Unpopular Opinions

[DustDevil61]

On 1/19/2016 at 10:42 AM, McCarthy said:

Yeah I really like the that Rams head logo and think the team should just recolor it in the royal blue and yellow. It's got such a nice visual simplicity to it while also finding a way to incorporate their famous horn.

Update the wordmark if you must, but they don't need to draw a whole new logo.

Completely agreed. It's a popular dead horse around here (and for good reason), but since we're talking about team logos for teams whose helmets have a given pattern and thus don't need a helmet logo, can we bring this back?

 

And to contribute something to this thread, I wouldn't have minded one bit if this...

...became the Browns' official display logo. (The <=B=> football wouldn't be bad, either.)

[BelfourThibault]

On January 14, 2016 at 7:52 PM, jp1409 said:

These were perfect...

 

I don't really see how this is an unpopular opinion. Any time the Flames are discussed, people come out of the woodwork in droves talking about how awesome these were. I happen to disagree...I hate these jerseys, but it seems like I'm in the minority with that. 

[KittSmith_95]

I don't think the Flames have ever had a truly awful look.

[MCM0313]

I've never much cared for the White Sox' 1980s "beach blanket" look.

[TheOldRoman]

I'm not sure that's an unpopular opinion. They gained fame in the last decade when the fad became wearing throwbacks that were ugly or gaudy. My generation loves them because they were born in that era, but outside of a few dopes, Sox fans don't want those back.

[MCM0313]

Just now, TheOldRoman said:

I'm not sure that's an unpopular opinion. They gained fame in the last decade when the fad became wearing throwbacks that were ugly or gaudy. My generation loves them because they were born in that era, but outside of a few dopes, Sox fans don't want those back.

I would've liked them more if they'd found a way to work the logo onto a primarily blue or red shirt. Still, it's a very dated logo and it couldn't have been that good even in the '80s.

[OnWis97]

48 minutes ago, TheOldRoman said:

I'm not sure that's an unpopular opinion. They gained fame in the last decade when the fad became wearing throwbacks that were ugly or gaudy. My generation loves them because they were born in that era, but outside of a few dopes, Sox fans don't want those back.

This is probably about right on.  I grew up in that era and I admit, I enjoyed seeing them wear these as throwbacks once (or a few times, I think), but I recognize that this should absolutly not be their full-time identity.  And while I don't have my finger to the pulse of the fan base, I tend to doubt many people would disagree.  It's fun because it's nostalgic and maybe even because it's gaudy.  But the clamor for and 80s identity is not like it is in Milwaukee.  If you don't like the 80s Brewers look, that's more of an unpopular opinion.

 

Man, it's amazing how frequently the White Sox used to change.  The older looks (red/powder and whatever else before my time) the atrocious big-collar uniforms, the slightly better (by default) beech blanket look, the late 1980s look (which was, in a vacuum, serviceable, but did not fit the team, particularly the "C" cap).  And then they change to black, at least partly to hop on a trend...and they've kept it for like 25 years and have one of the most stable identities in MLB.  When they made the change, I'd never have thought that would be the case.

[CanucksBrad]

I don't think Original 6 jerseys are that much better than some of the better, newer jerseys in the NHL. It's just the fact that they've been relatively unchanged for 60-100 years gives it a sense of superiority. Detroit and Toronto especially. If they didn't exist and a new team from Las Vegas or Seattle came in with plain red/blue and white uniforms, people would say "They're ok, but kinda boring".

 

If I am being as objective as possible, I would say Chicago home and away, Boston home, Montreal home are among the best in the league. The Rangers home and away are very nice too, top 3rd in the league for sure. Detroit and Toronto are kind plain, not a huge fan. Montreal and Boston's away are nothing special either.

 

But they are still better than a lot around the league that have ugly components.

[Kevin W.]

10 minutes ago, CanucksBrad said:

Detroit and Toronto especially.

Toronto has been through several major uniform changes, actually. Chicago's design has been fairly consistent since 1955, Detroit since 1932 and Montreal since they joined the league. Toronto, Boston and New York have all had at least one or two major redesigns of their uniforms throughout their history.

[CanucksBrad]

3 minutes ago, CRichardson said:

Toronto has been through several major uniform changes, actually. Chicago's design has been fairly consistent since 1955, Detroit since 1932 and Montreal since they joined the league. Toronto, Boston and New York have all had at least one or two major redesigns of their uniforms throughout their history.

I wouldn't say any of them went through "major" changes. The colours have remained the same, and the logos have remained mostly the same. They've done smaller stuff like adding or removing shoulder yokes and sleeve stripes, and changing details in their logos.

 

As a Canucks fan, I know about MAJOR uniform changes. We've done it 3 times.

[TheOldRoman]

42 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

Man, it's amazing how frequently the White Sox used to change.  The older looks (red/powder and whatever else before my time) the atrocious big-collar uniforms, the slightly better (by default) beech blanket look, the late 1980s look (which was, in a vacuum, serviceable, but did not fit the team, particularly the "C" cap).  And then they change to black, at least partly to hop on a trend...and they've kept it for like 25 years and have one of the most stable identities in MLB.  When they made the change, I'd never have thought that would be the case.

 

And not just the White Sox, but the Athletics, too. The A's changed almost as much, although they stuck with the same color scheme outside of their Kansas City years, I believe. It's good that both teams found classic looks, but both have been chipping away at them with the A's adding a few alternates, using three different road caps that were worse than the home, and now mismatching their helmets on the road. And of course, the Sox messed up sleeve patch and then the pants stripes on the road. Both teams are almost like alcoholics who have been doing well lately. 25 years sober, but you feel like soon one will fall off the wagon and come out with something Diamondbackian.

[ECUFan25]

This is more of a favorite team thing but I never liked the Rams until they moved back to LA

42 minutes ago, CanucksBrad said:

I don't think Original 6 jerseys are that much better than some of the better, newer jerseys in the NHL. It's just the fact that they've been relatively unchanged for 60-100 years gives it a sense of superiority. Detroit and Toronto especially. If they didn't exist and a new team from Las Vegas or Seattle came in with plain red/blue and white uniforms, people would say "They're ok, but kinda boring".

 

If I am being as objective as possible, I would say Chicago home and away, Boston home, Montreal home are among the best in the league. The Rangers home and away are very nice too, top 3rd in the league for sure. Detroit and Toronto are kind plain, not a huge fan. Montreal and Boston's away are nothing special either.

 

But they are still better than a lot around the league that have ugly components.

+1 on that, I actually like the new(ish) Hurricanes jerseys.

Now to talk baseball, The Rays logo isn't completely garbage. Also the Diamondbacks nailed it with the new jerseys

[OnWis97]

15 minutes ago, TheOldRoman said:

 

And not just the White Sox, but the Athletics, too. The A's changed almost as much, although they stuck with the same color scheme outside of their Kansas City years, I believe. It's good that both teams found classic looks, but both have been chipping away at them with the A's adding a few alternates, using three different road caps that were worse than the home, and now mismatching their helmets on the road. And of course, the Sox messed up sleeve patch and then the pants stripes on the road. Both teams are almost like alcoholics who have been doing well lately. 25 years sober, but you feel like soon one will fall off the wagon and come out with something Diamondbackian.

Yeah, the A's are a great example.  They went from being loud, wearing a thousand jerseys, changing jerseys almost every year to adopting a great classic look.  They did not change color schemes like the Sox (at least not as recently), so their identity was a bit more intact, but they stabilized the heck out of their uniforms.  I'd argue the A's have chipped away much worse than the Sox, though.  A black alt that just did not belong being a key reason, along with more hats.

 

I agree with you on both things the Sox did being wrong, but I would call that chipping pretty minimal, albeit senseless.  

[MCM0313]

3 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

This is probably about right on.  I grew up in that era and I admit, I enjoyed seeing them wear these as throwbacks once (or a few times, I think), but I recognize that this should absolutly not be their full-time identity.  And while I don't have my finger to the pulse of the fan base, I tend to doubt many people would disagree.  It's fun because it's nostalgic and maybe even because it's gaudy.  But the clamor for and 80s identity is not like it is in Milwaukee.  If you don't like the 80s Brewers look, that's more of an unpopular opinion.

 

Man, it's amazing how frequently the White Sox used to change.  The older looks (red/powder and whatever else before my time) the atrocious big-collar uniforms, the slightly better (by default) beech blanket look, the late 1980s look (which was, in a vacuum, serviceable, but did not fit the team, particularly the "C" cap).  And then they change to black, at least partly to hop on a trend...and they've kept it for like 25 years and have one of the most stable identities in MLB.  When they made the change, I'd never have thought that would be the case.

I actually like the red and powder. Is that unpopular enough?

[Kevin W.]

3 hours ago, CanucksBrad said:

I wouldn't say any of them went through "major" changes. The colours have remained the same, and the logos have remained mostly the same. They've done smaller stuff like adding or removing shoulder yokes and sleeve stripes, and changing details in their logos.

 

As a Canucks fan, I know about MAJOR uniform changes. We've done it 3 times.

Going from this:

to this:

is definitely a major change. The uniform is completely different and the shape of the logo is different.

 

[CanucksBrad]

My point wasn't about how much they changed....

[DCarp1231]

This may very well get me shunned, but unlike some of you knuckleheads I couldn't care any less about inconsistent striping. It all looks great to me.

[FinsUp1214]

This has always been my favorite 49ers set:

 

 

...with the '94 throwbacks a close second. I do like the current set and Montana set, and get the historical significance behind that particular look. But I feel like this set did a very good job of modernizing while honoring and respecting that history, as well as being a solid, cohesive, and strong uniform in its own right. It brought eras together and is essentially what I wish they were wearing today.

 

And to be totally honest? I love drop shadow numbers (that may be an unpopular opinion in and of itself), so there's another big reason there. The 49ers just pulled them off so well.

[WavePunter]

12 hours ago, FinsUp1214 said:

This has always been my favorite 49ers set:

 

 

...with the '94 throwbacks a close second. I do like the current set and Montana set, and get the historical significance behind that particular look. But I feel like this set did a very good job of modernizing while honoring and respecting that history, as well as being a solid, cohesive, and strong uniform in its own right. It brought eras together and is essentially what I wish they were wearing today.

 

And to be totally honest? I love drop shadow numbers (that may be an unpopular opinion in and of itself), so there's another big reason there. The 49ers just pulled them off so well.

The 49ers got everything right with all the unpopular aspects of that uniform.

Darker red, but still very red, wasn't too cardinal or crimson in the sunlight, and matched the gold in their color scheme perfectly.

Basically swapped white for black in the trim, but added some cohesiveness with the very appropriately-applied drop shadows throughout the set (shadows ARE black/dark after all), plus the darker red and addition of black allowed the white and gold embellishments to really stand out. I especially like that they shifted red to the center of the striping and moved black outside, which was a problem I had with the 94 throwback pants.. They did those backwards, although it actually matched the set better that way due to having so much less black.

The only thing they should've done differently with this set is remove the gold stems in the pants striping or add them in the helmet.. However, the gold inner outline in the helmet logo actually helped it match a bit anyway.

Either way, this is my favorite niners set as well

 

[DG_ThenNowForever]

^^^^

 

Definitely. The late 90s 49ers uniforms are the gold standard for how to update a classic look, and how to elegantly add black. They looked awesome in those uniforms. I like the classic look, but I was kind of a bummed when they switched back to their current set (and more bummed when they replaced the gold pant with khaki).

 

Unpopular opinion - this is the best Knicks look:

 

The set after this narrowed the black panel too much. Like the 49ers update, this was a bold reinvention of the classic Knicks look that tastefully updated the uniform and added black without looking ridiculous. There were tons of bad uniform updates in the 90s NBA; this was among the very best.