Jump to content

Arizona Cardinals Third Jersey


DeFrank

Recommended Posts

Nothing wrong with BFBS. NOTHING. You want a third jersey, its gotta be a different color than the other two. If your colors are red and white, where are you gonna go? Blue? Green? Orange? Pink? No. Black.

Or how about no third jersey? or even better, how about a throwback? (I'm looking at you, 1988 St. Louis/Phoenix era whites. You wore those at home, do it again.)

Especially when your red and your white jersey (and your logo!) all have prominent black accents. And its listed as an official color.

The thing wrong with using black is that it dilutes the brand. The Cardinals are a red and white team with black accents, which seperates them from the red, black, and white Falcons. The black is featured on the logo argument doesn't hold because there is a lot of yellow in the logo, and there used to be a lot more yellow than black in it. Without a third color, different from the body and the beak, the logo is impossible to design

It doesn't matter how "old" your team is. It doesn't matter if you were named after a color. Yeah, its BFBS, but so what? The Raiders are BFBS. The Colts are BlueForBlueSake. The Vikings are PFPS. Its just the colors the teams chose.

That is really stupid.Of course it matters how old the tam is. It's called making a brand. Of course it matters if you were named after a color. Would you want the Alabama Crimson Tide playing in black? And all of these examples you posted don't fit. The Raiders didn't have black as an accent for a few years, then abandoned it, and then made it come back for piping before adding a black jersey. The Cardinals did.

And yes, these uniforms suck. But not because they are black. The Cards unis suck in red, and white too. They are just ugly.

The home and roads are light years ahead of the black

.

terry-metcalf.jpg

Just throwing in my 2 cents, but I find it hard to understand why people think the Cardinals 3rd uniform are "BFBS" ( <--- worst coined phrase). During their St Louis stint, the Cardinals used black as a color. It was actually used as an official stripe on their jersey and pants. If it was only used to outline their numbers, then I could see an arguement. But since they also used black as stripes on both the jersey and pants as well, then it becomes one of their colors. The Cardinals are no more BFBS than the Dolphins are OFOS or the Seahwaks are GFGS with their 3rd uniforms. I thought the invention of the 3rd uniform was a way for a team to use one of their less used colors. If true, then the Dolphins, Bears, Cardinals, Panthers, Seahawks, and Giants (red jersey) all succeeded. I suppose I am missing the arguement against them wearing a black jersey except that it is ugly.

All of these teams used colors that had been more than an accent on the home (Dolphins old school jerseys) or road (Giants) before making an alt of that color. While the Seahawks didn't, they get a pass because theirs is a unique color nobody else uses, they used green for years as their second color, it was more of a one-off than an alt, and they were a tribute to the Sounders.

EDIT: If the Cowboys made a black alt, would it be okay because they use black striping on the white jersey?

I wish they used a black helmet myself because it would make that Cardinals stand out more.

Yeah, let's make them look more like the falcons than they already do, giving them their first non-white helmet in a scarcely used color.

07Giants.pngnyy.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Or how about no third jersey? or even better, how about a throwback? (I'm looking at you, 1988 St. Louis/Phoenix era whites. You wore those at home, do it again.)

The thing wrong with using black is that it dilutes the brand. The Cardinals are a red and white team with black accents, which seperates them from the red, black, and white Falcons. The black is featured on the logo argument doesn't hold because there is a lot of yellow in the logo, and there used to be a lot more yellow than black in it. Without a third color, different from the body and the beak, the logo is impossible to design

That is really stupid.Of course it matters how old the tam is. It's called making a brand. Of course it matters if you were named after a color. Would you want the Alabama Crimson Tide playing in black? And all of these examples you posted don't fit. The Raiders didn't have black as an accent for a few years, then abandoned it, and then made it come back for piping before adding a black jersey. The Cardinals did.

Wow, you get it. It's not the logo that completely dictate the brand... it's the marketing, history, and existing perceptions that dictate the brand. Arizona is most easily identified in cardinal red and white. Sure, black is used to compliment the red and white, but it's never overly apparent that black is used in their primary marketing with the red. History has established Arizona as a team with red and white primary colors and a loose black secondary color. Over-emphasizing a secondary color dilutes the brand. I'm sure even in publications there's a percentage of red, white, and black that are dictated to be used on a page. When your secondary colors start taking over, the identity is lost and starts getting mistaken for other teams (Atlanta).

Somebody mentioned New York's red alternative. I would make the same argument about that jersey as well. The team has been historically blue and white with a red secondary color.

1987.jpg

AntonioPierce.jpg

Again, I feel the red jerseys compromise the Giants identity and their ability to be easily recognized.

Same thing with Marquette. They introduced powder blue to their uniforms and have a cool design that can be marketed and recognizable. The second they start wearing powder blue as their primary color, their main identity gets lost.

I don't think it's necessarily even black for black's sake, I think it's compromising your identity for the sake of trends or hype. I don't even buy the argument that jersey sales increase a teams merchandise profits... I think the diluting of the brand makes their identity less popular and powerful. If the Red Wings started selling a black jersey, I think in time the classic red jersey has less demand and the red and white marketing stands out less. The brand becomes less recognizable which is bad for business.

Think about the teams in the NFL that have strong brands. Packers... Cowboys... Colts... these teams still market themselves very well without having to introduce completely new uniforms to look cool or stay trendy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Giants wore red jerseys and socks from the late 1930s to the early 1950s. I thought it was more of a modern throwback than anything.

I still don't have a website, but I have a dribbble now! http://dribbble.com/andyharry

[The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the position, strategy or opinions of adidas and/or its brands.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Giants red jerseys were awesome.

I loved using another color they have in their color scheme for a jersey.

Nothing wrong with that.

The Bucs could also have a black alternate and it would be fine.

I wish more teams would go the alternate route. The throwback fad needs to end.

2ly2w09.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brands evolve. It is the nature of business today. The NFL is a form of entertainment, and it competes with every other form of entertainment. Like it or not, fashion and entertainment go hand in hand.

This Black for blacks sake argument is comical. It's an argument based on an idea that a team has a moral obligation to never deviate from a particular jersey color scheme. Why? Because a small group of uniform-aficionado's coin an acronym and an idea that the use of a black jersey is taboo unless it's always been in team history? All this for a part time jersey.

If it doesn't look good, it wont sell. If it doesn't sell it will be gone. If you don't think it looks good, don't buy it. That's as much control as you are going to get.

History has established Arizona as a team with red and white primary colors and a loose black secondary color. Over-emphasizing a secondary color dilutes the brand.

That history was filled with mediocrity. Extending the brand with the use of a 3rd jersey (and additional colors) makes the team more marketable (more items to sell to the market). Following that model (and using team colors), black was a much better choice than beak yellow

When your secondary colors start taking over, the identity is lost and starts getting mistaken for other teams (Atlanta).

White helmet, black helmet. The difference is clear.

91871_Giants_Cardinals_Football.jpgAtlanta_Falcons_at15_large.jpg

Think about the teams in the NFL that have strong brands. Packers... Cowboys... Colts... these teams still market themselves very well without having to introduce completely new uniforms to look cool or stay trendy.

Strong brands with a history of winning.

  • The Colts only use 2 colors.
  • The Cowboys could easily rock a royal blue alt and it would sell
  • Following your train of thought, the Packers diluted their brand with navy blue jersey's, gold pants and brown helmets (how much farther could you get from green jerseys and yellow helmets?)

packers-throwbacks.jpgaaron-rodgers.jpg

I don't even buy the argument that jersey sales increase a teams merchandise profits...I think the diluting of the brand makes their identity less popular and powerful.

Why not? A team is a business and money talks. If this black jersey was killing ticket sales or turning companies away from buying ad space (provided there is a direct quantifiable link to this jersey) it would die tomorrow. The proof is in the profits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brands evolve. It is the nature of business today. The NFL is a form of entertainment, and it competes with every other form of entertainment. Like it or not, fashion and entertainment go hand in hand.

Hmmm. The Colts, Cowboys, Steelers, Browns, Packers, Bears, Redskins, and quite a few other teams have all managed to build significant brands without changing or "evolving."

Also, you used the term "evolve" wrong. A uniform can't evolve. It can change, but evolution, among other things, implies improvement. In VERY few cases can you say a uniform is unmistakably better after a change. You and the rest of the modern crowd keep using that words, and it doesn't mean what you think it means ;)

Fact is change happens, yes, but change isn't necessarily good. Taking the oldest team in the league and outfitting them in a uniform almost devoid of their signature colour is certainly a change, but is it evolution? Not by a long shot.

This Black for blacks sake argument is comical. It's an argument based on an idea that a team has a moral obligation to never deviate from a particular jersey color scheme. Why? Because a small group of uniform-aficionado's coin an acronym and an idea that the use of a black jersey is taboo unless it's always been in team history? All this for a part time jersey.

I have yet to see anyone give a good reason why "black for black's sake" is a bad argument, besides just saying that it's a bad argument. Throughout the Cardinals' history they've worn black as a trim. That's fine, and as far as trim colour options for the Cards go it's preferable to blue or athletic gold. Still, a colour that works as a trim doesn't necessarily work for the primary uniform. This is black for black's sake because it's taking a colour that previously had a limited role in the team's identity and basing an entire alternate uniform (not an alternate jersey, an alternate uniform) around it for no other reason then to boost merchandising sales.

And you know what? That's fine. Sports teams are, above all else, businesses. If the black Cards alternate helps them move product, good for them. That's fine. Just don't feed me this bs about black looking "slick" or representing an "attitude" or "brand evolution."

History has established Arizona as a team with red and white primary colors and a loose black secondary color. Over-emphasizing a secondary color dilutes the brand.

That history was filled with mediocrity. Extending the brand with the use of a 3rd jersey (and additional colors) makes the team more marketable (more items to sell to the market). Following that model (and using team colors), black was a much better choice than beak yellow

I agree, black is a better choice then yellow. If black will sell more Cardinals product, then fine, make black t-shirts, sweaters, hats, etc...

Teams have realized that you don't need to wear a colour to sell merchandise in that colour though. The Giants and Texas Rangers sell navy merchandise. The Lakers sell black merchandise. There's nothing stopping the Cardinals from selling black merchandise without wearing a black alternate.

To suggest that a team that's over 100 years old, and has played the vast majority of that time in various but similar shades of red, ditch that and embrace black for short term gain? That's black for black's sake. Which, again, is fine, but don't try to bs me about it.

I hope the Cards' black alternates do help sales, I really do. I've always liked the team. I just hope they have enough restraint to realize that a brand 100+ years in the making isn't something to be thrown away, and they keep the black limited to trim and twice a year alternates.

Following your train of thought, the Packers diluted their brand with navy blue jersey's, gold pants and brown helmets (how much farther could you get from green jerseys and yellow helmets?)

packers-throwbacks.jpgaaron-rodgers.jpg

Apples and oranges. The Packers' alternate is a throwback, and is thus given some leeway. A throwback that was originally intended as a one season tribute to a former championship team. Even more leeway.

Now that they've busted them out as full time alternates though? I'd say yes, they are damaging their brand. Same goes for the Jets and their NY Titans throwbacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

who cares about some arbitrary rules about if black is justifiable?

how about we just all agree that it looks bad and they shouldn't wear it. it doesn't look like a cardinals uniform, it's too modern for an old school team, and their team color is barely noticeable. it's just a bad alternate to an already bad primary set.

that said, if i were a cards fan, i totally would have bought one of those navy blue fashion jerseys a few years back. they looked great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually the "pro-black uniform" argument was best layed out by StuckyDuck when he said "Nothing wrong with BFBS."

I don't think "they" (the other side of my stick-in-the-mud traditionalism) can truly argue that "there's no such thing as BFBS", but more that BFBS is "OK". And if that's how you feel, fine. I suppose you could argue that since black's a trim color for the Cards, that this is not BFBS, but how could you not think that the U of Washington using black uniforms is not BFBS. You may think it's OK, but it's still BFBS. You may think there are better things to worry about (though we are on a sports uni/logo message board), and that's fine too.

But BFBS does exist, whether the purpose is "to be bad-assed", to sell more stuff, or because there is no reasonble color for an alt...it's still adding black to a team that does not use the color.

My interpretation of the Cards is that it IS BFBS (though as I said, there is an argument that it's not since it's kinda part of the scheme) because when you see them, it does not say "Cardinals", as they've been wearing red forever. I feel the same way about the red Giants jersey. And I totally agree about any different colored throwbacks (Jets/Packers) worn more than once. This includes the Twins and Brewers wearing their once a week throwback inspired uniforms (and I think both look great).

My take is: don't dilute the identity. BFBS is the way teams most often do that: Duke, the former Oakland A's alts, Washington, etc. Can I live in a world where teams do this? Yes. But I don't prefer it and...

...BFBS does exist.

Disclaimer: If this comment is about an NBA uniform from 2017-2018 or later, do not constitute a lack of acknowledgement of the corporate logo to mean anything other than "the corporate logo is terrible and makes the uniform significantly worse."

 

BADGERS TWINS VIKINGS TIMBERWOLVES WILD

POTD (Shared)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that said, if i were a cards fan, i totally would have bought one of those navy blue fashion jerseys a few years back. they looked great.

I'm a die-hard Cards fan, and IMO those were an abomination.

I realize that Blue jerseys were in fact used by the Chicago Cardinals as a road uniform color back in the '20s through the early '40s (according to the great research done by The Gridiron Uniform Database), but it - more than Black - does not say Cardinals football to me.

All of that Cards merchandise back in those days - from 1996 through 2004 - had Blue mixed in with the Cardinal Red, Black, White and Yellow, and it looked terrible. Completely out-of-place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brands evolve. It is the nature of business today. The NFL is a form of entertainment, and it competes with every other form of entertainment. Like it or not, fashion and entertainment go hand in hand.

This Black for blacks sake argument is comical. It's an argument based on an idea that a team has a moral obligation to never deviate from a particular jersey color scheme. Why? Because a small group of uniform-aficionado's coin an acronym and an idea that the use of a black jersey is taboo unless it's always been in team history? All this for a part time jersey.

If it doesn't look good, it wont sell. If it doesn't sell it will be gone. If you don't think it looks good, don't buy it. That's as much control as you are going to get.

History has established Arizona as a team with red and white primary colors and a loose black secondary color. Over-emphasizing a secondary color dilutes the brand.

That history was filled with mediocrity. Extending the brand with the use of a 3rd jersey (and additional colors) makes the team more marketable (more items to sell to the market). Following that model (and using team colors), black was a much better choice than beak yellow

When your secondary colors start taking over, the identity is lost and starts getting mistaken for other teams (Atlanta).

White helmet, black helmet. The difference is clear.

Think about the teams in the NFL that have strong brands. Packers... Cowboys... Colts... these teams still market themselves very well without having to introduce completely new uniforms to look cool or stay trendy.

Strong brands with a history of winning.

  • The Colts only use 2 colors.
  • The Cowboys could easily rock a royal blue alt and it would sell
  • Following your train of thought, the Packers diluted their brand with navy blue jersey's, gold pants and brown helmets (how much farther could you get from green jerseys and yellow helmets?)

I don't even buy the argument that jersey sales increase a teams merchandise profits...I think the diluting of the brand makes their identity less popular and powerful.

Why not? A team is a business and money talks. If this black jersey was killing ticket sales or turning companies away from buying ad space (provided there is a direct quantifiable link to this jersey) it would die tomorrow. The proof is in the profits.

I stopped reading after I realized your entire diatribe was bolded. Nothing you have to say can be that important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm. The Colts, Cowboys, Steelers, Browns, Packers, Bears, Redskins, and quite a few other teams have all managed to build significant brands without changing or "evolving."

Also, you used the term "evolve" wrong. A uniform can't evolve. It can change, but evolution, among other things, implies improvement. In VERY few cases can you say a uniform is unmistakably better after a change. You and the rest of the modern crowd keep using that words, and it doesn't mean what you think it means

Fact is change happens, yes, but change isn't necessarily good. Taking the oldest team in the league and outfitting them in a uniform almost devoid of their signature colour is certainly a change, but is it evolution? Not by a long shot.

The black jersey is a big change from the traditional Cardinals red jersey. Adding black into the color scheme in 2005 was a change as well. You're right, change isn't necessarily good...but it isn't necessarily bad either. Improvement vs. Worsening is a subjective argument based on your personal preference, as is mine.

I have yet to see anyone give a good reason why "black for black's sake" is a bad argument, besides just saying that it's a bad argument. Throughout the Cardinals' history they've worn black as a trim. That's fine, and as far as trim colour options for the Cards go it's preferable to blue or athletic gold. Still, a colour that works as a trim doesn't necessarily work for the primary uniform. This is black for black's sake because it's taking a colour that previously had a limited role in the team's identity and basing an entire alternate uniform (not an alternate jersey, an alternate uniform) around it for no other reason then to boost merchandising sales.

And you know what? That's fine. Sports teams are, above all else, businesses. If the black Cards alternate helps them move product, good for them. That's fine. Just don't feed me this bs about black looking "slick" or representing an "attitude" or "brand evolution."

The argument, in essence, is correct. It seems to be an argument based on a sense of morality that you can't add black to a team if it has never been added before because there can only be 'X' amount of black jersey's. I don't agree with that philosophy. Black can be a great background platform for a lot of different colors and teams, just not all teams.

If you think that my opinion is bs, it's cool, that's your opinion. If people like these jersey's they will buy them and they will stick around. If they don't buy them they will go away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument, in essence, is correct. It seems to be an argument based on a sense of morality that you can't add black to a team if it has never been added before because there can only be 'X' amount of black jersey's. I don't agree with that philosophy. Black can be a great background platform for a lot of different colors and teams, just not all teams.

I don't think any of us are looking at this in terms of a morality issue with teams adding the color black. I think the people who are against it are against it because A. it looks weird or B. it doesn't fit their brand well at all. Again, they aren't a team that identifies well with black as a primary color. I would also disagree with them coming out with navy, grey, or gold jerseys as well.

Posting pictures of the falcons black uniforms just showed how alike they actually do look, and at first glance, I wouldn't be surprised if even avid sports fans mistook the Cardinals for the Falcons. To a casual fan who might not watch very often (this is Arizona, not Green Bay, WI) the uniforms might not convey the Arizona Cardinals brand to them at all.

And throwbacks are an entirely different issue. Throwbacks don't really dilute a brand if they are done in moderation. The Packers can definitely get away with the throwback because their brand is as established as any in the NFL and the uniforms are meant to pay homage to their storied past, not because its trendy or some of their players thought it'd be cool to do. We've also seen teams abuse the throwbacks and morph their team into two identities... I think the Jazz were a good example of this, as well as the Brewers.

Covering a lot of ground here. I think in all, the jersey still looks weird, regardless of the BFBS argument. The red gets lost into the black and isn't visible, nor is it represented anywhere else on the uniform. The grey facemask looks bad with the white and black. The striping on the pants awkwardly comes to a point in the front of the knees. There's really randomly shaped white things under the arm-pits. Finally, the jersey itself doesn't doesn't flow with the pants. I think the Red and White suffer from the same things, so I would be for an all-around change.

Finally, I think many of the arguments for a black jersey can be made about the 49ers as well. They have black in their jerseys as well as their logo. I think it would be a terrible mistake for them to come out with black jerseys, which as far as I know, they haven't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally, I think many of the arguments for a black jersey can be made about the 49ers as well. They have black in their jerseys as well as their logo. I think it would be a terrible mistake for them to come out with black jerseys, which as far as I know, they haven't.

Actually, the only Black in the current 49ers' set is in the logo. Jerseys are Red and White; pants are Gold with Red and White stripes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm. The Colts, Cowboys, Steelers, Browns, Packers, Bears, Redskins, and quite a few other teams have all managed to build significant brands without changing or "evolving."

Also, you used the term "evolve" wrong. A uniform can't evolve. It can change, but evolution, among other things, implies improvement. In VERY few cases can you say a uniform is unmistakably better after a change. You and the rest of the modern crowd keep using that words, and it doesn't mean what you think it means

Fact is change happens, yes, but change isn't necessarily good. Taking the oldest team in the league and outfitting them in a uniform almost devoid of their signature colour is certainly a change, but is it evolution? Not by a long shot.

The black jersey is a big change from the traditional Cardinals red jersey. Adding black into the color scheme in 2005 was a change as well. You're right, change isn't necessarily good...but it isn't necessarily bad either. Improvement vs. Worsening is a subjective argument based on your personal preference, as is mine.

Exactly. Whether or not the change is an improvement is subjective. Therefore it isn't evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.