Jets, Giants, Bills bring back uniforms

[nas1787]

With all these teams looking to the past for their new looks, I always wonder: In 20 years, WHAT WILL WE THROW BACK TO?

[BBTV]

Although I'm a fan of the team, OnWis is spot on with his characterization of the Pistons. The whole flaming pipe-horse thing was a disaster, should've just stayed with the classic look.

I could be wrong, but the Pistons seem to me to be one of those teams that is never irrelevant or desperate to sell tickets. Could it be that they just weren't selling any more RWB merch, and didn't think that a simple modernization would work, so (knowing that they had a good enough fan base that they weren't going to "lose" anyone) they went to something drastically different just to set them up for the big cash grab in a few years when everyone was begging them to go back to RWB? For a fledgling team, that would be suicide, but is there any shot at all that's what they were thinking? Because other than that, I just can't rationalize it.

[Lee.]

From an outsider's perspective, I think the PIstons just get forgotten/ignored in the market. There seem to be no shortage of Red Wings, Lions, or Tigers fans, but for the life of me, other than Fiasco, I can't name a single boardmember who might be considered a die-hard Pistons fan.

It might just be a case of the market #4 team trying to stay relevant.

[AJpackers]

Although I'm a fan of the team, OnWis is spot on with his characterization of the Pistons. The whole flaming pipe-horse thing was a disaster, should've just stayed with the classic look.

I could be wrong, but the Pistons seem to me to be one of those teams that is never irrelevant or desperate to sell tickets. Could it be that they just weren't selling any more RWB merch, and didn't think that a simple modernization would work, so (knowing that they had a good enough fan base that they weren't going to "lose" anyone) they went to something drastically different just to set them up for the big cash grab in a few years when everyone was begging them to go back to RWB? For a fledgling team, that would be suicide, but is there any shot at all that's what they were thinking? Because other than that, I just can't rationalize it.

Well as of recently, since the Pistons have once again slipped into cellar dweller status in the past 4 seasons attendance has been very low. According to ESPN.com, the Pistons have been in the bottom 10 for home attendance since the 2009-10 season and dead last each of the past two seasons.

Lee here has hit the nail on the head, the Detroit market has the historically best hockey team in America, the defending AL champion, and a team that's never short of fans despite possibly being the worst franchise in all of pro sports. Add into the mix the huge following in the state for both Michigan and Michigan State sports, and it's easy to see how a failing basketball team gets ignored in Detroit.

[oldschoolvikings]

Yeah, I live in Detroit, and I can tell you, when the Pistons aren't contending for Championships they are the forgotten franchise in this town.

[oldschoolvikings]

With all these teams looking to the past for their new looks, I always wonder: In 20 years, WHAT WILL WE THROW BACK TO?

[BrandMooreArt]

the time is right to just pull things from the past. the Vikings and Dolphins did the same. the Astros and Blue Jays did it. i dont think theres ever been a time in history when designers have looked to the past so much, instead of pushing forward, and thats something thats been debated and discussed a lot in the design community, but the end product of "vintage modern" design is pretty nice. and its timeless too. those 3 teams' identites are built on traditional standards that wil never go out of style. and they're definitely better than what they had before. coming out of the wild 90s where it seemed "more is better" the old looks on modern equipment is a big breath of fresh air for a lot of sports teams and it just looks damn cool

But is this really a function of designers making choices? Or is it about ownership believing their clubs have strayed too far from their brand roots?

I mean, the Pistons are a great example. The hop onto the teal train in the '90s in what has to be one of the most bizarre branding shifts in sports history, before reverting back to a modernized version of their classic styles. Same with the Blue Jays.

In both cases, I felt the brands, in an attempt to modernize, shifted too far from their true spirit. I viewed their current "throwbacks" as a rebalancing rather than the fruits of a designer's deliberate choice between looking back and pushing forward.

I think its a case of both. Its a time where design in every form is borrowing from the mid 20th century and it happens that a lot of sports teams have an identity from that time that is well done and timeless. But if it didnt align to modern standards they wouldnt bring it back to begin with

[AJpackers]

With all these teams looking to the past for their new looks, I always wonder: In 20 years, WHAT WILL WE THROW BACK TO?

And this:

[Avalancho]

With all these teams looking to the past for their new looks, I always wonder: In 20 years, WHAT WILL WE THROW BACK TO?

Scary...

[JayMac]

With all these teams looking to the past for their new looks, I always wonder: In 20 years, WHAT WILL WE THROW BACK TO?

I'm no Bills fan but I hope that NEVER comes back...even when I'm long gone.

[phutmasterflex]

With all these teams looking to the past for their new looks, I always wonder: In 20 years, WHAT WILL WE THROW BACK TO?

I'm no Bills fan but I hope that NEVER comes back...even when I'm long gone.

The whites were worse with that shoulder yoke thing just hanging around there

[hawk36]

For example?

Chargers did a great job of revising their 60s look. This is what they should have done with their recent uni change.

I'm not sure i follow you. Those two statements seem to contradict each other.

Did the Chargers do a "great job of revising their 60s look", or should they have returned to those original uniforms?

Sorry, I meant I think the revised 60's look in the pic is what they should be wearing now. It's not quite identical to the 60s, but refined in a "keeping with the tradition" way. Very well done.

[Xist2inspire]

I prefer teams coming up with something new. I realize the older looks may be nice and classy etc, but it's lazy to me.

I'm with Gothamite on this. Going back to an iconic look, or even a look that's nothing more than the one the fans prefer, isn't "lazy." Besides, classy never goes out of style.

Personally, I always felt that if you just go back to an "iconic" or "fan-preferred" look without adding anything unique, tweaking a few things, or at least trying to put a fresh twist on it, you're being lazy. That's not what progress is, and doing things like that stifle creativity. I love the Vikings' rebrand because it didn't just copy/paste a "classic" design onto a modern template, it built upon a classic design and did its own thing.

Also, to me, there's a difference between "looking good/classy" and "looking stylish." Anyone can look "good" or "classy", it's easy, just like looking "current" or "hip" is. Style is much harder to achieve, as it means putting your own personal stamp on a good look, being yourself while maintaining some sort of class.

[IceCap]

That's not what progress is

You're right, that's not what progress is. Just look at the College Football thread to see what you get when designers are overly-concerned with "progress."

The point isn't to "push the envelope," it's to look good. If that can be achieved by going to an older look then that's that. It's not "progressive," but "progress" isn't what's always called for in the realm of uniform design.

[Xist2inspire]

That's not what progress is

You're right, that's not what progress is. Just look at the College Football thread to see what you get when designers are overly-concerned with "progress."

The point isn't to "push the envelope," it's to look good. If that can be achieved by going to an older look then that's that. It's not "progressive," but "progress" isn't what's always called for in the realm of uniform design.

"Progress" doesn't mean "Moving forward with little or no respect for anything that's come before it." Progress is looking at something basic and thinking, "How can I make this better, more unique?", while never losing sight of what made the basic concept so good to begin with. It doesn't blindly follow trends, it molds them to fit a specific image, or ignores them if they don't fit that image. It's not solely driven by money, as money usually follows the trends. College Football is in the state it's in because it's become a trend-following arms race driven solely by cash, not because of progress. And like I said before, there's something that goes beyond merely "looking good."

Honestly, if all that it takes for sports is to find one good uniform set and never change ever, then uniform design as a whole is a near-worthless thing.

[Mitch B]

And this:

I can only hope.

[BrandMooreArt]

That's not what progress is

You're right, that's not what progress is. Just look at the College Football thread to see what you get when designers are overly-concerned with "progress."

The point isn't to "push the envelope," it's to look good. If that can be achieved by going to an older look then that's that. It's not "progressive," but "progress" isn't what's always called for in the realm of uniform design.

you mean like Oregon, Texas A&M, and Oklahoma State? or the copy cats like Arkansas and Utah State? no one praises the designers at the manufacturers or HGI on the good projects, but get all the blame when the schools just want to fit in with whats going on around them

[IceCap]

That's not what progress is

You're right, that's not what progress is. Just look at the College Football thread to see what you get when designers are overly-concerned with "progress."

The point isn't to "push the envelope," it's to look good. If that can be achieved by going to an older look then that's that. It's not "progressive," but "progress" isn't what's always called for in the realm of uniform design.

you mean like Oregon, Texas A&M, and Oklahoma State? or the copy cats like Arkansas and Utah State? no one praises the designers at the manufacturers or HGI on the good projects, but get all the blame when the schools just want to fit in with whats going on around them

I'm talking about Oregon, Rutgers, Maryland, and everyone else who wants to jump on the bandwagon of the latest design trends. I'm not particularly fond of the "innovators" at the present moment.

[Ark]

Jets need to bring back kelly green.

So do the Eagles.

[BrandMooreArt]

That's not what progress is

You're right, that's not what progress is. Just look at the College Football thread to see what you get when designers are overly-concerned with "progress."

The point isn't to "push the envelope," it's to look good. If that can be achieved by going to an older look then that's that. It's not "progressive," but "progress" isn't what's always called for in the realm of uniform design.

you mean like Oregon, Texas A&M, and Oklahoma State? or the copy cats like Arkansas and Utah State? no one praises the designers at the manufacturers or HGI on the good projects, but get all the blame when the schools just want to fit in with whats going on around them

I'm talking about Oregon, Rutgers, Maryland, and everyone else who wants to jump on the bandwagon of the latest design trends. I'm not particularly fond of the "innovators" at the present moment.

well those 3 have done something completely original and Oregon more than any have set trends not followed them. But still trendy dosent have to be a bad word. No one wants to look dated ( jersey piping). A lot of what i see going on like IU isnt always up to designers trying to have their way. The schools are accountable for their own identity