and yet too boring in others (cartoony shmartoony, you sorta have to go all out on names/numbers when you pretend your stadium is a pirate ship). If someone can make a superior logo to Bucco Bruce, go back to the old colors and forget about the poor man's 49ers.

[IceCap]

I 180ed on the creamsicles. Well, 165ed, since I still think Bucco Bruce is a weak logo. But I guess I decided embracing a Floridian color scheme was preferable to embracing a pirate-based visual identity. I was never enamored of the redesign; I found them too gimmicky in spots and yet too boring in others (cartoony shmartoony, you sorta have to go all out on names/numbers when you pretend your stadium is a pirate ship). If someone can make a superior logo to Bucco Bruce, go back to the old colors and forget about the poor man's 49ers.

While I can appreciate the attachment to a genuine Floridan colour scheme I feel that the creamsicles aren't bold enough to work as a NFL colour scheme. The Miami Dolphins, Florida Panthers, Florida Marlins, Tampa Bay (Devil) Rays, Jacksonville Jaguars, and Miami Heat all had or have Floridian colour schemes that are also bold enough to work in the realm of North American pro sports. The orange and coral/pink/red/whatever they called it just doesn't do it for me.

Though the Heat colour scheme, I think, could work for an updated Bucco Bruce look. Come up with a better representation of Bucco Bruce and use the Heat's colours. That could work.

As for the pirate theme, they went overboard with the stadium, but at least the uniforms, in my opinion, manage it well.

[PackerBadger]

Come join NBC on Sunday afternoons for Men Getting Dressed!

Oh, and football too.

But the music (?Don?t Turn Away?) is cool. One of the few examples where trombones have the melody.

Would you prefer different visuals?

[Markmansion]

Well since no one can really be blasted this time I'm going to come out and say I liked the Seahawks green alternates.

[Cujo]

I like the Mavericks "trashbags"

i like those too

Thirded.

So the Mavs blew a huge lead to the Lakers while wearing them and ditched them. So what?! They blew a massive lead to the Heat in the '06 Finals and still wore those unis. Cuban is an idiot.

[The_Admiral]

Those should've been full-time road uniforms with "Dallas" on the front. They'd certainly be mavericks to wear metallic uniforms 41+ times!

[spartacat_12]

I like the Rbk Edge jerseys. I prefer the tighter fit and I love the addition of the NHL logo in the collar. My only suggestion would be to use the team's colours like MLB does with its logo on jerseys and hats. And while most of the new uniforms have been hit-or-miss I thik some of the new templates really work (like the Panthers).

I think that the best look the canucks had was their pre-edge jerseys (I am fully aware that this contradicts my last point). The colours are great and using Native imagery is a direction that they should have gone for with the rest of their logo package.

I dislike the Senators use of the centurion logos and the colour gold. Most of the Sens concepts I see on this board put a greater emphasis on the colour gold. I wish that they would drop it the gold and the logo altogether. I mean their logo isn't even a Roman senator it's a centurion. I wish they would just use a barberpole jersey with the O on the front.

Seeing a team using double blue does not make me want to kill myself, although the Florida Panthers using it bothers me. As long as a team can make it look good, which most of the teams that have used it have done, I have no problem with it. In fact, I would say the same about any colour scheme that people on this board claim is "overused". If it looks good I don't care.

I prefered the last two Jazz identities that focused on the mountain logo as opposed to the musical note logo. I mean at this point the Jazz can't change their name, so they might as well have a logo and colours that represent their location rather than a logo and colours that match their nickname and have none of it represent the location.

That's all I can think of right now but I'm sure that I have a few other unpopular opinions.

[patsox]

Those should've been full-time road uniforms with "Dallas" on the front. They'd certainly be mavericks to wear metallic uniforms 41+ times!

If they really wanted to be mavericks...

[Cujo]

So win/loss records now affect the aesthetic beauty of uniforms?

Of course winning matters.

For example, take the NFL's biggest cluster:censored:, the Pittsburgh Steelers. A helmet with a logo on only one side. Sleeve stripes that totally mismatch the rest of the uniform, and are huge, ugly and totally outdated. Rounded numbers on an 'old school' uniform. The list goes on..... Yet, nobody looks at the Steelers and instantly wonders why their unis were put together at a thrift store. America LOVES their gear because of the winning tradition and six Super Bowl wins that come with them.

[JQK]

I hate the Rangers Liberty Head logo. I think the regular blues and whites are some of the best jerseys in sports, and the Liberty Head is a cheap, late-90's money grab that does not look good and takes away from the team's overall aesthetics.

[Cujo]

Great example:

Quillz's thorough enjoyment of this...

[Punch]

This is just a random question I thought of, but I think it could be answered easily here:

Do people outside of this forum really pay attention to detail in uniforms? For example - Do they really care if the stripes on the helmet don't match the stripes on the pants? Or do they really care if the Seahawks look like uni-tards?

The reason I ask this is because whenever I talk about uniforms around other people outside of CCSLC, they usually can talk to me about jersey-color and helmet logos, but they get kind of peeved at me when I mention the sock stripes.

It is very hard to explain over the internet.

[TopCat]

This is just a random question I thought of, but I think it could be answered easily here:

Do people outside of this forum really pay attention to detail in uniforms? For example - Do they really care if the stripes on the helmet don't match the stripes on the pants? Or do they really care if the Seahawks look like uni-tards?

The reason I ask this is because whenever I talk about uniforms around other people outside of CCSLC, they usually can talk to me about jersey-color and helmet logos, but they get kind of peeved at me when I mention the sock stripes.

It is very hard to explain over the internet.

Maybe you should ask some people outside of this forum.

They probably don't care a whole lot, more worried about the actual games being played.

[Drakonius26]

Well, hopefully I don't get flamed too badly for this, but as far as unpopular opinions go I probably have a lot more of them than other members do. So where to start...

NBA: The new throwback trend, (other than the Detroit Pistons and Milwaukee Bucks, since they were the only ones to get it right) have all been eyesores. That includes the Utah Jazz rebrand (if you can call it that), which is a major downgrade. Yes, the previous double-blue uniforms were dull, but ten-times better than any of their previous identities, including the New Orleans-era Jazz.

Next, ban pinstripes from basketball uniforms, they never look good, and the New Orleans Hornets destroyed a perfectly fine uniform with their latest rebrand. It's no wonder they haven't been nearly as good since changing their uniforms in 2009.

MLB: I prefer the new look Arizona Diamondbacks and Tampa Bay Rays to their previous incarnations. The only complaint with either is that I don't like Arizona's black alternative uniforms, and that I wish the "Ray" was featured more than it is now. Some concepts on these boards have nailed it perfectly. But when it comes to those teams' colors, they're perfect, don't change a thing.

NFL: Ban all monochrome jersey combinations, and force the teams to wear colored pants on the road. The only teams that can manage to have a decent all-white look are the Chicago Bears, Cleveland Browns, Indianapolis Colts, Miami Dolphins, Minnesota Vikings, and the New York Jets, but those all-white combinations should be classified as once-a-year alternate looks.

The powder-blue San Diego Charger jerseys of the 1960's are overrated and inferior to the Tampa Bay Buccaneer expansion-era uniforms. Now, Bucco Bruce wasn't an eyesore, but definitely not a professional logo for an NFL team to take the field in. However, I'd much rather have a Tampa Bay throwback than San Diego throwback any day of the week, since the main reason people harp on the creamsicle uniforms is the fact that they started off 0-26 in them.

NHL: This one I'm sure to get blasted on, but here it goes... The Buffaslug and 2007-2010 uniforms were perfect. They along with the new-look Washington Capitals, have uniforms that I would classify as modern classics. It's 2010, not 1970, so stop living in the past. I loved the original Buffalo Sabre uniforms, but guess what, even as a fan, a change is good now and again. They were sure better than the black-and-red disasters that honestly, and thankfully we never won a Stanley Cup in. Those looked minor-league, and were a shameless ripoff of the New Jersey Devils, when in the late 1990's a lot of teams were going with the black/red/and silver combo, and Buffalo decided to canuckify their identity. And if they are to revert back to the retros, go 100% back to the original designs around the new template, and don't include silver. I'm sick of half-a** throwbacks.

[Darth Danielus]

So win/loss records now affect the aesthetic beauty of uniforms?

Do uniforms effect the on-field results? No, not really. To claim that uniforms are completely separate from the eras they helped define, however, is a very naive assumption. Those Bucs uniforms represented an era in which, for the most part, they were the butt to every joke concerning the NFL. These are the uniforms that represent the year in which they became the only team in modern NFL history to go winless in a season. You can't really divorce a uniform from the era it helped define. It doesn't work.

Aesthetically, it's a mess. I'm sorry, but that logo just sucks. Pase gay jokes aside, it's a winking pirate. He's not threatening, he's not intimidating. Given that the name relates to pirates, there's so much potential for imagery, and Bucco Bruce falls up short in that department. The colours themselves look washed out. There's not enough contrast. It's just not a bold enough look to work, in my opinion. It's the perfect example of why classic looks aren't always the best. This is one of those older uniforms that I think is best left in the past.

The new uniforms, in addition to being associated with a Super Bowl, are unique in the sense that they use a colour seen no where else in pro sports. They also take full advantage of pirate imagery without being consumed by it (cartoony numbers were avoided). The current set looks modern yet not like something that will seem dated down the line, while at the same time seeming classic, but not boring. It's a fantastic look that's associated with the franchise's best years. If it were up to me the Bucs would only wear the orange throwback look when they're honouring past players or teams.

I agree completely. The old uniform was horrible across the board to me. Awful colours. That logo is terrible with a capital T, and I get the sense some people like it precisely because it looks so terrible/ridiculous. The new bucs set is one of my favorites. To me, it looks timeless, like you said. No gimmicky stupid stripes or extraneous piping. The colours are unique, but still kinda clean and classic. The logo is a bit of a bore, but its not too bad. Worlds better then the 70s pornstar with the knife in his mouth.

Just my opinion.

[Darth Danielus]

Well, hopefully I don't get flamed too badly for this, but as far as unpopular opinions go I probably have a lot more of them than other members do. So where to start...

NBA: The new throwback trend, (other than the Detroit Pistons and Milwaukee Bucks, since they were the only ones to get it right) have all been eyesores. That includes the Utah Jazz rebrand (if you can call it that), which is a major downgrade. Yes, the previous double-blue uniforms were dull, but ten-times better than any of their previous identities, including the New Orleans-era Jazz.

I sorta think the word 'throwback' is over-used here, and other places. A team going back to an older, better logo is really just correcting a mistake. I find all of the jazz's recent looks to be awful. I like the new look, and see it more as an improvement in colours, and a return to the proper logo, more then a throwback. Frankly, the navy and yellow seem completely modern to me.

Next, ban pinstripes from basketball uniforms, they never look good, and the New Orleans Hornets destroyed a perfectly fine uniform with their latest rebrand. It's no wonder they haven't been nearly as good since changing their uniforms in 2009.

Agreed. I dislike pinstripes in general.

MLB: I prefer the new look Arizona Diamondbacks and Tampa Bay Rays to their previous incarnations. The only complaint with either is that I don't like Arizona's black alternative uniforms, and that I wish the "Ray" was featured more than it is now. Some concepts on these boards have nailed it perfectly. But when it comes to those teams' colors, they're perfect, don't change a thing.

I like the new diamondbacks look better aswell. Just wish they went with a more unique colour combo. And, the D-bags jersey needs to go away. The Rays have never had it right as far as I'm concerned... They never should have dropped "devil", they definitely should use the "ray" creature more, and while both colour combos were fine, they never pulled off good logos/wordmarks to go with them.

NFL: Ban all monochrome jersey combinations, and force the teams to wear colored pants on the road. The only teams that can manage to have a decent all-white look are the Chicago Bears, Cleveland Browns, Indianapolis Colts, Miami Dolphins, Minnesota Vikings, and the New York Jets, but those all-white combinations should be classified as once-a-year alternate looks.

You named enough decent looking all-white combos to sorta undercut your point a bit here (but I don't like the bears in white pants at all.) But, at home, the all dark monochrome look is TERRIBLE, so I agree completely with you on that front.

The powder-blue San Diego Charger jerseys of the 1960's are overrated and inferior to the Tampa Bay Buccaneer expansion-era uniforms. Now, Bucco Bruce wasn't an eyesore, but definitely not a professional logo for an NFL team to take the field in. However, I'd much rather have a Tampa Bay throwback than San Diego throwback any day of the week, since the main reason people harp on the creamsicle uniforms is the fact that they started off 0-26 in them.

As I mentioned in the post above, I have only hate for the original Bucs set. So, 60's chargers or whatever else is gonna be superior in my book. And to me, tampa's awful early seasons have absolutely nothing to do with how bad I think those uniforms were.

NHL: This one I'm sure to get blasted on, but here it goes... The Buffaslug and 2007-2010 uniforms were perfect. They along with the new-look Washington Capitals, have uniforms that I would classify as modern classics. It's 2010, not 1970, so stop living in the past. I loved the original Buffalo Sabre uniforms, but guess what, even as a fan, a change is good now and again. They were sure better than the black-and-red disasters that honestly, and thankfully we never won a Stanley Cup in. Those looked minor-league, and were a shameless ripoff of the New Jersey Devils, when in the late 1990's a lot of teams were going with the black/red/and silver combo, and Buffalo decided to canuckify their identity. And if they are to revert back to the retros, go 100% back to the original designs around the new template, and don't include silver. I'm sick of half-a** throwbacks.

Not sure where to start here... The slug might be the worst logo in sports history. The uniform it was attached to came very close to equaling its crapitude. Love the new capitals look however....agree completely with you on that one. But, 2010 or 1970, good design is good design... Like I said above, if the sabres go back to the old uniforms, to me, they're just correcting the mistakes of the last 15 years. And, if they put the old logo (amazing) on new-fangled uniforms, its still an improvement, even with silver or whatever (though agree - all the way back would be best.)

Just my opinions/no disrespect intended.

[Darth Danielus]

My unpopular opinions....

The edmonton oilers had their best look ever right before the edge uni's came about. I love the navy/copper, and the uniforms were pretty much perfect. One of the absolute best looks in the league at the time.

The new seahawks colours/logo/uniforms are way better then their old ones. Hate the dark pants/dark jersey look, but like them in all white.

Don't think much of the kansas city cheifs look, and dislike red and yellow in general. Along the same lines, I liked the calgary flames pre-edge look the best of all of their looks. Love the flaming C in black.

The flying elvis kills the former patriots logo. The current uniforms are nightmarishly bad, but the logo is just fine.

The blue jays best look ever was in 1993. Don't really care for the powder blue, hated the addition of red, absolutely loathed the T-bird logo, and their current set is THE worst in baseball.

All I can think of for now... To be honest, this board seems eclectic enough that no opinion can ever be too unpopular. I ain't seeing much of a consensus in the top 10 and worst 10 logo threads that pop up. People just generally seem to disagree most of the time....and even the individual's lists seem to run the gamut of classics/established/universally loved stuff, and things I thought were hated across the board.