Does Winning Make Uniforms Look Better?

[DC in Da House w/o a Doubt]

Lately I've been of the mindset that uniforms do in fact look better on winning teams.

When the Seahawks unveiled their uniforms in the spring of 2012, I agreed with most on here that they looked laughably awful... But then I started watching them play, and seeing Russell Wilson, Lynch, Sherman, etc run around and whoop butt in them, suddenly they didn't look so bad. Suddenly they looked good to me.

Another extreme example, I remember when the Sabres got to the Eastern Conference Finals (I forget the year) with their buffaslug uniforms, and I thought even they looked kinda cool when on Danny Briere and Chris Drury.

Other examples: OKC Thunder, Detroit Lions, Tennessee Titans, Phoenix Suns of the 2000's, Baltimore Orioles, LA Kings, Vancouver Canucks... and more.

Am I the only one who feels this way? Does a team's success impact how a team looks to you at all?

[BrandMooreArt]

no but winning makes the value perception of the team better, aka: brand. you associate that teams design with whatever that value is. however, over time, you just get used to some things. design becomes more accepted once understood, or lived with for a while

[Jaffa]

however, over time, you just get used to some things. design becomes more accepted once understood, or lived with for a while

That's my thinking on this too - initially a revised look might not look quite right because it's not what you're used too, but over time it becomes viewed as more acceptable.

As for winning making stuff better - I'd say not directly, but a successful season can make a kit more memorable and looked on a little more fondly than would perhaps otherwise be the case.

[Mitch B]

I'm not a fan of the new looks of some my fave teams (Miami Dolphins, KU Jayhawks), but if I see more wins in the future, the looks will grow on me.

[Kg54mvp]

I absolutely have those feelings. The thunder, at first laughed at their branding, and I guess with all the winning, and that I've gotten used to it, I live their look, it's one of the best looks in the NBA in my opinion.

Also the Tampa bay bucs during their Super Bowl year I had a better opinion on them, as well as the Heat. The best I thought used to look cheesy but now I feel that they have the swagger in their uniforms that some other teams don't have. Maybe it's just lebron haha.

[Sport]

I think to a certain extent, yes and I'm going to use the Bengals as an example.

The Bengals introduced what was at the time the Seahawks uniforms of the day. If that team goes 6-10 in the first year I don't know if those uniforms last as long as they did/sorta have. They made the super bowl in those in the first season and people just kinda shrugged and said "well if it works it works".

Flash forward to the 90's when they improved those super bowl era uniforms. They looked better than they ever have before or since, yet losing team after losing team gave those uniforms bad connotations.

Now I said to a certain extent because I think the Jaguars could go 19-0 this season and I don't think that would do anything to make people accept those helmets/uniforms.

[Morgan33]

No.

[mattb6]

You could use Cleveland as an example

I never liked the number font, don't like the double white trim, and don't like that the only use of blue is around the collar. But for some reason because we were winning, they looked alright to most people

[AgentColon]

Nothing can make that collar look good.

[JPDesign]

The real test is by looking at the past. What uniforms do we consider to be iconic? Timeless? Classic?

More often than not its team's that were dynasty's. The uniforms associated with teams that dominated their sport become classics because of the imagery/associations with their team.

[TaylorMade]

The real test is by looking at the past. What uniforms do we consider to be iconic? Timeless? Classic?

More often than not its team's that were dynasty's. The uniforms associated with teams that dominated their sport become classics because of the imagery/associations with their team.

This.

If the Celtics were a brand new team and busted out those jerseys, people would say "that's it?" and talk about how lazy it is. At the same time, if the Celtics came out tomorrow and said they were going to unveil new jerseys, people would be up in arms. "You can't change the Celtics' jerseys! They're iconic!"

[Morgan33]

Agreed.

The Islanders are another good example. If their iconic, dynasty era look was unveiled today it would be torn apart on these boards in same manner as the OKC Thunder. The fisherman set was far superior from a strictly visual standpoint... Suited the teams name and iconography better too... I think the main reason it was rejected is because it was too big of a departure from the cup winning look.

[vicfurth]

It comes both from winning and exposure. I'll give an example an old music teacher of mine once said: "a wrong note played over and over will begin to sound right."

[whitedawg22]

I think the Denver Broncos are the perfect example of this phenomenon. They switched to (more or less) their current uniforms for the 1997 season, in a radical departure from 30+ years of uniform tradition - they switched shades of blue, their primary jersey color, their helmet and design, and all their logos. However, they won two super bowls immediately following the change. Not only did that limit controversy over the change, but those uniforms have now been around basically unchanged for 17 years even though the look is very dated.

[Lights Out]

Not necessarily. No amount of winning can ever make the Patriots' or Penguins' current clownsuits look good, for example.

I also think how "iconic" a look is really depends on how long it's worn as opposed to team success. I think the Mariners' current uniforms are iconic even though so many of their teams in the teal era have missed the playoffs. But their look has stayed relatively unchanged throughout that time, so even though they started out as a blue-and-yellow team, it's teal that has the strongest association with the Mariners, IMO.

[OnWis97]

Being totally literal and rigid, no. But it probably can create positive associations that would (for example) move a uniform up from 25 to 15 in online poles.

It certainly impacts our retroactive view of past uniforms (particularly of those not uni-geeky enough to hang out here). I believe it's why there is no love for the Brewers Germanic look and that it contributes to opinions on things like the green/red Devils, the creamsicle Bucs, etc. And it could even be why the Steelers big stripes and helmet with only one logo are considered untouchable (though who knows they did italicize the numbers) or why the Islanders fans wanted so badly to ditch the Gortons fisherman.

While I agree with what LightsOut says about the Mariners, one wonders whether the fans would be clamoring for an 80s look if they'd even had a little success in it (like the 1982 Brewers)

I know this...I'll be forever grateful that the Angels did not win the World Series in the periwinkle uniforms.

In fact, I will be forever grateful that the Angels did not win the World Series in their periwinkle uniform because for all I know they'd still have 'em.

[FGM13]

The real test is by looking at the past. What uniforms do we consider to be iconic? Timeless? Classic?

More often than not its team's that were dynasty's. The uniforms associated with teams that dominated their sport become classics because of the imagery/associations with their team.

Which is EXACTLY why the Oilers and Islanders are decked out in gaudy 80s unis. They look terrible, but OH MY GOD DYNASTY GLORY DAYS GRETZKY POTVIN MESSIER!!!111!

[The Six]

It definitely affects people's opinions. The Montreal Canadiens' logo is a C with an H in it. Serviceable, but not a classic by any means, yet it's regarded as such because of the team's history.

[oldschoolvikings]

I'm just gonna agree with a few other folks, and keep it simple.

No.

[IceCap]

The real test is by looking at the past. What uniforms do we consider to be iconic? Timeless? Classic?

More often than not its team's that were dynasty's. The uniforms associated with teams that dominated their sport become classics because of the imagery/associations with their team.

Which is EXACTLY why the Oilers and Islanders are decked out in gaudy 80s unis. They look terrible, but OH MY GOD DYNASTY GLORY DAYS GRETZKY POTVIN MESSIER!!!111!

Well the fact that they look better too adds to it

And no, that's not the legacy of those looks clouding my judgement. Neither team has managed to improve their looks since they departed from their classic aesthetic the first time. The Oilers just jumped on the 90s bandwagon of darkening their colours, and the Islanders eventually got to that bland point too, after a quick stop in the land of the absurd. Defend the fisherman all you want, that look was partly killed by its own over the top nature. The wavy stripes and numbers made a look that was ready a departure ugly to boot.

So if the choices for the Oilers and Islanders are 80s throwbacks or drab 90s garbage and over the top 90s nonsense then I'll take the 80s looks any day of the week. That both teams won in those looks just makes getting to the right decision easier.