Uniform Teams

[denkerprime]

More and more, the idea of team branding, differentiation within sports, and overlapping styles, have become hot topics on these boards. The specific question that i have, which might be a different way of looking at the discussion is; How important is it in your opinion that within a sport, or league, that teams do have separate identities?

To be honest, there is a plethora of ways to interpret a question like that. It could mean, almost anything.

So, what do people think?

[Jer15]

do you mean in a nutshell "would it be so bad if teams were named/branded the same?" kinda of like what we see over in Europe with sporting/athletic clubs? Best example off the top of my head being MODO in Sweden.

[lenardo]

For me, it would be preferable if teams adopted their own unique set. in college football we see alot of the same template, especially with the missouri template. it looks great on mizzou but too many other teams ruined it. we also see alot of the "bronco" striping, its a nice design but way overused.

[max]

1. Eagles

2. Tigers

3. Bulldogs

4. Panthers

5. Wildcats

6. Warriors

7. Lions

8. Indians

9. Cougars

10. Knights

11. Mustangs

12. Falcons

13. Trojans

14. Cardinals

15. Vikings

16. Pirates

17. Raiders

18. Spartans

19. Rams

20. Bears

[slapshot]

Watch some film clips of the 1992 Olympic hockey games. All teams had the same uniforms, the difference being colors and logos. Visually, it was very boring, and difficult to tell the teams apart, expecially on black & white TVs.

[Spearhead]

I recall that the WFL had a certain similarity about their uniforms even before its sartorial disaster of trying to match pants to positions.

I favor variety, let each team formulate it's own identity in its own way.

[fumbler]

Totally agree Spearhead it's what makes your team unique, and it sells a lot more merch being different to another.

[WideRight]

Watch some film clips of the 1992 Olympic hockey games. All teams had the same uniforms, the difference being colors and logos. Visually, it was very boring, and difficult to tell the teams apart, expecially on black & white TVs.

If you are still watching a black and white TV you don't deserve uniform diversity. You should be forced to watch replays of sporting events from 1953 or earlier. Black & white TV? Are you kidding me?

[Silent Wind of Doom]

1. Eagles

2. Tigers

3. Bulldogs

4. Panthers

5. Wildcats

6. Warriors

7. Lions

8. Indians

9. Cougars

10. Knights

11. Mustangs

12. Falcons

13. Trojans

14. Cardinals

15. Vikings

16. Pirates

17. Raiders

18. Spartans

19. Rams

20. Bears

Your response puzzles me. Why did you list this list?

[phlash]

1. Eagles

2. Tigers

3. Bulldogs

4. Panthers

5. Wildcats

6. Warriors

7. Lions

8. Indians

9. Cougars

10. Knights

11. Mustangs

12. Falcons

13. Trojans

14. Cardinals

15. Vikings

16. Pirates

17. Raiders

18. Spartans

19. Rams

20. Bears

Your response puzzles me. Why did you list this list?

It's a list of 20 of the most common team names across college athletics. It bolsters the point that there already is some uniformity across modern American sports.

[Breakwood]

The Spengler Cup is an invitational hockey tournament that happens every Christmas in Switzerland. The teams are all club teams from all over the continent plus a team of Canadians who play in the Swiss league. Every team wears jerseys with the same template intead of their normal club jerseys.

[denkerprime]

one aspect that i was thinking about in my original post, was the idea that comes up of style, and broad changes across sports. such it seems there is this divide between people who like modern uniforms and classic uniforms. and when i look at that divide, i think to myself its great that there are both in sports. that some teams have the same uniform from 50 years ago, and some teams have a uniform from two years ago.

so are there people that wish leagues were one way or the other? all modern, all classic. or do people appreciate a mix?

[tBBP]

I think I might see what the OP's initial post was getting at--although yes, the manner in which it was asked is also mighty ambiguous.

In a nutshell, in my own opinion, individuality amongst collegiate (and some pro) team identites is all but dead. More and more, it's all about the outfitter/manufacturer. This is most prevalent amongst the collegiate ranks. Now, to be sure, even back in the '40s, '50s, and '60s, a whole lotta teams looked the same--but then, sports uniforms by and large all looked the same no matter who was producing them. I can't really put a finger on when brand awareness became so prevalent amongst the collegiate ranks, but I'd wager it was right around the time Nike unveiled Missouri's current template. (I say that knowing full well it could have also occured once Nike redid the Denver Broncos' uniforms back in '96-but then several manufacturers put their own spin on that design.) At the time, Missouri's template it was a design unique to Missouri. Then Wake Forest adopted the design and it took off from there. Somewhere in there, Russell decided to get in on the act, usign GA Tech as its flagship (though if you take a look at many of the HBCU football programs, the "templating epidemic" took root long before that). Then Adidas came out with the "powertusk" template first unveiled by Arkansas, then we saw both Michigan (road jerseys) and Mississippi State go to a version of that. And now Adidas has the "TechFit" shrinkwrap jersey thing going on in college.

Just to be sure, this trend also took root in several minor-league pro leagues, most notably the AFL, which if I remember straight had an exclusive contract with Russell (and at which point the overall aesthetic of that league took a huge nosedive). I think Reebok pulled a similar trick with the CFL as well, if I'm not mistaken--outfitting all its teams on basically the same template, save for plug-and-play colors. And now we have he NBA allowing the same thing with adidas, with this "powerweb" thing or whatever it's called.

All in all, I'm all for team individuality...but in this day and age, where it appears that teams are more identified by the manufacturer logo on their chest/pants/socks/cleats/wristbands (or the "template" the team is wearing) than the locale they represent, it's pretty much becoming a moot point. I don't know if this is making any sense (I'm working on close to no sleep here), but maybe somebody out there gets my point...?

This hasn't reached the NFL (unless you count the "shrinkwrap" jerseys) or MLB yet, but time will tell if it will or not.

[MJWalker45]

Russell has several deals with league branding. Thye supply all the HBCU's (SWAC, MEAC and CIAA. Reebok tried showing how modern they were with their CFL contract and turned out some horrible uniforms. Adidas supplies the NBA and the developmental league. The NBDL games luck so n=bush because they all wear the same template. It would look so much better if they passed four uniform types amongst the teams. Same for the WNBA. When Wilson supplied the WLAF there was enough individual style thrown on to the unis that thye stood out. When it returned as NFL Europe the teams were all stuck to the same templates. The league even tried two separate templates for a couple years but one was for home jerseys and one was for away jerseys. In the end it came down to the logos and helmet colors to decipher who was who. And soccer is the same way now that there seems to be three or four main uniform suppliers. Only the big name teams really have pull in how they will look. MLS has started to break things up by splitting who gets uniforms eevery other year but it's still no more than four or five separate templates getting used.

[denkerprime]

http://www.uniwatchblog.com/2011/01/02/using-pro-combat-for-good-not-evil-part-i/

this is exactly what i was thinking about when i started this thread. this article just makes all the uniforms bland, on a new template.

modern vs classic, and diversity within leagues.

there are people, with no creative background or who are biased, that just want one stylization of a league, or another, such as classic vs modern uniforms.

but in my opinion i like the diversity. teams using the same uniforms, teams having no alts., teams having modern looks, teams have a bunch of uniform combos.

the fact that leagues have diverse styles, makes the uniforms interesting.

how do other people feel?

[MJWalker45]

I'd go along with that. I think if all the new NFL uniforms were throwbacks to the 1950's and 60's it'd look like crap. And Clevelnad vs Cincy would be confusing as hell again

[GriffinM6]

I'm sorry,but this stuff makes no sence.

[GFB]

I'm sorry,but this stuff makes no sence.

Ironic, isn't it?

[andrewharrington]

Watch some film clips of the 1992 Olympic hockey games. All teams had the same uniforms, the difference being colors and logos. Visually, it was very boring, and difficult to tell the teams apart, expecially on black & white TVs.

If you are still watching a black and white TV you don't deserve uniform diversity. You should be forced to watch replays of sporting events from 1953 or earlier. Black & white TV? Are you kidding me?

It was 1992. And no, not everyone in the world who watches the Olympics is as lucky as you (or the majority of households in the U.S.) so as to have multiple color TVs in their homes.