Jump to content

Blue and Yellow vs Navy and Gold


Davidellias

Recommended Posts

There are three teams I can think of that went through changes from one pair of colors to the other. (Millwaukee Brewers, St Louis Rams and Pitt Panthers.)

What are you're opinions on both those color combinatiuon and other teams that have those colors, but never changed from one towards the other (or like the Seattle Mariners, changed completely)

Milwaukee Brewers - Honestly, I like the new Navy and gold scheme better, while I do own some retro BiG gear, I think it's a product of its time and is a bit dated (Same goes for the Mariners) . What I am trying to say is, the colors worked well for the 70s,and 80s but quickly became dated in the 90s. I'd love to see a BiG lo

St Louis Rams - Honestly I like the new navy and Gold Uniforms, I do think they would look so much better in blue and yellow. I guess my opinions about blue and yellow are the opposite when it comes to baseball and football.

Pitt Panthers - Same as above the yellow just stood out so much better then the gold.

I really can't make any comments on the blue and yellow colored teams of the NBA as there really isn't any teams with gold in them to compare too.

GB4tjYx.jpg?1?2352

player_was___taylor_by_verasthebrujah-d9

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, with Kent State, they went from the old gold to sunflower gold and I think it looks better. The funny thing is that Akron flipped from yellow to old gold about 10 years later maybe more. It's all in the execution and i think also in how manufacturers can actually match up colors when fabricating different equipment items like helmets and protective pads, ala hockey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The majority of the teams that changed from royal blue and athletic gold to navy blue and vegas gold did so in either the later 90's or the early part of this century. And it was a part of a larger shift on the part of a lot of teams to darken their existing pallet (think 49ers, Chargers, Bills, Eagles, Jets, Browns, Golden State, etc...) or to just add black or navy to their color scheme, outright (Reds, Mets, Royals, Bluejays, Padres, Dolphins, Eagles again, pretty much half the NHL...). In my opinion, and I think its really hard to argue, this trend has next to nothing to do with making a nice on-field uniform, and pretty much everything to do with selling merchandise to the fans. Grumpy middle aged men are more likely to buy a hat, jacket, or polo in navy blue than in royal blue. And dopey fake-tough teenagers will go crazy for any sports gear that happens to be black (as will even dopier college football players).

I want to see the Rams and Brewers go back to the brighter versions for the same reasons I want the Padres to go back to brown and gold. 1) I firmly believe the color changes were made in a cynical attempt to grab for more merchandising dollars with little or no thought to what might look better, 2) In changing colors all these teams left behind better looking uniforms, and 3) in all these cases the abandoned color schemes were "owned" by each team (not necessarily in the sense that no one else wore the same colors, but in that when I think of the Brewers or the Rams or the Chargers or, especially, the Padres, their old colors are still how I think of them... their current looks all seem like weird disguises). It's the same reason I was happy to see the Astros return to navy and orange, even though their are so many other navy teams in the MLB. Navy and orange are the Astros' colors... period. It's pretty simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the first navy/gold changes happened I liked them. They seemed more sophisticated, etc. Now though, I feel the blue/yellow is actually much better for a uniform. It stands out more which I feel is an important element of a uniform.

520a78241e119.preview-620.jpg

They just need to match the helmet to the Royal Blue jersey.

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The majority of the teams that changed from royal blue and athletic gold to navy blue and vegas gold did so in either the later 90's or the early part of this century. And it was a part of a larger shift on the part of a lot of teams to darken their existing pallet (think 49ers, Chargers, Bills, Eagles, Jets, Browns, Golden State, etc...) or to just add black or navy to their color scheme, outright (Reds, Mets, Royals, Bluejays, Padres, Dolphins, Eagles again, pretty much half the NHL...). In my opinion, and I think its really hard to argue, this trend has next to nothing to do with making a nice on-field uniform, and pretty much everything to do with selling merchandise to the fans. Grumpy middle aged men are more likely to buy a hat, jacket, or polo in navy blue than in royal blue. And dopey fake-tough teenagers will go crazy for any sports gear that happens to be black (as will even dopier college football players).

I want to see the Rams and Brewers go back to the brighter versions for the same reasons I want the Padres to go back to brown and gold. 1) I firmly believe the color changes were made in a cynical attempt to grab for more merchandising dollars with little or no thought to what might look better, 2) In changing colors all these teams left behind better looking uniforms, and 3) in all these cases the abandoned color schemes were "owned" by each team (not necessarily in the sense that no one else wore the same colors, but in that when I think of the Brewers or the Rams or the Chargers or, especially, the Padres, their old colors are still how I think of them... their current looks all seem like weird disguises). It's the same reason I was happy to see the Astros return to navy and orange, even though their are so many other navy teams in the MLB. Navy and orange are the Astros' colors... period. It's pretty simple.

I agree with this fully. Here's my thing about baseball in particular. Other than gear sold at the stadium and official team stores, all merchandise money is shared evenly among the teams. So teams should (in theory) have very little reason to switch to a hip color scheme or go to modern-dated stuff just to sell new gear. Why would a team shun history and change to modern junk just to reap 1/30 of the profits over their previous merchandize?

If I were an owner, I would do just the opposite. With trying to sell more merchandize not a concern, I would go with what looked best for the team, even if I knew it would sell less. Say the Marlins dumped the teal in 1997/2003 because focus groups liked black hats better. Well, any given person walking down the street is likely to be wearing a black shirt, so the color has little significance. Unlike black or navy, teal is something that fans could actually identify with and embrace. It's sports gear, it's not freaking business attire. If you like your team, but refuse to wear a teal hat because it doesn't go with your outfit, kindly smash yourself in the junk with a tack hammer. Honestly, the bright or unique color would be something for fans to rally around, and something which would give your team distinction and notoriety among all the other teams that dress nearly identical. I feel exactly the same about the Padres. Your prefer navy because you want a Padres polo which goes better with your jeans? Go :censored: yourself. You don't have to pain your car brown, just wear a damn brown t-shirt when you go to the game. If the Padres went to brown, although it might not be all fans' favorite color or even something they would buy in droves, it would be something to rally around. Own the color. Reap the benefits of having a much, much stronger and unique brand identity, even if it means you'll sell a few less 47 brand caps to guys who wear them with a business suit on the way to work.

OldRomanSig2.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the first navy/gold changes happened I liked them. They seemed more sophisticated, etc. Now though, I feel the blue/yellow is actually much better for a uniform. It stands out more which I feel is an important element of a uniform.

520a78241e119.preview-620.jpg

They just need to match the helmet to the Royal Blue jersey.

Which is basically Delaware's uniform color combo (well michigan with the rams old colors) and frankly a dark royal helmet is just too garish when pared with yellow for my taste. For some reason it really worked for the giants to move to a metallic royal helmet from royal. I just don't think it would work the same for the rams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the first navy/gold changes happened I liked them. They seemed more sophisticated, etc. Now though, I feel the blue/yellow is actually much better for a uniform. It stands out more which I feel is an important element of a uniform.

520a78241e119.preview-620.jpg

They just need to match the helmet to the Royal Blue jersey.

No they don't.

69187-050-316E1B0F.jpg

c5ce1c42a6949727d5b27011395b4beb.jpg

That look has a history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does have history, but regardless, they aren't going to go back to that classic set, anyway. If they rightfully returned to royal blue and yellow, it would be to a new jersey which better fit Nike's template. The navy helmet was a quirk caused by the helmet manufacturers, but since they can make royal blue helmets now, the Rams should go with those in a rebrand.

OldRomanSig2.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The majority of the teams that changed from royal blue and athletic gold to navy blue and vegas gold did so in either the later 90's or the early part of this century. And it was a part of a larger shift on the part of a lot of teams to darken their existing pallet (think 49ers, Chargers, Bills, Eagles, Jets, Browns, Golden State, etc...) or to just add black or navy to their color scheme, outright (Reds, Mets, Royals, Bluejays, Padres, Dolphins, Eagles again, pretty much half the NHL...). In my opinion, and I think its really hard to argue, this trend has next to nothing to do with making a nice on-field uniform, and pretty much everything to do with selling merchandise to the fans. Grumpy middle aged men are more likely to buy a hat, jacket, or polo in navy blue than in royal blue. And dopey fake-tough teenagers will go crazy for any sports gear that happens to be black (as will even dopier college football players).

I want to see the Rams and Brewers go back to the brighter versions for the same reasons I want the Padres to go back to brown and gold. 1) I firmly believe the color changes were made in a cynical attempt to grab for more merchandising dollars with little or no thought to what might look better, 2) In changing colors all these teams left behind better looking uniforms, and 3) in all these cases the abandoned color schemes were "owned" by each team (not necessarily in the sense that no one else wore the same colors, but in that when I think of the Brewers or the Rams or the Chargers or, especially, the Padres, their old colors are still how I think of them... their current looks all seem like weird disguises). It's the same reason I was happy to see the Astros return to navy and orange, even though their are so many other navy teams in the MLB. Navy and orange are the Astros' colors... period. It's pretty simple.

I agree with this fully. Here's my thing about baseball in particular. Other than gear sold at the stadium and official team stores, all merchandise money is shared evenly among the teams. So teams should (in theory) have very little reason to switch to a hip color scheme or go to modern-dated stuff just to sell new gear. Why would a team shun history and change to modern junk just to reap 1/30 of the profits over their previous merchandize?

If I were an owner, I would do just the opposite. With trying to sell more merchandize not a concern, I would go with what looked best for the team, even if I knew it would sell less. Say the Marlins dumped the teal in 1997/2003 because focus groups liked black hats better. Well, any given person walking down the street is likely to be wearing a black shirt, so the color has little significance. Unlike black or navy, teal is something that fans could actually identify with and embrace. It's sports gear, it's not freaking business attire. If you like your team, but refuse to wear a teal hat because it doesn't go with your outfit, kindly smash yourself in the junk with a tack hammer. Honestly, the bright or unique color would be something for fans to rally around, and something which would give your team distinction and notoriety among all the other teams that dress nearly identical. I feel exactly the same about the Padres. Your prefer navy because you want a Padres polo which goes better with your jeans? Go :censored: yourself. You don't have to pain your car brown, just wear a damn brown t-shirt when you go to the game. If the Padres went to brown, although it might not be all fans' favorite color or even something they would buy in droves, it would be something to rally around. Own the color. Reap the benefits of having a much, much stronger and unique brand identity, even if it means you'll sell a few less 47 brand caps to guys who wear them with a business suit on the way to work.

That's harsh. And I totally agree with it and all the other points these two posts make. (with one minor exception pointed out below)

Is there room for Navy? Of course. Not every team has to have "vivid" colors, but they don't all need to be the Dallas Mavericks either (I irrationally blame the Mavs for it...even if it's out of sequence, because of how people fall all over themselves loving that completely sterile look that they have now).

And really, how many people that are willing to wear a navy polo are unwilling to wear a royal polo? I am not as convinced that the whole navy>royal movement is about the fact that Joe Schmo won't wear a royal-colored polo, hat, or t-shirt...I feel like it's a bit more of a "on the field" trend aimed at the larger overall brand/marketing image (though I certainly see your point regarding the Padres). What really bugs me about it is that every team in every sport produces black t-shirts, polos, hats, etc. And that's fine. If a fan wants to buy a black Chicago Cubs t-shirt, fine. But on the field, the trend seems to be kind of a race to sterility when there really ought to be a much better mix.

So rather than being "the Brown team", the stupid Padres not only look like everyone else, but they actually manage to be even blander than everyone else. I am no marketing expert, but I wonder whether their blue/white look is integral for them being possibly the most forgotten-about team in MLB. Who knows; I am biased in that I like Brown. What I, as a non-marketing guy talking from the gut, would like is for the merchandise revenue sharing to be full 1/30...this would create a situation where I would think (and again I don't know) it would serve MLB well to have the Brewers in royal/yellow and the Padres in Brown because there would be some variety.

Regarding the Astros...yes, by going back to orange and Navy, the answered the question we've been asking ourselves "so what is the Astros look?" Now we know. Please, Padres, do the same.

I am going to admit something; I LOVED the Edmonton Oilers 1990s update. Really. I wish they'd have kept it. But it makes sense: we now know who the Oilers are: They wear royal and orange. And they probably should.

Anyway, these leagues need to diversify. It almost seems like there is a fear to be different...managers continue to bunt guys over so they won't be criticized and teams continue to make themselves look dull for the same reason.

EDIT: I am curious. Does anyone know what % is sold at team stores and stadiums?

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

The majority of the teams that changed from royal blue and athletic gold to navy blue and vegas gold did so in either the later 90's or the early part of this century. And it was a part of a larger shift on the part of a lot of teams to darken their existing pallet (think 49ers, Chargers, Bills, Eagles, Jets, Browns, Golden State, etc...) or to just add black or navy to their color scheme, outright (Reds, Mets, Royals, Bluejays, Padres, Dolphins, Eagles again, pretty much half the NHL...). In my opinion, and I think its really hard to argue, this trend has next to nothing to do with making a nice on-field uniform, and pretty much everything to do with selling merchandise to the fans. Grumpy middle aged men are more likely to buy a hat, jacket, or polo in navy blue than in royal blue. And dopey fake-tough teenagers will go crazy for any sports gear that happens to be black (as will even dopier college football players).

I want to see the Rams and Brewers go back to the brighter versions for the same reasons I want the Padres to go back to brown and gold. 1) I firmly believe the color changes were made in a cynical attempt to grab for more merchandising dollars with little or no thought to what might look better, 2) In changing colors all these teams left behind better looking uniforms, and 3) in all these cases the abandoned color schemes were "owned" by each team (not necessarily in the sense that no one else wore the same colors, but in that when I think of the Brewers or the Rams or the Chargers or, especially, the Padres, their old colors are still how I think of them... their current looks all seem like weird disguises). It's the same reason I was happy to see the Astros return to navy and orange, even though their are so many other navy teams in the MLB. Navy and orange are the Astros' colors... period. It's pretty simple.

I agree with this fully. Here's my thing about baseball in particular. Other than gear sold at the stadium and official team stores, all merchandise money is shared evenly among the teams. So teams should (in theory) have very little reason to switch to a hip color scheme or go to modern-dated stuff just to sell new gear. Why would a team shun history and change to modern junk just to reap 1/30 of the profits over their previous merchandize?

If I were an owner, I would do just the opposite. With trying to sell more merchandize not a concern, I would go with what looked best for the team, even if I knew it would sell less. Say the Marlins dumped the teal in 1997/2003 because focus groups liked black hats better. Well, any given person walking down the street is likely to be wearing a black shirt, so the color has little significance. Unlike black or navy, teal is something that fans could actually identify with and embrace. It's sports gear, it's not freaking business attire. If you like your team, but refuse to wear a teal hat because it doesn't go with your outfit, kindly smash yourself in the junk with a tack hammer. Honestly, the bright or unique color would be something for fans to rally around, and something which would give your team distinction and notoriety among all the other teams that dress nearly identical. I feel exactly the same about the Padres. Your prefer navy because you want a Padres polo which goes better with your jeans? Go :censored: yourself. You don't have to pain your car brown, just wear a damn brown t-shirt when you go to the game. If the Padres went to brown, although it might not be all fans' favorite color or even something they would buy in droves, it would be something to rally around. Own the color. Reap the benefits of having a much, much stronger and unique brand identity, even if it means you'll sell a few less 47 brand caps to guys who wear them with a business suit on the way to work.

That's harsh. And I totally agree with it and all the other points these two posts make. (with one minor exception pointed out below)

Is there room for Navy? Of course. Not every team has to have "vivid" colors, but they don't all need to be the Dallas Mavericks either (I irrationally blame the Mavs for it...even if it's out of sequence, because of how people fall all over themselves loving that completely sterile look that they have now).

And really, how many people that are willing to wear a navy polo are unwilling to wear a royal polo? I am not as convinced that the whole navy>royal movement is about the fact that Joe Schmo won't wear a royal-colored polo, hat, or t-shirt...I feel like it's a bit more of a "on the field" trend aimed at the larger overall brand/marketing image (though I certainly see your point regarding the Padres). What really bugs me about it is that every team in every sport produces black t-shirts, polos, hats, etc. And that's fine. If a fan wants to buy a black Chicago Cubs t-shirt, fine. But on the field, the trend seems to be kind of a race to sterility when there really ought to be a much better mix.

So rather than being "the Brown team", the stupid Padres not only look like everyone else, but they actually manage to be even blander than everyone else. I am no marketing expert, but I wonder whether their blue/white look is integral for them being possibly the most forgotten-about team in MLB. Who knows; I am biased in that I like Brown. What I, as a non-marketing guy talking from the gut, would like is for the merchandise revenue sharing to be full 1/30...this would create a situation where I would think (and again I don't know) it would serve MLB well to have the Brewers in royal/yellow and the Padres in Brown because there would be some variety.

Regarding the Astros...yes, by going back to orange and Navy, the answered the question we've been asking ourselves "so what is the Astros look?" Now we know. Please, Padres, do the same.

I am going to admit something; I LOVED the Edmonton Oilers 1990s update. Really. I wish they'd have kept it. But it makes sense: we now know who the Oilers are: They wear royal and orange. And they probably should.

Anyway, these leagues need to diversify. It almost seems like there is a fear to be different...managers continue to bunt guys over so they won't be criticized and teams continue to make themselves look dull for the same reason.

EDIT: I am curious. Does anyone know what % is sold at team stores and stadiums?

unfortunately in our modern era of branding the key is to seek out the incremental sales and expand your reach which means selling merchandise that appeals to the everyday wardrobe...black/navy/khaki seem to be those colors that the casual fan is willing to pay $$$ for, especially in a non-game day/stadium setting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has me wondering, how many teams are going navy/yellow?

I see West Virginia, Kent State, and California, but are there any other schools/teams going navy/yellow, or is it pretty much navy/gold and royal/yellow?

Back-to-Back Fatal Forty Champion 2015 & 2016

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indiana Pacers and, if one really wants to split hairs, the St. Louis Blues is all I can think of at pro level.

On topic of royal and yellow, there is this team out in northern California currently employing the scheme....

*Disclaimer: I am not an authoritative expert on stuff...I just do a lot of reading and research and keep in close connect with a bunch of people who are authoritative experts on stuff. 😁

|| dribbble || Behance ||

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On an Arena Football note, The Tampa Bay storm changed from navy and gold to blue and yellow a few years back. Terrible change, as the Storm used to have a great identity back then.

I do prefer the Rams blue/yellow look over their current scheme. Mariners new scheme is decent and has benefited from the change, And the Brewers most of all. The barley color makes far more sense than yellow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The majority of the teams that changed from royal blue and athletic gold to navy blue and vegas gold did so in either the later 90's or the early part of this century. And it was a part of a larger shift on the part of a lot of teams to darken their existing pallet (think 49ers, Chargers, Bills, Eagles, Jets, Browns, Golden State, etc...) or to just add black or navy to their color scheme, outright (Reds, Mets, Royals, Bluejays, Padres, Dolphins, Eagles again, pretty much half the NHL...). In my opinion, and I think its really hard to argue, this trend has next to nothing to do with making a nice on-field uniform, and pretty much everything to do with selling merchandise to the fans. Grumpy middle aged men are more likely to buy a hat, jacket, or polo in navy blue than in royal blue. And dopey fake-tough teenagers will go crazy for any sports gear that happens to be black (as will even dopier college football players).

I want to see the Rams and Brewers go back to the brighter versions for the same reasons I want the Padres to go back to brown and gold. 1) I firmly believe the color changes were made in a cynical attempt to grab for more merchandising dollars with little or no thought to what might look better, 2) In changing colors all these teams left behind better looking uniforms, and 3) in all these cases the abandoned color schemes were "owned" by each team (not necessarily in the sense that no one else wore the same colors, but in that when I think of the Brewers or the Rams or the Chargers or, especially, the Padres, their old colors are still how I think of them... their current looks all seem like weird disguises). It's the same reason I was happy to see the Astros return to navy and orange, even though their are so many other navy teams in the MLB. Navy and orange are the Astros' colors... period. It's pretty simple.

I would agree with everything you said about teenagers, except in the past tense. As an 18 year old who pays attention to all of our sports aesthetics in addition to regular fashion, it's pretty clear to me that across most of the country, the landscape has changed significantly for teens.

While the 90's may have been defined by an edgier, baggier, and more complicated fashion athletic or otherwise. That trend may have continued into the early 2000's. More recently I would argue that the landscape has shifted to become brighter, more fitted, and simpler. And that is why teams are moving back to their older designs. People talk all the time about how fashions from the 1980's are returning in the present day. It is a process, and it is getting better.

I also don't think that we should write off what the younger population views as better looking as dopey. There are reasons that younger people have the views they do, and while we may not like them, they do drive a share of the market and should be recognized as having valid views.

That was a little bit rambling but I hope I conveyed what I wanted to.

concepts: washington football (2017) ... nfl (2013) ... yikes

potd 10/20/12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't think of a single instance where royal/yellow was replaced with navy/gold and a team was better off for it. I liked the Rams' switch at first, but now they look dated where the old ones look timeless... it doesn't help that they won their only Super Bowl in those unis either. The Brewers got some nice uniforms out of the switch, but I think they'd have looked even better if they kept the old colors.

Pitt, on the other hand, never made any sense to me. When Notre Dame and Navy are amongst your biggest historical rivals, why would you design uniforms that make your games against them look like intrasquad matches? Nevermind that they owned the mustard gold they switched from, which hasn't been seen before(?) and definitely not since anywhere in the sports world (at least not on this side of the pond).

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.