Top 3 worst uniform changes in the 2000's in your opinion

[Braden]

1. Toronto Blue Jays - 2004

Improved the colour palette, but instead of making it a unique Blue & Graphite team, it's a bland Black & Silver team.

And pick a number font to use on all the uniforms, dammit.

2. Edmonton Oilers - 2008

When you go from having one of the best uniforms in the league, to the worst, you make my list.

Bettman apron stripes? Discontinuing sleeve stripes? Really?

3. Minnesota Vikings - 2006

Another case of one of the best to one of the worst.

[Korkie]

My two cents:

1.) Cincinnati Bengals. Everything about every element of the jerseys and pants are awful, especially compared to the gorgeousness of the Jeff Blake era unis.

2.) Toronto Blue Jays. The lack of blue has been well discussed already.

3.) Arizona Diamondbacks. Again well discussed. Throwing away a great unique look for a generic, dark look. Also, I don't like "D-backs" on the home jerseys. Yes the previous sets were a crazy mis-mosh, but it did give them an identity.

- Single worst uni element brought forward this decade: The Rockies black vests.

- Worst college de-evolutions: Syracuse football and Kansas basketball.

- Honorable mentions: The Jaguars, the Utah Jazz, Atlanta Hawks, Buffalo Bills, and Minnesota Vikings (Braden hit the nail on the head here).

- The Buffaslug was the worst logo of the decade, but the overall look had some redeeming qualities. Bringing back the blue and yellow, the sweater style, and the font choice were all positives. Plus, I never liked the red and black era.

[Jer15]

I have to agree with, well, almost everyone on here. The Jays dropped the ball big time! I think this was their best logo of all time, but black? I mean, I get that an actual blue jay has black on it but I just don't like it at all.

[eRay]

Only counting pure uniform changes, no rebrands that changed the uniforms:

1. Buffalo Bills(2002)-Added Navy & Nickel. 'Nuff said.

2. Florida Marlins(2003)-Home script & pinstripes changed from Teal to Black. Road 'Fish-F' script & trim changed from Teal to Black. Black alternate added.

3. Philadelphia 76ers(2007)-Apparently had had enough of their look, but couldn't wait 2 years for their proper rebrand. Adopted plain looking uniforms with only piping adorning them. Lazy and boring. Ironically, I have a Black road jersey signed by Sam Dalembert.

[OnWis97]

1. Edmonton Oilers. You can argue that some teams had downgrades of more sizeable proportions, but the reason Edmonton makes number one on my list is because off all recent changes (including the whole edge change), this is the one that I just cannot fathom anyone thinking anything but "downgrade". Though I disagree, I can see someone like the Buffaslug, The Isles edge, or the Blue Jays. But changing to this practice jersey? I just can't see who thought, "yeah, this is better." Additionally, I'd rank the Oilers high on a "changes of the 90s list...as the change to the uniform they dumped was a great upgrade.

(Not including the Thunder because the City and Name changed, but theirs does suck)

2. Bengals. They had such a good look. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. At least they kept the helmet.

3. Bills. What a mess.

4. Blue Jays. I appreciate trying to be unique with the graphite, but black instead of blue does not work. Plus they dumped a pretty solid look for it.

5. Buffaslug. I actually think the Buffaslug was an improvement over the black/red/silver look (both logos stunk, but at least they went toward the color scheme they should never have ditched). The reason I think the change is bad is because they had the opportunity to do something better.

Main Homer Complaint: Wild introducing a faux-retro with a circle marginalizing a great logo. Then dumping a great jersey (the original green) and then coming with the "Minnesota" script alt. Now they have three uniforms that don't resemble each other at all in terms of crest, trim, numbers. What a mess. Every time they do something, they downgrade.

Other bad ones for me:

Ducks: I like dropping the "Mighty", but they should have kept the logo. And their new asymmetric look is very uninspired.

Jags

Panthers (much like Oilers)

Falcons: I like Stencil Bird.

Red Sox road jersey: Why? It's not horrible, but what they had was great.

Lions first switch to black

Vikings dumped a great set for something that's not horrible, but a downgrade.

Flyers changing to black primary.

Isles sleeves

Stars "Dallas" Jersey.

Brewers (was this in the 2000s?) I loved their late 1990s look.

[Discrim]

yeah, the Brew started wearing their current threads in 2000, so they'd qualify. and count me as one who doesn't get the Oilers' odd sleeve stripes. At least when the Stars did it when they first switched to black, they put the numbers in that space, so it made sense. Where the numbers are on the Oilers' sleeves, though, makes little sense.

[CS85]

Buffalo Bills - god awful atrocious mess of random blues and ugh...just makes me cringe.

Jacksonville Jaguars - went from a decent unique set to a bland ugly set that strips them of identity.

OKC Thunder - so much potential behind the Thunder name and brand, instead they pump out some indescribably shield-streak and give the franchise colors that remind you more of a fast food chain then a basketball team named after the weather. A complete ball-dropping and immensely disappointing rebranding.

Philadelphia 76ers - going back to their old uniforms basically. boring. Just another red white and blue team in the NBA.

Indiana Pacers - the new look is mediocre. It's clean, but altogether lacking flavor. I miss the pinstripes, the wrap around the bottom of the shorts, and the stripes on the sleeves and collar. That old uni had a lot more personality, and they could've done a lot more to preserve it, sort of what the Magic did by integrating the stripes in a more modern sleek style.

Edmonton Oilers - this franchise gutted a pretty cool personality to slather together some abomination of modern throwbackness after the edge changes.

[AJM]

1. Buffalo Sabres

2. Seattle -> OKC Thunder

3. Philly 76ers

[ThePreacher]

I'm gonna go ahead and agree that the 2007 Stanley Cup Finalists are the two most disappointing NHL downgrades besides Buffaslug, and possibly Dallas.

I mean, THIS was one of my favorite expansion logos. And now they have THIS cartoonish crap!

Such a shame.

BTW, Buffalo never should have changed this...one of the best logo/uni updates of the 90's NHL, even if it was BFBS.

[Morgan33]

01) Buffalo Sabres

Went from one of the most unique visually appealing sets in the league to an incongruent mess. Even if you were to omit the fact that the Buffaslug is easily one of the worst in all of pro sports, their 2006 uniforms would still make this list. Extra points for starting one of the most pointless fads in NHL history with their completely unnecessary front numbers.

02) Calgary Flames

TFoA was right on the money about this one. It was hard choosing between this and the Sabres new set. You know you have a bad set when there are over three different striping patterns and both horizontal and vertical striping. The Flags on the shoulders however put this over the top. They have got to be the tackiest, most lazy excuses for secondary logos I have ever seen. When these monstrosities are finally put out of their misery, they will make nearly every worst of list, bank on it

03) Dallas Stars

Toke the most visually appealing jerseys in franchise history with a beautiful colour scheme, sucked out all the character (Green) and replaced it with a long sleeve basketball shirt. The collegiate script looks like a joke and stripes are ridiculously sparse and half assed, like they didnt bother to finish them. Worse is the fact that they put hemline stripes on the white (which doesnt need them because the pants are black and contrast with the sweater already) and neglected to put them on the black making the full package look like a monochrome disaster.

[winters in buffalo]

I'm gonna go ahead and agree that the 2007 Stanley Cup Finalists are the two most disappointing NHL downgrades besides Buffaslug, and possibly Dallas.

I mean, THIS was one of my favorite expansion logos. And now they have THIS cartoonish crap!

Such a shame.

BTW, Buffalo never should have changed this...one of the best logo/uni updates of the 90's NHL, even if it was BFBS.

01) Buffalo Sabres

Went from one of the most unique visually appealing sets in the league to an incongruent mess. Even if you were to omit the fact that the Buffaslug is easily one of the worst in all of pro sports, their 2006 uniforms would still make this list. Extra points for starting one of the most pointless fads in NHL history with their completely unnecessary front numbers.

02) Calgary Flames

TFoA was right on the money about this one. It was hard choosing between this and the Sabres new set. You know you have a bad set when there are over three different striping patterns and both horizontal and vertical striping. The Flags on the shoulders however put this over the top. They have got to be the tackiest, most lazy excuses for secondary logos I have ever seen. When these monstrosities are finally put out of their misery, they will make nearly every worst of list, bank on it

03) Dallas Stars

Toke the most visually appealing jerseys in franchise history with a beautiful colour scheme, sucked out all the character (Green) and replaced it with a long sleeve basketball shirt. The collegiate script looks like a joke and stripes are ridiculously sparse and half assed, like they didnt bother to finish them. Worse is the fact that they put hemline stripes on the white (which doesnt need them because the pants are black and contrast with the sweater already) and neglected to put them on the black making the full package look like a monochrome disaster.

Oh, hell no. The 1996 set was a disaster. While the slug sucks, the latest change was an improvement, overall.

[KJHillis]

This thread should be emailed to these teams haha... i don't understand who they discuss these changes with

[BrandMooreArt]

1. Jacksonville Jaguars - green metallic flake on a black helmet with teal jerseys. do these uniforms come with tampons and nail polish?

2. Buffalo Bills - the helmet isnt too bad. their red is quite unique. but the jerseys are a terrible insult to sports design.

3. UCF football - if this isnt the most butt-ugly uniform in CFB i dont know what is

[IceCap]

Toronto Blue Jays-

The set they had in 2002 was a decent follow-up to the classic WS-era look. Then they switched to the T/Jay logo in 2003, which was mildly irritating. Then they went to the current look in 2004, flushing away the team's entire visual history for something that'll look dated by 2015. The team's primary colour is now black, they wear an abbreviated version of their name on their homes and alternates (I hate that), and the new script just bugs me. The one saving grace is the new road jersey. It's easily the best part of the current set.

Buffalo Bills-

Quite a lot of NFL teams would qualify, but I could only choose three, so I opted to just go with the Bills, as I feel their 2002-current sets embody all that's wrong with the current trends in NFL uniform design. Unnecessary piping, monochrome, side panels that don't match up with the pants stripe, coloured panels where they aren't needed, and an overcrowded colour scheme, the Bills have it all.

Buffalo Sabres-

I was hesitant to include them here, because as bad as the Buffaslug is, overall the slug look was an improvement over the 1996-2006 look, if for no other reason then they used proper Sabres' colours. Still, the slug has to be considered one of the worst new logos of the modern era. Nothing about it works, in any way. Does it represent the team's nickname? No. Does it at least represent a bison, to play into the city's name? Yes, but very poorly. As a logo for a team named the Sabres it fails, and as a logo for a team playing in Buffalo, NY it fails. At least the 1996-2006 logo looked like a buffalo. The slug? Not so much.

Also, I love the current Ducks look

[wildwing64]

I'm gonna have to agree with everyone except for Ice_Cap on the Ducks.

Yes, they did away with their connection to a horrible movie trilogy (Disney should never have used the NHL team's logo for the films in the first place, just my opinion - and FWIW, I became a Ducks fan partially because of the Animated Series, as hypocritical as it may seem ), but they got rid of a perfectly good logo and uniform set in the process. Gone was the unique, nostalgic crest and in came a boring, lifeless bunch of letters, with an incredibly awkward colour scheme to boot.

I'll admit, the new Ducks look has grown on me, but ever since it was unveiled I've been in something of a like-hate relationship with it. It's admittedly more comfortable to wear in public for starters, and I like how they kept the diagonal stripes. The reddish orange has even become one of my favourite colours. But why a Mighty Dull wordmark? Where is the duck? Why is there gold in the colour scheme? And why, oh why, does that gold look like a nasty brown colour all over the internet, thereby proving how awkward the colour scheme really is?

Being that I live eight whole time zones in front of the Ducks, and since NHL coverage may as well have been nonexistant over here in the UK back then (and to some extent, today still), I never got to watch a single, full length game with the then-Mighty Ducks wearing the old uniforms. Yes, there were highlights available on the team's website for the 05-06 season, but that wasn't quite the same. I did get the occasional conveniantly scheduled live radio broadcast, again through the team's website, but still not quite the same. Since the first time I could ever watch the Ducks on TV over here was during the 2007 playoffs, with the new logo and uniforms, I've always had this slight, lingering feeling of disappointment. Yes, it was awesome watching my favourite team, actually winning the Stanley Cup, on TV, but there was no eggplant and jade, or duck mask logo.

</rant>

If additions to the uniform count, then the next on my list is the Florida Panthers third jersey. No red anywhere, and they instead decided to hop on the trendy baby blue bandwagon along with the Pens and Thrashers. Maybe I don't like it because I hate this colour, but for the Pens and Thrashers, it somewhat works. For the Panthers, no.

And finally for me, if simple logo swappings count, then the Los Angeles Kings current primary logo. The shield was awesome: it went well with the team name, and was intimidating. Yet they swapped that around with one of my most hated logos of all, the current primary crown. I have no idea why, but when I look at this crown, I see a pair of wimpy, frightened looking eyes staring back at me. It's one of the only sports logos I've ever seen that looks more intimidated than intimidating. They should scrap this crown altogether and return the shield to its rightful place on the front of the jersey.

[IceCap]

I'm gonna have to agree with everyone except for Ice_Cap on the Ducks.

Yes, they did away with their connection to a horrible movie trilogy (Disney should never have used the NHL team's logo for the films in the first place, just my opinion - and FWIW, I became a Ducks fan partially because of the Animated Series, as hypocritical as it may seem ), but they got rid of a perfectly good logo and uniform set in the process. Gone was the unique, nostalgic crest and in came a boring, lifeless bunch of letters, with an incredibly awkward colour scheme to boot.

I'll admit, the new Ducks look has grown on me, but ever since it was unveiled I've been in something of a like-hate relationship with it. It's admittedly more comfortable to wear in public for starters, and I like how they kept the diagonal stripes. The reddish orange has even become one of my favourite colours. But why a Mighty Dull wordmark? Where is the duck? Why is there gold in the colour scheme? And why, oh why, does that gold look like a nasty brown colour all over the internet, thereby proving how awkward the colour scheme really is?

Being that I live eight whole time zones in front of the Ducks, and since NHL coverage may as well have been nonexistant over here in the UK back then (and to some extent, today still), I never got to watch a single, full length game with the then-Mighty Ducks wearing the old uniforms. Yes, there were highlights available on the team's website for the 05-06 season, but that wasn't quite the same. I did get the occasional conveniantly scheduled live radio broadcast, again through the team's website, but still not quite the same. Since the first time I could ever watch the Ducks on TV over here was during the 2007 playoffs, with the new logo and uniforms, I've always had this slight, lingering feeling of disappointment. Yes, it was awesome watching my favourite team, actually winning the Stanley Cup, on TV, but there was no eggplant and jade, or duck mask logo.

</rant>

See, I saw a team ditch a childish identity in favour of a more mature one. Personally I'm glad the Ducks won the Cup only after dropping the "Mighty" prefix and the duck goalie mask. I know you, and many others, will disagree with me, but that's just how I feel. I think the hockey world's much better off without a team in the NHL calling themselves the "Mighty Ducks."

[Hat Boy]

1. Arizona Diamondbacks: They went from a unique, fun looking uniform set (something very uncommon in MLB) to something that looks almost exactly like another NL team.

2. Arizona Diamondbacks - another change for the sake of change. They ditch a very unique, nice, and fitting identity for a very odd one.

2. Diamondbacks - same problem. They went from a unique, beautiful color scheme to an hideous washed-out ripoff of the Astros' ugly colors.

You guys are all crazy. Take the three most trendy colors of '90s uniform design and splatter them across (at least) 7 different uniform combos and you have the train wreck that is the 1998 Diamondbacks. As they refined the uniforms over the next 8 years, it didn't get any better.

Arizona Diamondbacks(terrible, so plain, not original, i don't get it, you won a WS in the teal!)

An ugly uniform that you won a WS in, is still an ugly uniform.

[knnhrvy16]

1. Arizona Diamondbacks: They went from a unique, fun looking uniform set (something very uncommon in MLB) to something that looks almost exactly like another NL team.

2. Arizona Diamondbacks - another change for the sake of change. They ditch a very unique, nice, and fitting identity for a very odd one.

2. Diamondbacks - same problem. They went from a unique, beautiful color scheme to an hideous washed-out ripoff of the Astros' ugly colors.

You guys are all crazy. Take the three most trendy colors of '90s uniform design and splatter them across (at least) 7 different uniform combos and you have the train wreck that is the 1998 Diamondbacks. As they refined the uniforms over the next 8 years, it didn't get any better.

Arizona Diamondbacks(terrible, so plain, not original, i don't get it, you won a WS in the teal!)

An ugly uniform that you won a WS in, is still an ugly uniform.

Look deeper into the color scheme and identity, and you see something that fits for a team called the Arizona Diamondbacks. If Arizona didn't have a team and I had to envision what a team in Arizona would look like, this would be it. Leave the brick and sand for Houston, it's already taken. I remember when the new set was unvieled my very first reaction was "am I on the Astros' website by accident?" That's a problem. You're totally entitled to your opinion, but I don't think we're crazy to say that the rebrand was at least odd, if anything. Before the change, you always knew and could tell apart the Diamondbacks. Thier look just flat out set them apart. Now, you have to look at the TV's scoreboard to see if you're watching Houston or Arizona. That's just always been my thought.

[IceCap]

1. Arizona Diamondbacks: They went from a unique, fun looking uniform set (something very uncommon in MLB) to something that looks almost exactly like another NL team.

2. Arizona Diamondbacks - another change for the sake of change. They ditch a very unique, nice, and fitting identity for a very odd one.

2. Diamondbacks - same problem. They went from a unique, beautiful color scheme to an hideous washed-out ripoff of the Astros' ugly colors.

You guys are all crazy. Take the three most trendy colors of '90s uniform design and splatter them across (at least) 7 different uniform combos and you have the train wreck that is the 1998 Diamondbacks. As they refined the uniforms over the next 8 years, it didn't get any better.

Arizona Diamondbacks(terrible, so plain, not original, i don't get it, you won a WS in the teal!)

An ugly uniform that you won a WS in, is still an ugly uniform.

Look deeper into the color scheme and identity, and you see something that fits for a team called the Arizona Diamondbacks. If Arizona didn't have a team and I had to envision what a team in Arizona would look like, this would be it. Leave the brick and sand for Houston, it's already taken. I remember when the new set was unvieled my very first reaction was "am I on the Astros' website by accident?" That's a problem. You're totally entitled to your opinion, but I don't think we're crazy to say that the rebrand was at least odd, if anything. Before the change, you always knew and could tell apart the Diamondbacks. Thier look just flat out set them apart. Now, you have to look at the TV's scoreboard to see if you're watching Houston or Arizona. That's just always been my thought.

I like both the WS-era and the current Diamondbacks looks, actually. Both have their problems (the D caps, the D-Backs script) but both were pretty close to being nice looks. On one hand I prefer the current scheme because it utilizes the brick, black, and sand scheme in a more appropriate manner then the Astros, and it brings a level of uniformity to Arizona's teams, colour-wise (only the Suns are holding out). On the other hand the WS-era set has a title associated with it, and while it was stereotypically 90s, they made it work, like the Marlins before they became a black and silver team.

So I have to go with the WS set because when in doubt go with the uniform worn during a championship season. The only change I would make to that set would be to replace the D/snake logo on the black cap with the diamond A.

EDIT-

My ideal Diamondbacks uniform....

[DallasSports]

1. Arizona Diamondbacks: They went from a unique, fun looking uniform set (something very uncommon in MLB) to something that looks almost exactly like another NL team.

2. Arizona Diamondbacks - another change for the sake of change. They ditch a very unique, nice, and fitting identity for a very odd one.

2. Diamondbacks - same problem. They went from a unique, beautiful color scheme to an hideous washed-out ripoff of the Astros' ugly colors.

You guys are all crazy. Take the three most trendy colors of '90s uniform design and splatter them across (at least) 7 different uniform combos and you have the train wreck that is the 1998 Diamondbacks. As they refined the uniforms over the next 8 years, it didn't get any better.

Arizona Diamondbacks(terrible, so plain, not original, i don't get it, you won a WS in the teal!)

An ugly uniform that you won a WS in, is still an ugly uniform.

Look deeper into the color scheme and identity, and you see something that fits for a team called the Arizona Diamondbacks. If Arizona didn't have a team and I had to envision what a team in Arizona would look like, this would be it. Leave the brick and sand for Houston, it's already taken. I remember when the new set was unvieled my very first reaction was "am I on the Astros' website by accident?" That's a problem. You're totally entitled to your opinion, but I don't think we're crazy to say that the rebrand was at least odd, if anything. Before the change, you always knew and could tell apart the Diamondbacks. Thier look just flat out set them apart. Now, you have to look at the TV's scoreboard to see if you're watching Houston or Arizona. That's just always been my thought.

Pretty much this. Just because they used to have colors that were popular in the 90's, doesn't make the uniform look bad. Indeed, they did have too many different combinations, it would have been best if they stuck with just three uniform combinations: A road, home, and alternate teal or purple. Now they look so drab, like a lot of teams have conformed to recently.