Arizona Cardinals Third Jersey

[vmd9]

How much black is in this logo?

there's your answer. It's bad enough when people complain about every time the color black is used, but how can a knowledgeable person even argue against them using black.

[TheOldRoman]

It is an awesome looking uniform, and it's a nice change of pace from the red.

Black's in the logo and it's in the trim. Perfectly justifiable reason to make a black alternate uniform.

There is no need to change pace when they only wear their red jerseys 8-9 times a year.

[O.C.D]

You could make that comment in regards to any team.

I like the idea of alternate uniforms because it adds an element of unpredictability to the viewing experience.

[Cujo]

No problem with the Cards' black alts -- just that the gray facemask totally cheapens the look.

[ColeJ]

to say that the cardinals aren't BFBS because they use black in their logo and uniforms would be to say that detroit lions are in the same boat.

both teams with black alternate jerseys justified by the addition of a few small black accents to a uniform that went most of it's history without any.

granted, the cardinals logo has always had black in it. but the chicago blackhawks logo has always had green in it (since the 30's at least). doesn't mean they could get away with a little green piping on the home and road to justify a green alternate sweater. (ridiculous st. patty's day threads included). doesn't mean the vikings could get by with a flesh-tone jersey either, since it's in their logo.

the cardinals have some of my least favorite uniforms in all of football. a horrible mismatch of traditional and modern that just doesn't fit. the modernization of the logo was a brilliant job, but the uniforms come off looking like the falcons. the black alternate doesn't help that cause... nor does it fit with the plain white helmet and grey facemask.

now i'm not saying what they wore before was perfect. the mismatching home and roads, arguably overly simplified template... but if they were going to come up with new uniforms that had a bit of a modern flair, they could have done much much better than they did. again, look at the lions. they still look like the lions, despite all the changes.

[shaydre1019]

If they didn't have a black jersey until they needed a merchandising boost, then it's still BFBS.

Wouldn't that make it black for merchandising's sake??

I don't think these look bad at all, however I think their whole uniform set just looks dumb, seems they wanted to get with the times and get some piping and did a horrible job executing.

[a3uge]

The Cardinals are a team that doesn't really have an established identity, which is kind of sad for the oldest team in the NFL. I think a classic cardinal red look with the white helmet looks real nice, I'm not sure why the black is in there at all. These uniforms look really weird, in my opinion. The pants awkwardly turn into a thin stripe that ends in the front, and the jersey doesn't match the pants at all. The random white shapes in by the armpits I don't really understand and the the red piping looks miss-shaped and hard to see anyways. They did manage to keep the classic grey facemask, which doesn't look well with the black at all. I did also keep thinking the Rams were playing the Falcons in this game, as they also have black and red uniforms. From just after World War I to 2005 or so they've had a traditional white and cardinal look, so I would say the black uniforms, regardless of the presence in the logo, is out of place and black for the sake of being black.

[O.C.D]

Thats not an apples to apples argument. In the Black Hawks logo green is such a small accent color, in the cardinals logo the black ratio is much higher. The Lions added black outlines, period.

The Falcon and Cardinal alt jerseys look a little similar, but the white helmet makes it clear which team is which.

[O.C.D]

I did also keep thinking the Rams were playing the Falcons in this game, as they also have black and red uniforms.

The helmets are a dead giveaway.

[GFB]

to say that the cardinals aren't BFBS because they use black in their logo and uniforms would be to say that detroit lions are in the same boat.

Woah, woah, woah. Disagree. The Cardinals' logo is practically half black, so I'll give you the point there. But the Lions' logo is blue and white with the only black portion being a comletely pointless outline. Further, black is the secondary color (excluding white) of the Cardinals' uniforms; while silver, not black, is the secondary color in the Lions' uniforms, which would qualify any prominent usage (such as a black jersey) as BFBS.

[a3uge]

Thats not an apples to apples argument. In the Black Hawks logo green is such a small accent color, in the cardinals logo the black ratio is much higher. The Lions added black outlines, period.

The Falcon and Cardinal alt jerseys look a little similar, but the white helmet makes it clear which team is which.

There's more of the face color in the logo compared to the rest of the logo than there's black compared to the Cardinals logo... that doesn't mean a bizarre off-orange jersey is a good idea. The Cardinals have black in their logo because it helps make up the figure of a Cardinal. It look ridiculous without any black in the logo, but I don't think that means their primary color needs to be black because of it. In the view of their franchise history, the primary colors are Cardinal Red and White with modest black accents. Never the primary color of the uniform, and I don't think they identify well with a black jersey. The Falcons, on the other hand, have branded themselves as Black, Red, and White and black jerseys make sense. The same can be said about the Ravens. The Cardinals and Lions, on the other hand, haven't had a history of black in their uniforms or branding, which I think is a more important thing to look at than the actual logo itself. Again, we can pull examples like the Florida Panthers... they brand themselves with gold, red, white, and blue, but the actual cat color would not be a good use for the primary color for a uniform, and I think people would have a hard time identifying the Panthers brand with a weird cat-color uniform. I know the Flyers have worn black, but I think the black uniforms are a mistake as well, because the team identifies the best as orange and white with black accents, despite the logo itself being predominantly black.

[Legend]

It is an awesome looking uniform, and it's a nice change of pace from the red.

Black's in the logo and it's in the trim. Perfectly justifiable reason to make a black alternate uniform.

Thank you! I agree 100%.

And who the hell invented the black for blacks sake term? If it's that clown Lukas, I will not be using it. He hates everything.

Alot of teams have black in their logo somehow, so it works. And if black can be for blacks sake, what about white and grey? White is the consumate jersey color in every sport, and grey for away in baseball. Black is in the same field for me as white, it's a neutral type color that can go with anything. Grey isn't as much.

[BlueSky]

They're named after a color?? What's that bird on their helmets?

Look at their uni history. The third jersey is definitely BFBS. And ugly, too.

[Gothamite]

They're named after a color?? What's that bird on their helmets?

Later revisionism.

[ESTONES6]

People here are way too sensitive when it comes to throwing around BFBS. Any team that comes out with black shirts or black pants they freak out and start yelling that its BFBS. Although black is part of the Cardinals' color scheme, it is NOT a prominent color in the uniforms or the logo. Sure, black is in both, but its very subtle, nearly unidentifiable. Both the home and away uniforms focus on the use of red heavily, white moderately, and nearly nothing on black. So to flip the script and heavily focus on black, moderately on white and no red... you could argue that its a bit pretentious. But I can't say that its BFBS since black is part of the primary uniforms and the logo.

[andrewharrington]

I personally love the black jerseys. I don't see them as a full on case of BFBS because there is black in the cards primary logo.

Well, I guess the Chiefs and Forty Niners should be next in line for some black alternates then.

[Chawls]

It's not BFBS. I sent an angry letter to the Cardinals in 2006 when they switched from white to black shoes (calling them the Arizona Falcons). I actually got a response via email, a very nice and professional one at that, explaining that black is in fact one of their team colors and it was the players who requested the switch.

So not only is it a fact that black is officially considered one of their team colors by the organization itself, but I can also completely buy the players requesting black alts.

[The_Admiral]

Every team that wears black has made a conscious decision to do so. All B is BFBS.

The Cardinals' thirds suck, though

[nuordr]

Can the Cards black alternates really be considered Black For Black's Sake? Black takes up the majority of their logo, and has a featured place in both their white and red uniform pieces.

Discuss.

I believe that know one can complain about BFBS unless teams do a complete black out uniform that is typically not their color. Take Vanderbilt for instance: they have black in their color scheme and when they broke out the black helmets this season people said it was BFBS, well how can that be when their one of their two normal colors are black? People just want to try wolf about BFBS simply because they do not like the trend. I say, let colleges do what they want to do and allow NFL teams to create new jerseys of their choosing to make more money.

As far as the Cardinals, black has always been apart of their logo and therefore it should be used in their uniforms. I wish they used a black helmet myself because it would make that Cardinals stand out more. In addition, why would they not choose black as an alternate? What color would people suggest they use, yellow? I certainly hope not. Finally, I say leave the BFBS alone and it will either run its course or it will be here for years to come.

No problem with the Cards' black alts -- just that the gray facemask totally cheapens the look.

Me and you definitely are on the same page about grey facemasks...they stink!

[Fox]

It is an awesome looking uniform, and it's a nice change of pace from the red.

Black's in the logo and it's in the trim. Perfectly justifiable reason to make a black alternate uniform.

Thank you! I agree 100%.

And who the hell invented the black for blacks sake term? If it's that clown Lukas, I will not be using it. He hates everything.

Alot of teams have black in their logo somehow, so it works. And if black can be for blacks sake, what about white and grey? White is the consumate jersey color in every sport, and grey for away in baseball. Black is in the same field for me as white, it's a neutral type color that can go with anything. Grey isn't as much.

Bolded = So true.

Although I don't really think that black is a neutral color in sports like grey and white are.