Uniform trends that oughta go

[Bmac]

Anything new that is different than how things used to be.

[andrewharrington]

So you'd take new teams ripping off older teams and their historic elements than being creative and trying something new and original? They're not historic teams and thus have no right to act like one. They're new teams, and should try to create their own styles and looks as opposed to trying to fit in with a group and era to which they don't belong.

That did not turn out very well for the Atlanta Thrashers.

But it did with the Avalanche (pre-edge mountain stripes), Hurricanes (creative warning flag hem striping), Predators (new gold look; unique guitar string font), Sharks (teal), Wild (pre-Edge green), Colorado Rockies NL (purple), and the Tampa Bay Devil Rays after they toned things down. While some of these teams have either gone "vintage" (Wild with the unnecessary circle and heritage third jersey; granted though, they do have a long hockey history) have even fallen generic (Rays and Avalanche), those were still creative ideas that tried to be different and worked instead of falling victim to trying too hard to fit in. Your Habs, the oldest and arguably most historic hockey team in the world do not wear laces while the Blue Jackets, the youngest NHL team with literally no history outside of Rick Nash do. I'm not saying it will always work, but it can, and should be appreciated when teams actually try to do something as opposed to copying and pasting a period of history that they have no business in. That's like me filling my avatar, sig, and member title with a bunch of old CCSLC inside jokes. I was never part of those, and I have no business with them. Instead, I should try to make my own memorable CCSLC imprint instead of trying to be a part of what the vets share.

Just to clarify, I'm not insinuating that everything modern or creative is bad, or that retro things are better. My opinion is simply that retro things aren't bad, even on a new team. They have every right to tap into the historical aesthetic of their sport or league. There's a way to do it without ripping off other teams. There are ways to be unique and creative while still remaining traditional and relatively plain, and vice versa.

[andrewharrington]

So you'd take new teams ripping off older teams and their historic elements than being creative and trying something new and original?

In short, yes, but only because it seems that many people designing uniforms recently are rarely designing according to the principles of design. There's not a lot of refined thought going into many uniform designs. They don't seem capable of saying, "You know, that idea's not really going to work." when they should. If the were getting these things right, I'd be all for progressive uniform designs. The field/court should be a place for perfectly executed final products, but more often than not it seems to be a place for testing out design experiments, and I don't like that. Save the experiments for practice or the minor leagues.

They're not historic teams and thus have no right to act like one. They're new teams, and should try to create their own styles and looks as opposed to trying to fit in with a group and era to which they don't belong.

I just don't agree. I think every baseball team has a right to look like a baseball team, no matter how new they are. Just as every football team has a right to look like a football team, and every hockey team has the right to look like a hockey team. Even if you're a new team, you have the right (and responsibility, in my opinion) to tap into the city's sporting history if it's applicable. You see no reason to be retro just because, I see no reason to be progressive just because. Style is timeless. Trends are fleeting. The Bears have style. The Panthers are (were) trendy (now they're dated). They would benefit taking some of those traditional cues from the past, and I wouldn't fault them for it one bit.

[Primal]

Standardised number fonts in any league, and that goes double if there's a league logo at the bottom of every numeral.

[BigBubba]

They're not historic teams and thus have no right to act like one. They're new teams, and should try to create their own styles and looks as opposed to trying to fit in with a group and era to which they don't belong.

I just don't agree. I think every baseball team has a right to look like a baseball team, no matter how new they are. Just as every football team has a right to look like a football team, and every hockey team has the right to look like a hockey team. Even if you're a new team, you have the right (and responsibility, in my opinion) to tap into the city's sporting history if it's applicable. You see no reason to be retro just because, I see no reason to be progressive just because. Style is timeless. Trends are fleeting. The Bears have style. The Panthers are (were) trendy (now they're dated). They would benefit taking some of those traditional cues from the past, and I wouldn't fault them for it one bit.

A combined total of one MLB team wears pullovers, powder blue, or white front-paneled caps. Most - if not all - teams in the 80s wore at least one those. You may see it as a trend, but I see it as a fashion that was a part of a team's identity that they have since moved on from. However, they can throwback to that era and cherish their history. Newer teams can't throwback to anything and have no memories from this era. I see your point though. It's just a differing opinion on style vs. tend and our own definition of a throwback. While I disagree with you, I still welcome and respect your opinion.

They're not historic teams and thus have no right to act like one. They're new teams, and should try to create their own styles and looks as opposed to trying to fit in with a group and era to which they don't belong.

I just don't agree. I think every baseball team has a right to look like a baseball team, no matter how new they are. Just as every football team has a right to look like a football team, and every hockey team has the right to look like a hockey team. Even if you're a new team, you have the right (and responsibility, in my opinion) to tap into the city's sporting history if it's applicable. You see no reason to be retro just because, I see no reason to be progressive just because. Style is timeless. Trends are fleeting. The Bears have style. The Panthers are (were) trendy (now they're dated). They would benefit taking some of those traditional cues from the past, and I wouldn't fault them for it one bit.

A combined total of one MLB team wears pullovers, powder blue, or white front-paneled caps. Most - if not all - teams in the 80s wore at least one those. You may see it as a trend, but I see it as a fashion that was a part of a team's identity that they have since moved on from. However, they can throwback to that era and cherish their history. Newer teams can't throwback to anything and have no memories from this era. I see your point though. It's just a differing opinion on style vs. tend and our own definition of a throwback. While I disagree with you, I still welcome and respect your opinion.

[andrewharrington]

They're not historic teams and thus have no right to act like one. They're new teams, and should try to create their own styles and looks as opposed to trying to fit in with a group and era to which they don't belong.

I just don't agree. I think every baseball team has a right to look like a baseball team, no matter how new they are. Just as every football team has a right to look like a football team, and every hockey team has the right to look like a hockey team. Even if you're a new team, you have the right (and responsibility, in my opinion) to tap into the city's sporting history if it's applicable. You see no reason to be retro just because, I see no reason to be progressive just because. Style is timeless. Trends are fleeting. The Bears have style. The Panthers are (were) trendy (now they're dated). They would benefit taking some of those traditional cues from the past, and I wouldn't fault them for it one bit.

A combined total of one MLB team wears pullovers, powder blue, or white front-paneled caps. Most - if not all - teams in the 80s wore at least one those. You may see it as a trend, but I see it as a fashion that was a part of a team's identity that they have since moved on from. However, they can throwback to that era and cherish their history. Newer teams can't throwback to anything and have no memories from this era. I see your point though. It's just a differing opinion on style vs. tend and our own definition of a throwback. While I disagree with you, I still welcome and respect your opinion.

I understand that a new team can't 'throwback' to anything that's truly authentic to their own team history, but they can throwback to a look that represents the history of sports in their location, or a look that fits with the history of their sport or league, for example.

Sure, the blue pullovers are a part of many teams' histories (probably no better example than the Blue Jays), but they didn't give us anything that was derived from timeless style, which is probably why they all went away, eventually. I think the Blue Jays are a perfect example to illustrate my point. This is a team was basically born in pullovers,; born in the midst of the most unique and trendiest era baseball uniforms have ever seen. I think it was when the Blue Jays stepped backward and put their unique graphics on standard white and grey button-down jerseys that they had their best look, and I think that is reinforced by the fact that they just revisited that look. They basically took a 70s identity and put it on a traditional baseball uniform, and created something great.

[WideRight]

I am basically a football guy, and I like soccer quite a bit, so I will limit my comments to those two sports.

FOOTBALL

1. Socks any color but white. (not talking about the stripes/color blocks, the rest of the sock = white.)

2. Unitards: With the exception of white on white in warm climates, no.

3. Team uniforms dominated by colors or patterns completely unrelated to team identity. (Oregon, that is you.)

It also applies to all BFBS, SFSS (Silver), AFAS (Anthracite) or camo patterns (except Army, Navy, Airforce).

4. Dark numbers on dark jerseys. White, Gold, Silver, that is it.

5. Templates repeated on team after team after team. (An NCAA thing.)

6. Shoulder stripes that don't/can't reach around the pit. (Colts, Jets, UCLA, etc.)

7. 49'ers illusion sleeve stripes. Just put the 3 stripes on the sleeve already.

8. Any team (College or pro) wearing alternates more than 1 time per year. Identity vs. comodity.

9. Random and excessive pink accessories during Breast Cancer Awareness. I item per team allowed, and it should

be something small like wristbands, shoelaces or gloves. No repainting the Giants logo pink. No pink socks,

pink jerseys, pink helmet logos (Indiana U. did this.) We get the point about breast cancer without

ruining the look of the team. Use banners, endzone art, a patch, don't ruin the team's uniform.

I would say the same for "USA" logos & colors, Camoflage, etc. Use patches, not uniform deformations to honor

the troops.

10. No more NFL cheerleaders wearing sneakers & socks, or beige dance shoes. Go-go boots = pro cheerleader.

(Except in dallas where cowboy boots are just tradition).

SOCCER

1. Templates, repeated again and again.

2. Adidas stripes that cut off for a logo then start again. Either do sleeve stripes or don't.

3. Corporate sponsor logos that don't match team colors at all. (Philadelphia -Bimbo comes to mind)

Tell the companies you want their money, but you want a logo that matches the team colors.

4. Corporate sponsors for actual products, not online betting and casinos. I stopped buying Premeir league

merch when they moved away from Carlsberg, Strongbow and other real companies in favor of online casinos.

5. Huge shirt-manufacturer logos. Nike and adidas are fine, but some of the other companies take up

enormous areas on the chest or shoulders with the shirt manufacturer logo.

[Spearhead]

1. Any color other than gray on facemasks should be banned. Gray facemasks only.

2. The 1,000 varieties of a football uniform (ala Oregon) ought to go. It mocks the idea of uniform.

3. A return to the traditional Rugby shirt in Rugby.

[Evil Doctor]

Let these two examples simply sum up every trend that is wrong with NHL jerseys these days.

I think I prefer this one over their normal uniform.

I have to agree with the crazy person. If your going to go that route this is the way to go. Even with it trying to look retro, it still original in many aspects. Even the colouring works...

[Chawls]

1. Any color other than gray on facemasks should be banned. Gray facemasks only.

Really? Why?

[winghaz]

I'm also curious why gray facemasks only.

I mean, non-gray facemasks are hardly new. They've been around since the early '70s.

And if you want to be really traditional, weren't the first facemasks more cream colored than gray?

[IceCap]

1. Any color other than gray on facemasks should be banned. Gray facemasks only.

Really? Why?

The argument can be made that facemasks shouldn't be considered part of the uniform, but rather a piece of equipment. Shoes and chinstraps aren't team colours, so if you accept facemasks as equipment first and foremost then they should all be a uniformed colour.

[andrewharrington]

I'm also curious why gray facemasks only.

I mean, non-gray facemasks are hardly new. They've been around since the early '70s.

And if you want to be really traditional, weren't the first facemasks more cream colored than gray?

More of a brown. The cow-catcher style. Ice_Cap has perfectly outlined the thinking behind that. I think it's a fine idea (I think I actually pioneered that theory around here) as long as the entire league buys into adopting looks befitting of old-school football teams. If some teams insist on having non-linear design elements, complex logos and gradients and things of that nature, then facemask color probably needs to be left up to design.

[Morgan33]

There are many posts which I would like to respond to, haha. I guess I'll start with this one.

It is all about the team and the execution. What works for some teams may not work for others. I hate to be that guy, but these types of threads annoy me (no offense to the OP) for the fact that people make it all or nothing. Look at the design elements on a team by team basis.

I agree with this for the most part. One of the things I've disagreed with a lot here (I'm a lurker) is the hate for "BFBS". If black makes a jersey (or epecially a color scheme) better, a team shouldn't hesitate to add it because some people on the internet might get angry. Yeah, the Islanders' new alts are awful but it's not because of the black. Another Example - even though they represent the North Stars' move to Dallas, I've alwys loved these unis:

Yeah, it's technically black for black's sake, but it's still an amazing uniform. In fact, blue for blue's sake is definitely a worse problem today.

---

One thing I definitely agree with though is the football jerseys that show the players' armpits. That is just gross.

I completely agree. Adding black did wonders for the North Stars somewhat limited palette. It's too bad they went overboard with it cause it worked very well as an accent in those jerseys

[Gothamite]

Anything new that is different than how things used to be.

Anything that's the same as it was last season - why are teams afraid of creativity?

[IceCap]

Anything new that is different than how things used to be.

Anything that's the same as it was last season - why are teams afraid of creativity?

If a team doesn't drop their established identity RIGHT NOW they are contributing to the death of creativity in graphic design

[Hontas]

And if you want to be really traditional, weren't the first facemasks more cream colored than gray?

No, they were not.

[kw11333]

^ Count me in the minority but I think the Canucks need to ditch that orca. I'm a big fan of Johnny Canuck and would love to see them make that their primary identity.

A sports radio station in Vancouver(Team 1040) did a poll if you'd rather see the Orca or the Johnny Canuck vintage logo earlier this year, and the orca got like 10%. So you are not in the minority, at least among Canucks fans anyways.

[IceCap]

I think it's a fine idea (I think I actually pioneered that theory around here)

You did. It's a compelling argument.

[johnnysama]

About facemasks: I am just saying, that facemasks, since the Chargers made theirs yellow in '74, can be as much as an integral part of the outfit as much as the jerseys are. Grey facemasks (at least on teams where there is no gray anywhere else to be seen) just look out of place, and clash with things. If only Buffalo put a blue facemask on their helmets with this year's uniform overhaul of theirs.....