BFBS, Good or Bad

[gdu]

We're kind of also dancing around another issue. One of the primary justifications for the existence of collegiate athletics is that the teams serve as advertisements for the schools. Now, when we consider that 1) the list of completely self-funding college athletic departments is rather limited and 2) as a consequence, a lot of athletic departments need the tuition and activity fee dollars of their academic student body to survive, maybe these school advertisements should prioritize donning the academic school colors and not whatever looks cool or whatever Nike told you to wear this month.

Oregon is one of those completely self-funding athletic departments. Does that make it ok to have BFBS now?

I'm of the mind that BFBS is good when the design is good, and bad when the design is bad. Its a color just like white that any team can use. Not every team SHOULD use black but most teams out there can make it work. A black jersey is just as likely to ugly as a purple or a green or a red jersey is. But when its black everyone around here flips out and whines about Nike ruining another team's identity. I think ASU's new black alts look great. I think Washington's are pretty ugly. I think the Mets and Knicks look better without the black in their uniforms. I HATE the Celtics use of black. I kind of like the Orlando Magic's black alternates, but think the jersey design is pretty bad regardless of color. They're bad, but it has nothing to do with being black. I loved Florida State's black alts, thought they looked awesome.

So the bottom line is that black is just another "supporting color" and I've got no problem with teams using it. BFBS is not inherently good or bad, despite the negative connotation it has around these boards.

That's the thing though, nobody talks about RFRS or PFPS because teams don't just make red or purple uniforms if those aren't there colors. Some of us think the same should be true of black.

[IceCap]

We're kind of also dancing around another issue. One of the primary justifications for the existence of collegiate athletics is that the teams serve as advertisements for the schools. Now, when we consider that 1) the list of completely self-funding college athletic departments is rather limited and 2) as a consequence, a lot of athletic departments need the tuition and activity fee dollars of their academic student body to survive, maybe these school advertisements should prioritize donning the academic school colors and not whatever looks cool or whatever Nike told you to wear this month.

Oregon is one of those completely self-funding athletic departments. Does that make it ok to have BFBS now?

I'm of the mind that BFBS is good when the design is good, and bad when the design is bad. Its a color just like white that any team can use. Not every team SHOULD use black but most teams out there can make it work. A black jersey is just as likely to ugly as a purple or a green or a red jersey is. But when its black everyone around here flips out and whines about Nike ruining another team's identity. I think ASU's new black alts look great. I think Washington's are pretty ugly. I think the Mets and Knicks look better without the black in their uniforms. I HATE the Celtics use of black. I kind of like the Orlando Magic's black alternates, but think the jersey design is pretty bad regardless of color. They're bad, but it has nothing to do with being black. I loved Florida State's black alts, thought they looked awesome.

So the bottom line is that black is just another "supporting color" and I've got no problem with teams using it. BFBS is not inherently good or bad, despite the negative connotation it has around these boards.

That's the thing though, nobody talks about RFRS or PFPS because teams don't just make red or purple uniforms if those aren't there colors. Some of us think the same should be true of black.

Indeed.

The Calgary Flames have benefited from the addition of black, in my opinion. The old red, gold, and white uniforms are ok, but they seem a tad washed out. The addition of black to the colour scheme really made the whole look pop. They would have one of the best modern looks in the NHL had they carried over their 2003-07 look into the EDGE era.

Could not agree with this statement more. If you had asked me in the 2006-07 season who had the best jerseys in the NHL I would have said the Flames without blinking.

The shame of it is that when the team inevitably reacts against the current EDGE atrocities they'll go straight throwback.

Btw I love your sig, lets see the Cup back in Canada where it belongs!

Thanks. Here's hoping!

[BigDmo]

We're kind of also dancing around another issue. One of the primary justifications for the existence of collegiate athletics is that the teams serve as advertisements for the schools. Now, when we consider that 1) the list of completely self-funding college athletic departments is rather limited and 2) as a consequence, a lot of athletic departments need the tuition and activity fee dollars of their academic student body to survive, maybe these school advertisements should prioritize donning the academic school colors and not whatever looks cool or whatever Nike told you to wear this month.

Oregon is one of those completely self-funding athletic departments. Does that make it ok to have BFBS now?

I'm of the mind that BFBS is good when the design is good, and bad when the design is bad. Its a color just like white that any team can use. Not every team SHOULD use black but most teams out there can make it work. A black jersey is just as likely to ugly as a purple or a green or a red jersey is. But when its black everyone around here flips out and whines about Nike ruining another team's identity. I think ASU's new black alts look great. I think Washington's are pretty ugly. I think the Mets and Knicks look better without the black in their uniforms. I HATE the Celtics use of black. I kind of like the Orlando Magic's black alternates, but think the jersey design is pretty bad regardless of color. They're bad, but it has nothing to do with being black. I loved Florida State's black alts, thought they looked awesome.

So the bottom line is that black is just another "supporting color" and I've got no problem with teams using it. BFBS is not inherently good or bad, despite the negative connotation it has around these boards.

That's the thing though, nobody talks about RFRS or PFPS because teams don't just make red or purple uniforms if those aren't there colors. Some of us think the same should be true of black.

Because those aren't neutral colors

[McCall]

We're kind of also dancing around another issue. One of the primary justifications for the existence of collegiate athletics is that the teams serve as advertisements for the schools. Now, when we consider that 1) the list of completely self-funding college athletic departments is rather limited and 2) as a consequence, a lot of athletic departments need the tuition and activity fee dollars of their academic student body to survive, maybe these school advertisements should prioritize donning the academic school colors and not whatever looks cool or whatever Nike told you to wear this month.

Oregon is one of those completely self-funding athletic departments. Does that make it ok to have BFBS now?

I'm of the mind that BFBS is good when the design is good, and bad when the design is bad. Its a color just like white that any team can use. Not every team SHOULD use black but most teams out there can make it work. A black jersey is just as likely to ugly as a purple or a green or a red jersey is. But when its black everyone around here flips out and whines about Nike ruining another team's identity. I think ASU's new black alts look great. I think Washington's are pretty ugly. I think the Mets and Knicks look better without the black in their uniforms. I HATE the Celtics use of black. I kind of like the Orlando Magic's black alternates, but think the jersey design is pretty bad regardless of color. They're bad, but it has nothing to do with being black. I loved Florida State's black alts, thought they looked awesome.

So the bottom line is that black is just another "supporting color" and I've got no problem with teams using it. BFBS is not inherently good or bad, despite the negative connotation it has around these boards.

That's the thing though, nobody talks about RFRS or PFPS because teams don't just make red or purple uniforms if those aren't there colors. Some of us think the same should be true of black.

Because those aren't neutral colors

Really, neither is black, in the sense of sports identities. White is plain, basic, like a canvass for the team's colors. Other than gray for baseball away uniforms, white is really the only neutral color. Black definately falls within the aspect of a team's color identity, whether as trim, accent or primary.

[BrandMooreArt]

black is widely used because it complements nearly every color scheme and by adding black to a uniform it changes the entire mood/message. you take a red/yellow scheme which is bright, youthful, fun and with black it becomes more intimidating. would Darth Vader be as bad ass if he were wearing any other color? Batman? peoples perception of black (in the west) is that it is a color of rebellion, angst, authority, power, elegance, masculinity, mystery, and elite status. it works well for sports teams. its an easy and effective way do something different to move merch or call attention to a special occasion, like a primetime game which is often when the Ravens break out the black unis.

the bad guys wear black. black credit cards are for a select few. black tie dinners are for the classy and rich. many martial arts highest achievement is the black belt. every color has meaning and symbolizes something. those who say "its just a color" or "it dosnt matter" do not know the first thing about color theory or branding/marketing. color plays as much a part of our lives as anything. it affects our moods, our eating habits, our perception of everything it touches.

black also affects visual weight. a black object appears to weigh more than a white one. this plays a part in athletes as well, making them look slimmer but also heavier and more powerful.

It makes sense for Batman to wear black. He's the "dark knight." Darth Vader's the "Lord of the Sith," a high ranking officer in an evil empire as well as a "dark" religious order. Within their fictional universes it makes sense for these characters to wear black.

How this in any way justifies the New York Knicks or the Duke Blue Devils shoehorning black into their colour schemes is beyond me. The elite status argument's also bs. The Raiders, the originators of the "black=awesome" trend, suck. Look at the NCAA. How many second and third tier programs wear black alternates? Black isn't elite. It's just trendy.

This part was really good though.

peoples perception of black (in the west) is that it is a color of rebellion, angst, authority, power, elegance, masculinity, mystery, and elite status.

So black's the colour of authority, and also the colour of rebellion, eh?

Through enough buzz words around, and eventually you'll get caught in a contradiction.

black was chosen for BatMan and Vader because it is reflective of their personalities. sports teams try to reflect a bit of those same traits as well. some are following a trend, others make design choices with some thought put into them. the elite status reflections is not BS and is not an argument. you should read more into color theory to better understand it. the Raiders use silver and black as a form of fear and intimidation. they wouldnt have the same brand archetype at all if they were wearing the Buccs old orange and white

you havent caught me in a contradiction, you've only shown your ignorance to color theory again, and those who have agreed with you the same. color is subjective and can have different meanings based on context. do you realize how many police officers wear black? (authority) or metal bands, or bikers? (rebellion)

[gdu]

We're kind of also dancing around another issue. One of the primary justifications for the existence of collegiate athletics is that the teams serve as advertisements for the schools. Now, when we consider that 1) the list of completely self-funding college athletic departments is rather limited and 2) as a consequence, a lot of athletic departments need the tuition and activity fee dollars of their academic student body to survive, maybe these school advertisements should prioritize donning the academic school colors and not whatever looks cool or whatever Nike told you to wear this month.

Oregon is one of those completely self-funding athletic departments. Does that make it ok to have BFBS now?

I'm of the mind that BFBS is good when the design is good, and bad when the design is bad. Its a color just like white that any team can use. Not every team SHOULD use black but most teams out there can make it work. A black jersey is just as likely to ugly as a purple or a green or a red jersey is. But when its black everyone around here flips out and whines about Nike ruining another team's identity. I think ASU's new black alts look great. I think Washington's are pretty ugly. I think the Mets and Knicks look better without the black in their uniforms. I HATE the Celtics use of black. I kind of like the Orlando Magic's black alternates, but think the jersey design is pretty bad regardless of color. They're bad, but it has nothing to do with being black. I loved Florida State's black alts, thought they looked awesome.

So the bottom line is that black is just another "supporting color" and I've got no problem with teams using it. BFBS is not inherently good or bad, despite the negative connotation it has around these boards.

That's the thing though, nobody talks about RFRS or PFPS because teams don't just make red or purple uniforms if those aren't there colors. Some of us think the same should be true of black.

Because those aren't neutral colors

So? School colors are there for a reason. If everyone is just going to wear black jerseys and minimize their school colors, we should just get it over with and everyone can have black home uniforms and white road uniforms.

[charger77]

My favorite BFBS:

[TheOldRoman]

Really, neither is black, in the sense of sports identities. White is plain, basic, like a canvass for the team's colors. Other than gray for baseball away uniforms, white is really the only neutral color. Black definately falls within the aspect of a team's color identity, whether as trim, accent or primary.

Exactly. Black isn't neutral. In the NCAA thread, someone tried arguing that white wasn't neutral, by my definition, because it supposedly clashed with columbia blue and yellow. What the hell?! The Chargers wear white helmets with a light blue jersey, and nobody ever complained that they clash. Same with the Packers and the athletic yellow helmets with white jerseys. If a team wore a navy jersey with a black helmet, it would look like garabge. The colors clash because they are too similar and it would look like they were supposed to match. It's the same thing with black and brown. They do not, in any circumstance, go together or look good together. While some lighter colors might not stand out as much against white, white doesn't clash with anything. Black doesn't go well with any other dark color. It isn't neutral.

[IceCap]

you havent caught me in a contradiction, you've only shown your ignorance to color theory again, and those who have agreed with you the same. color is subjective and can have different meanings based on context. do you realize how many police officers wear black? (authority) or metal bands, or bikers? (rebellion)

If black can truly be said to represent all of these things, even contradictory elements of authority and rebellion, then can you really say black represents anything definitive at all? If it represents everything, then it really represents nothing.

I'm sorry, but your posts on this matter just come off like a list of buzz words. Black as an "elite" colour. Black as an "attitude." Give me a break. Black isn't elite. The Raiders blow. Second and third tier NCAA teams have black alternates. So it's certainly not elite, and it's certainly not an attitude. It's just a colour that sells well, so teams adopt it to sell more gear. That's it. Anything else is just hogwash designers come up with to justify their reliance on a crutch or teams to justify their shoehorning in of a colour they have no previous association with.

black was chosen for BatMan and Vader because it is reflective of their personalities. sports teams try to reflect a bit of those same traits as well.

Changing your team colours to reflect fictional characters is perhaps the dumbest thing I've ever heard of in the realm of sports logo and uniform design.

And don't try to tell me I just don't "get it" or that I'm "ignorant" regarding design theory. There are plenty of (very talented) designers who post here who have criticized the BFBS trend.

[JohnnySeoul]

Bring all of you discussion about it into this thread because im tired of seeing it in almost every thread about college football.

Black is no different than white (both are at the outermost extremes of the color spectrum). If a team can wear white without fanboys getting their panties in a bind, then they shouldn't cry about a black version. Now of course, some teams look bad in black, but others look great. NO team should get bashed for trying it out.

[WSU151]

Really, neither is black, in the sense of sports identities. White is plain, basic, like a canvass for the team's colors. Other than gray for baseball away uniforms, white is really the only neutral color. Black definately falls within the aspect of a team's color identity, whether as trim, accent or primary.

Exactly. Black isn't neutral. In the NCAA thread, someone tried arguing that white wasn't neutral, by my definition, because it supposedly clashed with columbia blue and yellow. What the hell?! The Chargers wear white helmets with a light blue jersey, and nobody ever complained that they clash. Same with the Packers and the athletic yellow helmets with white jerseys. If a team wore a navy jersey with a black helmet, it would look like garabge. The colors clash because they are too similar and it would look like they were supposed to match. It's the same thing with black and brown. They do not, in any circumstance, go together or look good together. While some lighter colors might not stand out as much against white, white doesn't clash with anything. Black doesn't go well with any other dark color. It isn't neutral.

See: Butler and West Virginia basketball. Navy is their dominant color, and then they also have black alternates with navy trim. It looks awful. Black is definitely not neutral.

If black can truly be said to represent all of these things, even contradictory elements of authority and rebellion, then can you really say black represents anything definitive at all? If it represents everything, then it really represents nothing.

I'm sorry, but your posts on this matter just come off like a list of buzz words. Black as an "elite" colour. Black as an "attitude." Give me a break. Black isn't elite. The Raiders blow. Second and third tier NCAA teams have black alternates. So it's certainly not elite, and it's certainly not an attitude. It's just a colour that sells well, so teams adopt it to sell more gear. That's it. Anything else is just hogwash designers come up with to justify their reliance on a crutch or teams to justify their shoehorning in of a colour they have no previous association with.

+1. Black represents good (Neo in The Matrix), evil (Darth Vader), authority (police), rebellion (bikers), business (Wall Street, profit), class (limos are usually black, or in fashion, a black dress for women), attitude (Johnny Cash), slenderness (wear black to look skinnier), dirtyness (black hides dirt better than white), sexyness (nothing sexier than black lingerie), etc etc etc. When I was in high school, it was always the emos, goth, and misunderstood weird kids who wore all black. Black represents a lot of . It's like Baskin Robbins...

[gdu]

Bring all of you discussion about it into this thread because im tired of seeing it in almost every thread about college football.

Black is no different than white (both are at the outermost extremes of the color spectrum). If a team can wear white without fanboys getting their panties in a bind, then they shouldn't cry about a black version. Now of course, some teams look bad in black, but others look great. NO team should get bashed for trying it out.

Teams wear white so they can be distinguished from the players on the team they are playing against (you know, the whole reason teams have uniforms in the first place). When teams wear BFBS, they are doing so at the expense of their actual colors just so they can wear black. The two are NOTHING alike.

[tBBP]

You know, the content/subject matter in this discussion/flamewar and those in the ASU/WSU threads is really pressing more and more upon my brain the idea that sports teams in this country would do well to break from the norm and pursue the route that international football/futbol has been taking for years: one primary uniform, one change ("clash") set, get a special-occasion alternate set if need be...and just leave everything else the hell alone.

Y'all think that might work out alright around these parts?

[JohnnySeoul]

Bring all of you discussion about it into this thread because im tired of seeing it in almost every thread about college football.

Black is no different than white (both are at the outermost extremes of the color spectrum). If a team can wear white without fanboys getting their panties in a bind, then they shouldn't cry about a black version. Now of course, some teams look bad in black, but others look great. NO team should get bashed for trying it out.

Teams wear white so they can be distinguished from the players on the team they are playing against (you know, the whole reason teams have uniforms in the first place). When teams wear BFBS, they are doing so at the expense of their actual colors just so they can wear black. The two are NOTHING alike.

So you have trouble distinguishing between two teams when one of them isn't wearing white? That must suck when the Lakers are on.

[Funkatron101]

My favorite BFBS:

Why is this BFBS? The logo is predominantly black. It is a significant part of their branding.

[gdu]

Bring all of you discussion about it into this thread because im tired of seeing it in almost every thread about college football.

Black is no different than white (both are at the outermost extremes of the color spectrum). If a team can wear white without fanboys getting their panties in a bind, then they shouldn't cry about a black version. Now of course, some teams look bad in black, but others look great. NO team should get bashed for trying it out.

Teams wear white so they can be distinguished from the players on the team they are playing against (you know, the whole reason teams have uniforms in the first place). When teams wear BFBS, they are doing so at the expense of their actual colors just so they can wear black. The two are NOTHING alike.

So you have trouble distinguishing between two teams when one of them isn't wearing white? That must suck when the Lakers are on.

I know you were joking, but the Lakers, unlike many teams, have 2 colors so they don't need a set of whites. Alabama, Texas, Penn State, etc... do.

[IceCap]

You know, the content/subject matter in this discussion/flamewar and those in the ASU/WSU threads is really pressing more and more upon my brain the idea that sports teams in this country would do well to break from the norm and pursue the route that international football/futbol has been taking for years: one primary uniform, one change ("clash") set, get a special-occasion alternate set if need be...and just leave everything else the hell alone.

Y'all think that might work out alright around these parts?

I've been in favour of that for hockey for a while now.

[slapshot]

Bring all of you discussion about it into this thread because im tired of seeing it in almost every thread about college football.

Black is no different than white (both are at the outermost extremes of the color spectrum). If a team can wear white without fanboys getting their panties in a bind, then they shouldn't cry about a black version. Now of course, some teams look bad in black, but others look great. NO team should get bashed for trying it out.

When talking about sports/college identities, black is not a neutral color. It's a color, period. The only neutral color is white, because by most sports rules, teams must have a white jersey. White is used as the base color because it is the only one that fully allows all the other colors to stand out and be legible. The reason gray uniforms came into existence was to save money on laundry in the early 20th century. Uniforms got dirty...if they were a lighter gray, the dirt would not show as much.

Colors are there to identify the team. A team is represented by its colors. Adding black "just because you can" is lazy, pointless, and just panders to the crowd that thinks you need black to look "cool".

By your definition, every team should have a black jersey. Unless a team or school is redefining its identity and color scheme with black in it, they should be bashed for trying it, because it's strictly a pandering move.

This was my point with ASU. Black was officially added to its identity, so now it's appropriate to emphasize it in the uniforms.

[JohnnySeoul]

Bring all of you discussion about it into this thread because im tired of seeing it in almost every thread about college football.

Black is no different than white (both are at the outermost extremes of the color spectrum). If a team can wear white without fanboys getting their panties in a bind, then they shouldn't cry about a black version. Now of course, some teams look bad in black, but others look great. NO team should get bashed for trying it out.

Teams wear white so they can be distinguished from the players on the team they are playing against (you know, the whole reason teams have uniforms in the first place). When teams wear BFBS, they are doing so at the expense of their actual colors just so they can wear black. The two are NOTHING alike.

So you have trouble distinguishing between two teams when one of them isn't wearing white? That must suck when the Lakers are on.

I know you were joking, but the Lakers, unlike many teams, have 2 colors so they don't need a set of whites. Alabama, Texas, Penn State, etc... do.

I wonder if the Lakers' alternate white jersey is then considered WFWS. There was no point in making it except to sell more jerseys (which is 100% ok with me).

[Funkatron101]

I wonder if the Lakers' alternate white jersey is then considered WFWS. There was no point in making it except to sell more jerseys (which is 100% ok with me).

If I were to guess, the NBA brass probably urged them to come out with a white jersey, to match all the others. They were the only team grandfathered in. The Warriors wanted to have a yellow home jersey and were denied.