By Phil Hecken, with James Huening
In a wonderful bit of serendipitous timing, the Arizona Cardinals broke some 100+ years of history on Thursday, introducing a black jersey and new pants and socks into their uniform repertoire. While not the most egregious form of “Black for Black’s Sake,” it certainly ranks up there with the worst offenders, only proving the point that this 1990’s phenomenon just won’t go away.
“But wait,” you say, “the Arizona Cardinals haven’t been in existence that long, and their official colors include black. How can this be BFBS?” Well, it can, and it is. But we’ll get to them shortly. For now, I’ll introduce my collaborator, James Huening, who assisted me on “Part I” of this Black for Black’s Sake examination last weekend. He and I had prepared a large portion of this post before the Cards went BFBS. So, his section will include an examination of “BFBS: ‘The College Years’,” as well as some additional looks at professional teams guilty of this fashion faux-pas. Here’s James, with a slightly modified introduction:
GLENDALE, AZ – After this post had already been written, word came in that the Arizona Cardinals have just shocked the world leapt into the 90s by climbing aboard the BFBS bandwagon. (In case you missed it, there was quite a bit of discussion about them in Friday’s comments section.)
In case you’re wondering, if this had happened before last weekend’s post, they would have definitely made my “bad BFBS” list. The truly sad thing is that as awful as they look, they actually look approximately 11 trillion times better than their normal red or white ones. *Yawn*
I don’t know if there is such a thing as “good BFBS” when it comes to college sports. Your school colors are your school colors. However, there are some instances where I think black is acceptable when it isn’t one of your official colors. Maybe there is a need to create some separation between elements in your logo. Or maybe the school colors are visually similar, like silver and gold. Or (as long as you don’t push things too far) maybe you just want to use a wee bit as a trim/accent color.
I don’t really have a problem with any of those situations. What I don’t care for is when teams just blatantly adopt black as a dominant color when it really doesn’t seem necessary.
The following examples barely scratch the surface but this year’s Final Four featured three teams who do full-on BFBS. West Virginia and Butler: both schools have dark blue as an official color. Black doesn’t even complement it very well at all. It’s like if the Bears or Yankees rolled out black alternates. What would be the point? Sure, Duke’s shade of blue looks better with black than navy blue does, but why is it necessary, especially when they’re the Blue Devils? And not that they deserve to be mentioned in the same paragraph as the words “Final Four” but DePaul: is this really how Blue Demons should look?
The list goes on. Florida State, Tennessee, The U and let’s not forget Team Nike. But surely institutions that value academics above all else are exempt from this phenomenon, right? Guess not.
With that in mind, the future looks pretty bleak. Soon, the sports landscape will consist of nothing but games where one team is dressed head-to-toe in black, the other in white. Right? That seems to be the logical progression.
Perhaps not. It seems as though the tide has maybe turned a bit, at least in the pro ranks. Over the last several years, many teams have actually ditched the black. When the (Devil) Rays updated their unis a few years ago, black elements were removed. The Royals have also banished the black that had crept into their identity. Of course, both teams seem to have latched onto the latest sports color fad, but that’s probably a topic for another day.
In the NHL, the Capitals and Canucks have returned to their original color schemes, as have the Sabres, uh, kinda.
The NBA may have taken the greatest strides in this area. The Suns, Pistons, Cavaliers, Grizzlies, Jazz, Hawks and 76ers have all taken black out of their color schemes in recent years (2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2004, 2007 and 2009, respectively [if I’m not mistaken]).
The NFL has even seen a couple teams, the 49ers and Jets, that had added black as an accent color all but eliminated it from their uniforms.
Thank you James.
Just when we thought it was safe to reenter the water, that BFBS had maybe run its course…that teams were finally coming to their senses…along comes Arizona, unleashing introducing their stupendous new duds on the world.
This once proud franchise, whose roots date back to the beginning of the last century, has never, not once worn a black garment. In fact, they were NAMED for the color of the jersey they once sported:
In 1901, the team gained longstanding identification when O’Brien, finding a bargain, bought used jerseys from the nearby University of Chicago. The jerseys were faded maroon in color, prompting O’Brien to declare, “That’s not maroon, it’s Cardinal red!” The club’s permanent nickname had been born!
So, not only have they never worn black before, they were actually named for the color they have now replaced. Brilliant. Or maybe it is — only minutes after the new uniforms were introduced, fans flocked to the team store to pick up their very own badass jersey. Clearly, the fans must love them, and, judging from the looks on the players’ faces, they must love ’em too. We’ll see how much they enjoy wearing black in 117 degree heat. Yeah…lets see you guys smiling during two-a-days wearing those things.
Oh sure, sure…they’ll probably break them out on some Monday Night game when the sun has set (or will be low enough in the sky so as to not matter), gaining maximum tv exposure (and more sales revenue) in the process. I mean — what’s not to love about these jerseys?
Basically…everything. First of all, the Cardinals have one of the WORST uniforms in the NFL (finishing 26 out of 32 in last fall’s poll) to begin with. Now, when some teams trot out an alternate, they try to be somewhat different with it. But not these birds. Nope, all they did was swap the black for the red on every conceivable part of the uniform, right down to the socks, side panels and bumper stickers. Everything — just a perfect color swap. Ugh.
And, aside for this being BFBS (yes — it’s black for black’s sake because, at least according to one of MY definitions, as I stated last week: “It also includes the introduction of an alternate uniform, created WHETHER OR NOT black was an existing color, merely for the sake of adding a black alternate”), and being a shitty looking uniform, it now appears the Cardinals are going for the let’s try to look even more like the Falcons look. In fact, when these were first released on Thursday night, it didn’t take long for The Jeff to come up with this gem. Genius.
So, there you have it. James has given us another wonderful look at a few of the college teams who perpetuate this BFBS nonsense, along with a few teams in the pro’s who have actually come to their senses and started to get away from it. And then, we have the Cardinals. Sigh.
Last weekend, we asked your for some of your submissions for the worst examples of BFBS, and today we’re going to do the same, just in case we may have missed anyone. Since James is UW’s pollster extraordinaire, we’re going to put the BFBS teams to the ultimate test soon: you. So let us know what is bad, and we’ll likely include them in the forthcoming poll.
And if you disagree with me on the Cards, I’m sure you’ll let me know.
Today’s ‘rup of the day is the Athletics gorgeous stirrup set, which actually comprised three different versions: the most commonly worn 2-stripe model, and the less-often worn 3-stripe version,, (more on that later), and the very-rarely worn stripeless model (seen there in the pre-stripe days). When Charley Finley dressed his Kansas City A’s in gold, green and white in 1963, it was quite a shock to the baseball world. Never before had such a display been seen on a diamond. The A’s would wear that combination for their final five years in Kansas City, but in 1967, their last year, they would add the striped stirrups and the now trademark white shoes. Again, the baseball world had known only one color cleat until that time, and it wasn’t white.
The A’s would move to Oakland in 1968, removing the “KC” from their caps and replacing it with the solitary “A”; they’d continue to wear black cleats on occasion, but stuck primarily with the white shoes.
As often as not, they’d appear wearing monochrome yellow unis (note the 1969 centennial patch on the vest), wearing the “heather gray” (which contained green fibers interwoven into the gray flannel) on the road, the white at home, and the gold unis both at home and on the road (at least in 1968, I believe). They’d keep those combinations until 1972, when they switched to double-knit polyester pullovers taking over baseball at the time.
As mentioned, the A’s rarely wore “solid green” stirrups, and it’s tough to tell with guys like Reggie, who pulled ’em high, in some photos. But notice the third base coach in the white cap — his rups are striped.
The A’s didn’t often break out the three striped stirrups, but when they did, they were a thing of beauty. Most often, they donned the 2 stripe edition, but, this being a time when guys were really beginning to pull their stirrups way high, it often appeared as only one stripe or in Reggie’s case, one or none (note the player behind Jackson is the three stripe version).
Two stripes or three, it was a great look. And it was one Comrade Marshall had made one of the original offerings for the stirrup club. Unfortunately, while I got a shipment of EIGHT stirrups yesterday, the 67-71 A’s were not inside, as they are now sold out. But Robert has promised me that if we can get enough interest, he’ll order up another batch. So what say you, UWers, can we get enough people for another order?
If you want the A’s rups (and I know I do), you can check out Comrade Marshall’s latest missive, in which he has this month’s new offerings as well. OK? OK!
Arizona wasn’t the only team getting a new set of uniforms yesterday (or Thursday). The entire Michigan State Spartan sporting universe underwent an entire rebranding. You may recall the hubbub a few months ago when Sparty toyed with a new logo. It was all part and parcel of a larger, university-wide effort to make Michigan State’s uniforms…well, more uniform. Although the Spartan logo remained unchanged, all 25 teams on campus will have the same deep shade of green, and have all gotten face lifts for their unis. Let’s have a look:
The football team gets three new uniforms (here’s a rear view), with basically the same shade of green in the past but new numbers and fonts, and a really stupid looking shoulder yoke on two of the three unis. The alternate uni, which has a solid green jersey, looks really good from the front. The problem is the crap bumper stickers on the pants. Why? If you have to have that stuff, wear it with the yoked uni, not the plain one.
Moving along to the hoops team, there are two unis, a green and a white, all in the same font and number pattern as the football team. Meh…looks to be typical Nike SOD wear. Not bad but not good.
Shifting to puck, I actually like these unis a lot. All except for the breezers — BFBS? Really? I don’t care if they had black breezers before (I honestly don’t know — it’s college hockey, why would I know that?), but seriously, would green pants have looked so bad? No? I didn’t think so.
There is one new rebrand I really like however. I’m not even sure what sport it’s for, but I assume that’s volleyball. In this case, I’m willing to overlook the BFBS shorts.
Overall, an interesting concept to “standardize” the uniforms. I love hunter green, so for the most part, these have always been visually appealing to me. I could do without the “modernization” (and what’s with the “slash” number font?), but as far as rebrands go, this one certainly isn’t the disaster it could have been.
Let’s face it. Mike can be a pretty frightening dude anytime. Especially when he’s doing it wrong. Here’s Rick:
The thing about bringing new people into your activities is the fresh perspective they add. They just kinda, y’know, see things from a new angle, take things in a new direction. Simply put, they make life a little more interesting. Yeah, that’s it…interesting.
Here’s your Saturday Benchies.
Guess The Game From The Scoreboard: Guest scoreboard today, and if you paid attention in the comments this week, it was already posted. Comes to us courtey of Rick Pearson. This one is a doozy, but there should be enough clues on the board for you to figure it out. Ready? Guess The Game From The Scoreboard. Date, location and final score, please, and be sure to link to your answer. And, as always, if you enjoy the game, please send me some new scoreboards! Drop me a line. Thanks!
Back again with more Uniform Tweaks, Concepts and Revisions today. Lots to get to, and if you have a tweak, change or concept for any sport, send them my way.
~~~
First up is a BIG set of tweaks, spanning the three major sports, as well as hockey, from John Follett. John sent me 9 “weeks” worth, and last weekend we looked at the second three. Here’s the final batch:
Week 7 – Minnesota Twins: Better late than never…right? Keep in mind this contest was circa May of 2009. Jarrod Lundberg spending way too much time playing Tekken. Deeillini took the concept and managed to make it look even more distasteful. Baggino comes in less bizarre but pretty lame. Snowy comes in with a design that looks all too familiar…but does point out that the similarity to the symbol of Gemini makes perfect sense. Says Snowy: “Gemini is in fact Latin for Twins.” Snowy then puts out the rest of his design and again from all angles. My design comes in and I am still in love with it. Ask me and my design blows away what the Twins are wearing right now.
Week 8 – Los Angeles Lakers: We decided to reverse the course for Week 9. The Lakers have a look that is timeless but is it possible to make it better? Snowy re-buffs the primary logo and then puts it to good use. Sam’s submission leaves the LA Clippers filing a lawsuit for secondary logo infringement. Given the lack of results from week 9, we came to the conclusion that the Los Angeles Lakers’ design is all good.
Week 9 – New Orleans Saints: I was listening to DMB’s latest album all day when I decided to take a crack at the Saints’ design. Great album btw, influenced and recorded in NOLA. Absolutely loving Snowy’s upgrade. More modern but not too over the top. Ironically I failed to finish my design for this week…which sadly was our last. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted and perhaps we bring it back someday.
Thanks Phil,
– John Follett (aka “AE” from Sportz Insomina)
Next up is Johnny Seoul, who brings us some new Browns looks:
JohnnySeoul from Wikipedia here again.
Cleveland Browns: I think I tweak the Browns uniform on a monthly basis. I suppose I’m just obsessed with them getting rid of the awful look they have had since their return in 1999. I decided to go back to their pre-1995 look with the TV numbers on the upper sleeves and dropping/shrinking the stripes to the bottom of the sleeve. Why they took the stripes and shoulder numbers to the extreme post-1999 is beyond me…they just look odd. I also brought back the 1960 helmet which featured the full stripe pattern and numbers (classic look). As for the 3rd optional alternate uniform, this is a great way for the Browns to try out a completely different helmet design without getting a fierce backlash from the traditionalists. The 3rd uniform also has a nice throwback feel to it.
Here’s the latest Cleveland Browns look.
Buffalo Bills: Time for a change in the land of Buffalo. I was greatly influenced by Ohio State’s Nike Riflery uniforms worn last season against Michigan. That type of look works very well with a traditional old school team such as the Bills. I also brought back the 1974-1975 white helmets with the grey facemask (my favorite). I also added “Bills” across the front and the Bills logo on the back to keep up with the current trend. As for the Toronto Series, I had some fun with this one. A nice clean straight red uniform seemed very fitting and the Maple Leaf on the back instead of the regular Bills logo was a great way to top this one off.
Here’s the latest Buffalo Bills look
Kansas City Chiefs: This poor franchise has been struggling for an identity ever since Joe Montana lead them to the AFC Championship. It was time for a brand new look that keeps them also looking very traditional and not creeping into that Arena Football League look that the Falcons, Cardinals, and Vikings unfortunately fell into. Another thing that bothers me about the Chiefs uniforms is that are almost the same design as the Washington Redskins (almost same colors too). Time to get out from their shadow and start brand new. Plus, since the Redskins and thinking about going black, I say beat them to it! Yes, black helmets would look great with the KC arrowhead. I also changed their stripe pattern, again added “Chiefs” across and front and their logo on the back for trendy reasons, kept the AFL patch, and added black pants as a 3rd option for when they finally deserve a Monday Night Football game.
Here’s the latest Kansas City Chiefs look
I always love hearing feedback, regardless of it is positive or negative.
Thank you.
In the third and final spot is Kyle Hardee, who has some Broncos tweaks:
I first saw Uniwatch on ESPN.com at the begining of this past NFL season. I loved it because im a huge uniform guy. My favorite NFL team is the 49ers but since they just went “retro” I thought I would tweak the Denver Broncos and go “retro”. I included a new retro inspired logo, uniforms, and helmet.
-Kyle Hardee — Myrtle Beach, SC
Aighty then, that’ll end today’s tweak show. Check back next time for more.
And finally… the San Francicso Giants broke out their new orange jerseys last evening. According to UW’s number one Giants’ fan, Brinke Guthrie, these will be worn only for Friday home games. Interestingly, the Giants did not pair the new two-tone cap with the new jersey (as had been rumored). This may have had something to do with Cy Lincecum being on the bump, and having a “lucky” cap or something however. (Thanks to Brinke for the screen shot). As of 12:15 am, no additional photos were available, but if they do, they’ll be found here
That’s going to do it for today. This may be some kind of record for new uniform releases in a short span, as the Chicago Bears will officially be unveiling their new alternate/throwback later today. I’ll have full coverage of that tomorrow (plus a wonderful look at the 1940’s jerseys on which the throwback will be based, many in color), so be sure to check back then.
Everyone have a great Saturday, and don’t forget to let us know your nominees for the worst BFBS offenders. I’d say we now have great a new candidate.
This new uniform is part of an overall organizational effort to continually keep things dynamic and innovative. — Cardinals President Michael Bidwell
I’m totally not going to bother arguing about the Cardinals today.
I’ll just say that on the college front, I judge the black uniforms differently. The Pros have the option of changing their colors pretty much whenever they want to. NCAA teams don’t really have that option. So, while black is definitely becoming a bit overused, I don’t have a problem with it if the team designs their uniform to look like the black is supposed to be there. Tennessee wearing that black jersey with no black anywhere else on the uniform is just stupid. Ohio State, on the other hand, has black stripes on their helmet and black stripes on their pants… so if they did break out a black jersey, it wouldn’t look that bad. It wouldn’t really make much sense… but it’s obvious that making sense doesn’t actually matter anymore. In basketball, WVU looked stupid, while Duke manages to look OK since they have black trim on their white uniforms to go along with the black uniforms. Color trends come and go, so in my mind it’s all about the actual design. I think the random white uniforms (most of the Nike “Pro Combat” uniforms, or FSU this coming year) are every bit as bad as the random black ones.
The detail I find disappointing in the Michigan State revamp is the basketball jerseys no longer being branded with “State.” I was always impressed with the hutzpah that “we don’t even need to put WHAT state we are.” Green+white+state=MSU.
I have just had a stroke of genius. A solution to the problem of the Cardinals and black. It’s so simple. Just change the team name from Cardinals to Cards. We already call them that for short anyway. Stick a stylized A on the helmet with a heart, a spade a club and a diamond around it, and there ya go. Then they can wear red or black interchangeably and it’d make perfect sense.
I mostly agree with you Jeff (though I was here as a Jeff before you, so you’re not a THE to me), but I disagree with Ohio State. There is a difference between a team color and an accent color. If the black is a team color, then you can pull out a black alt with no issues in my book. That’s black, but not black for black’s sake. It’s Black for because that’s what makes sense as an alt given our color palette sake. (BFBTWMSaaAGOCPS).
Black trim is not something I consider a team color, and that’s the category I put Ohio State and the Cards in. Those Unis are BFBS. Contrast that with say, the Hurricanes, where Black is an integral part of their logo and uniform scheme and has been since inception, and black is simply the natural color choice for an alt. Same would apply if the Devils were to drag out a black alt. Black is a part of their team identity, and if they were going to have an actual alt instead of a retro one off, black would be the logical choice, as disconcerting as it would be to see the devils in an alt.
There has to be a line between hate for Black for Black’s Sake and hate for all black alts and hate for all black uniforms period. They’re three entirely different things in my mind.
The reason the Giants didn’t wear that alternate hat is probably because Lincecum was pitching. He has worn that hat for every one of his starts in the majors and won’t wear another one.
[quote comment=”387282″]The detail I find disappointing in the Michigan State revamp is the basketball jerseys no longer being branded with “State.” I was always impressed with the hutzpah that “we don’t even need to put WHAT state we are.” Green+white+state=MSU.[/quote]
Perhaps it reminded people too much of those T shirts that say “College” in block print.
A few years ago I had the great misfortune of watching Rutgers get annihilated by West Virginia while wearing these sad-looking black duds: link
“This new uniform is part of an overall organizational effort to continually keep things dynamic and innovative.”
– Cardinals President Michael Bidwell
I think the rest of the quote was…
“We’ve also booked a hot new act for halftime at our home opener. They’re called the ‘Beach Boys’.”
—Ricko
The Cardinals play in an air-conditioned & covered stadium, so I don’t think the heat will be much of a factor when wearing black jersies.
[quote comment=”387285″]The reason the Giants didn’t wear that alternate hat is probably because Lincecum was pitching. He has worn that hat for every one of his starts in the majors and won’t wear another one.[/quote]
No, he link against the Braves a couple Sundays ago.
And he won the game.
link
I shall call this the “Baryshnikov Bronco.”
[quote comment=”387284″]I mostly agree with you Jeff (though I was here as a Jeff before you, so you’re not a THE to me), but I disagree with Ohio State. There is a difference between a team color and an accent color. If the black is a team color, then you can pull out a black alt with no issues in my book. That’s black, but not black for black’s sake. It’s Black for because that’s what makes sense as an alt given our color palette sake. (BFBTWMSaaAGOCPS).
Black trim is not something I consider a team color, and that’s the category I put Ohio State and the Cards in. Those Unis are BFBS. Contrast that with say, the Hurricanes, where Black is an integral part of their logo and uniform scheme and has been since inception, and black is simply the natural color choice for an alt. Same would apply if the Devils were to drag out a black alt. Black is a part of their team identity, and if they were going to have an actual alt instead of a retro one off, black would be the logical choice, as disconcerting as it would be to see the devils in an alt.
There has to be a line between hate for Black for Black’s Sake and hate for all black alts and hate for all black uniforms period. They’re three entirely different things in my mind.[/quote]
I really wonder exactly where the line between “just trim” and “team color” is. Take a team like the Vikings, or the Patriots of the mid 80’s for example. The Vikings have always claimed to be purple and gold – but they wear a uniform that consists of mostly purple and white with just a little bit of gold trim, and always have. The 80’s Patriots were considered to be red white & blue, as far as I know – and they had about the same amount of blue at the time as the Cardinals had black. Does black have some special exemption because it’s black? I just don’t get it. I’ll grant that the logo outline for the 49ers or Chiefs isn’t enough to make it a color for them – but I’d say that the 49ers previous uniforms which had black helmet stripes, black number shadows, black pant stripes and black sleeve stripes would certainly be enough for it to count.
Are we judging from what teams actually wear, or the perception of what their colors are?
Phil and James,
Take a closer look at those Butler uniforms. They aren’t black. They’re a very dark shade of navy blue.
Part of the problem now is that teams list the PMS specs for all the colors used anywhere on their uniforms. Then they also just list the names of the colors under “colors”. That really means “colors used”, but it gets extrapolated to, “Oh, I see, those are the Team Colors.”
Not necessarily. That’s just the colors they use on their unis.
Made more sense, and eliminated such assumptions, when they’d offer some explanation. For example, I remember when the the Browns’ team colors were listed, officially, as “Seal Brown and Orange with White.”
Key word, of course, being “with”. It clearly explained that “we USE some other colors, but they aren’t ‘team colors’.”
Because the Cardinals give us the PMS spec for the yellow on the bird’s beak doesn’t really make it a team color.
Or does it?
I don’t think so. But I guess some figure if a color is LISTED it must be a Team Color.
Brown and green are team colors of the Blackhawks, right? Hey, they’re in the logo and uni crest, and their PMS specs are listed. So if they show up in green sweaters and socks with brown breezers we’ll say they’re being true to their design scheme?
Yankees give the PMS for the red in the top hat. That mean red hats, sleeves and socks wouldn’t be an outrageious change in their uni continuity?
—Ricko
Make that “outrageous”.
I can spell and type, really.
Just should put my damn glasses on.
—Ricko
Gee, I had no idea the dumb jock world tradition for changing the actual meaning of words went back that far. Taking an existing natural hue such as Cardinal Red and using it to name something NOT that color. So, that’s why they can get away with the eternal misuse of catalyst & the incorrect pronunciation of comparable! No doubt this evolved from a deep seated need to always win or sleeping through every class since 5th grade.
[quote comment=”387293″]Phil and James,
Take a closer look at those Butler uniforms. They aren’t black. They’re a very dark shade of navy blue.[/quote]
Nope. They’re black. There’s blue trim on them and their warmups are blue, but that’s about it. You can see it if you compare them with the ref’s pantslink.
[quote comment=”387297″][quote comment=”387293″]Phil and James,
Take a closer look at those Butler uniforms. They aren’t black. They’re a very dark shade of navy blue.[/quote]
Nope. They’re black. There’s blue trim on them and their warmups are blue, but that’s about it. You can see it if you compare them with the ref’s pantslink.[/quote]
Uh, link.
Long history of Cardinals in black.
link
[quote comment=”387299″]Long history of Cardinals in black.
link
Pope wears white at home, of course.
On Game Day, though…
link
[quote comment=”387296″]Gee, I had no idea the dumb jock world tradition for changing the actual meaning of words went back that far. Taking an existing natural hue such as Cardinal Red and using it to name something NOT that color. So, that’s why they can get away with the eternal misuse of catalyst & the incorrect pronunciation of comparable! No doubt this evolved from a deep seated need to always win or sleeping through every class since 5th grade.[/quote]
You referring to the original Cards’ hand-me-down jerseys?
The point is that they *were* that color (cardinal) because the original color was so faded they were no longer maroon.
It’s actually one of my favorite nickname origin stories.
Can we maybe get some agreement here?
The Cardinals jerseys truly aren’t BFBS.
What they ARE is “Coming late to the party with a trendy black jersey we can justify because we’ve had some black accent trim on our unis all these years.”
That’s really the grumble, isn’t it?
—Ricko
[quote comment=”387303″]Can we maybe get some agreement here?
The Cardinals jerseys truly aren’t BFBS.
What they ARE is “Coming late to the party with a trendy black jersey we can justify because we’ve had some black accent trim on our unis all these years.”
That’s really the grumble, isn’t it?
—Ricko[/quote]
Yeah, pretty much.
The problem is that some people have different ideas of BFBS than others, so we’re all arguing over what to call the Cardinals while simultaneously agreeing that whatever it is sucks.
Is there a triangular blue panel on those Butler shorts (with #’s)?
I kind of like those Mich. St. shoulder yokes. However, the pants are unacceptable.
I was looking at the leggings on the MSU hockey uni. The little accent stripe looks black. Seems ill-placed compared to the jersey. Would they be that stupid?
I guess the football pants answered that question.
From last night/this morning:
[quote comment=”387280″][quote comment=”387277″][quote comment=”387138″] On the AZ Cardinals colors…before 1957, the Chicago Cardinals occasionally wore blue jerseys, usually when playing teams that also wore (shades of) red, namely the Giants and Redskins.
In 1964, the Cards added black stripes to the white jersey sleeves and their white pants. Then in 1970, they added black outlines to their jersey numbers on both jerseys and kept them on the white jerseys until they moved to the Valley of the Sun in 1988.[/quote]
your first paragraph is correct but the second one isn’t completely accurate. I grew up in St. Louis watching the Big Red and don’t remember black being on the home (red) jerseys aside from a special occasion patch every now and then. black didn’t make an appearance on the red jersey’s until the current unis came out a few years back.
if you have photo proof otherwise, i’d love to see it.[/quote]
He’s right (and TimmyB may be, quite honestly, the most informed person on earth on such things). I remember when they added the black outline on the white numbers of the reds. Didn’t have them for long, but they did; maybe a season or two at most. I have photos, probably a number of them, but it’s too late tonight. Stop back tomorrow. I’ll be sure to scan and post them by 1 p.m CDT at the latest…unless TimmyB or someone else beats me to it.
TimmyB would have to verify this, but I think one of the reasons they don’t readily leap to mind is that during those years the Cards were wearing white at home, so the reds didn’t get seen all that often.
—Ricko[/quote]
Don’t ever remember the St. Louis red jerseys having black trim.
link
That was from ’84.
link
Don’t know what year that was, but it’s within the time frame in question.
OK, now I’ll read today’s stuff.
“In 1964, the Cards added black stripes to the white jersey sleeves and their white pants. Then in 1970, they added black outlines to their jersey numbers on both jerseys and kept them on the white jerseys until they moved to the Valley of the Sun in 1988.”
Pays to read – I just realized this sounds as if the black outlines were only on the red jerseys in 1970. Is that correct?
[quote comment=”387286″][quote comment=”387282″]The detail I find disappointing in the Michigan State revamp is the basketball jerseys no longer being branded with “State.” I was always impressed with the hutzpah that “we don’t even need to put WHAT state we are.” Green+white+state=MSU.[/quote]
Perhaps it reminded people too much of those T shirts that say “College” in block print.[/quote]
Good call:
link
Hmmm, is that sweatshirt BFBS or is it midnight blue?
Try that again…
link
Phil, I don’t understand…how can you dislike MSU’s new football jersey (pants not included, because those are pretty bad), but then turn around and like the new volleyball jersey? Aside from taking “Michigan State” off of the front it is basically the same thing, only with long sleeves.
At the start of the Cardinals/Giants game last night, my six-year-old daughter commented on the Giants’ orange alts by screeching “Those are hideous!”
I feel the need to resubmit my revisions to the cardinals uniforms:
link
link
[quote comment=”387310″]Phil, I don’t understand…how can you dislike MSU’s new football jersey (pants not included, because those are pretty bad), but then turn around and like the new volleyball jersey? Aside from taking “Michigan State” off of the front it is basically the same thing, only with long sleeves.[/quote]
The football jerseys aren’t being worn by girls in tight shorts.
College football BFBS taken to the ridiculous extreme:
WPI – Worcester (MA) Polytechnic Institute
school colors: CRIMSON and GRAY
Football uni:
link
Damn, I forgot the alternate helmet link
[quote comment=”387313″][quote comment=”387310″]Phil, I don’t understand…how can you dislike MSU’s new football jersey (pants not included, because those are pretty bad), but then turn around and like the new volleyball jersey? Aside from taking “Michigan State” off of the front it is basically the same thing, only with long sleeves.[/quote]
The football jerseys aren’t being worn by girls in tight shorts.[/quote]
You beat me to that one, The.
Unlike Phil, I like both the football and volleyball contrasting sleeves. What I can’t stand is the jagged number and letter font.
I think jagged fonts are more annoying than BFBS. And that’s saying a lot.
link
link
link
link
Yes, I know it really is black but this photo makes me think otherwise. One hell of a camera trick I guess?
link
Also, I could have swore the St. Louis Cardinals had a thin navy sleeve stripe accenting the red ones. Perhaps 70s-80s? Still looking for pix.
[quote comment=”387310″]Phil, I don’t understand…how can you dislike MSU’s new football jersey (pants not included, because those are pretty bad), but then turn around and like the new volleyball jersey? Aside from taking “Michigan State” off of the front it is basically the same thing, only with long sleeves.[/quote]
what volleyball jerseys?
This Lakers tweak link and this Bills tweak link are my favorites of the day. No black Chiefs helmet, though. That uni has been virtually unchanged since the team left Dallas. Nothing wrong with it. If it looks too much like the Redskins, tweak them instead.
[quote comment=”387303″]Can we maybe get some agreement here?
The Cardinals jerseys truly aren’t BFBS.
[/quote]
not from me
they’re every bit BFBS in my book
they fit my definition perfectly (remember, i say there are three levels of BFBS)
you may disagree with my definition, and that’s fine…but they fit it TO A TEE
I noticed that most of the NBA teams that switched back from black are now sporting navy blue.
I’m not too keen on those Saints tweaks. You lost me at Dave Mathews.
[quote comment=”387318″][quote comment=”387310″]Phil, I don’t understand…how can you dislike MSU’s new football jersey (pants not included, because those are pretty bad), but then turn around and like the new volleyball jersey? Aside from taking “Michigan State” off of the front it is basically the same thing, only with long sleeves.[/quote]
what volleyball jerseys?[/quote]
Must be nice to have immunity from being banned…
[quote comment=”387316″][quote comment=”387313″][quote comment=”387310″]Phil, I don’t understand…how can you dislike MSU’s new football jersey (pants not included, because those are pretty bad), but then turn around and like the new volleyball jersey? Aside from taking “Michigan State” off of the front it is basically the same thing, only with long sleeves.[/quote]
The football jerseys aren’t being worn by girls in tight shorts.[/quote]
You beat me to that one, The.
Unlike Phil, I like both the football and volleyball contrasting sleeves. What I can’t stand is the jagged number and letter font.
I think jagged fonts are more annoying than BFBS. And that’s saying a lot.
link
link
link
link
Let me rephrase that – it’s the combination of BFBS and jagged fonts that annoy me the most.
“Most” may be a bit exaggerated.
[quote comment=”387292″]
I really wonder exactly where the line between “just trim” and “team color” is. Take a team like the Vikings, or the Patriots of the mid 80’s for example. The Vikings have always claimed to be purple and gold – but they wear a uniform that consists of mostly purple and white with just a little bit of gold trim, and always have. The 80’s Patriots were considered to be red white & blue, as far as I know – and they had about the same amount of blue at the time as the Cardinals had black. Does black have some special exemption because it’s black? I just don’t get it. I’ll grant that the logo outline for the 49ers or Chiefs isn’t enough to make it a color for them – but I’d say that the 49ers previous uniforms which had black helmet stripes, black number shadows, black pant stripes and black sleeve stripes would certainly be enough for it to count.
Are we judging from what teams actually wear, or the perception of what their colors are?[/quote]
Along with Ricko’s point about the team “any color that shows ups”, I would say it has to be somewhat of a judgment call. Pat Patriot logos have blue integral to the striping, it would be quite obviously different if there was no blue, especially on the whites, where there’s very little red. All of red, white and blue are important to their look, so those would all be considered team colors in my book.
A way to think of it would be to remove that color from the uniform completely. If it would substantially alter it, then it’s a team color. I’ll use my home state Hurricanes again. If you remove the black, they become the red wings with a weird red pattern at the bottom. If you do it from the cards, you have… the cards. If you remove the blue from those patriots unis, you have something that wouldn’t look out of place on the Boston University’s hockey team.
Going back to the Hurricanes, if you pull the gray that Teebz calls a team color and I call trim, you would barely even notice the absence. Or the Avalanche, for something different. Pull the black (which is only there because there wasn’t time for custom colored gear when they first moved), and you have the same core uni, even if the pants wound up blue or maroon. Actually, come to think of it, blue would look pretty good on them. Photoshop coming.
And of course, there have to be historical exemptions for teams like the penguins and the devils retros, but that’s not too pressing.
[quote comment=”387294″]Part of the problem now is that teams list the PMS specs for all the colors used anywhere on their uniforms. Then they also just list the names of the colors under “colors”. That really means “colors used”, but it gets extrapolated to, “Oh, I see, those are the Team Colors.”
Not necessarily. That’s just the colors they use on their unis.
Made more sense, and eliminated such assumptions, when they’d offer some explanation. For example, I remember when the the Browns’ team colors were listed, officially, as “Seal Brown and Orange with White.”
Key word, of course, being “with”. It clearly explained that “we USE some other colors, but they aren’t ‘team colors’.”
Because the Cardinals give us the PMS spec for the yellow on the bird’s beak doesn’t really make it a team color.
Or does it?
I don’t think so. But I guess some figure if a color is LISTED it must be a Team Color.
Brown and green are team colors of the Blackhawks, right? Hey, they’re in the logo and uni crest, and their PMS specs are listed. So if they show up in green sweaters and socks with brown breezers we’ll say they’re being true to their design scheme?
Yankees give the PMS for the red in the top hat. That mean red hats, sleeves and socks wouldn’t be an outrageious change in their uni continuity?
—Ricko[/quote]
Interesting points – a small point – it would bother me when Arizona was playing on FOX (I believe) – and the graohics they would use for the yardage graphic was red/yellow (gold).
The whole NFL is a bit behind the curve on the “black” wave – with more adds than deletions still happening – maybe because there’s a more rigid uni policy with the league or the other leagues are simply more hungry (needy) for pumping the revenue stream and thus burn through trends faster.
“With that in mind, the future looks pretty bleak. Soon, the sports landscape will consist of nothing but games where one team is dressed head-to-toe in black, the other in white.”
Thought some of you traditional gray vs. white baseball fans would like that sort of landscape. ;)
I don’t consider the MSU Volleyball shorts to be BFBS. I would guess that at least 75% of the womens volleyball teams out there wear black spandex. Black spandex is just a common thing…not quite sure why.
Do we not realize that the Cardinals play indoors?
Or that they won’t wear black during two-a-days, but if they did, they’d be in Flagstaff, Arizona, where it doesn’t get to 117?
If they still played at Sun Devil Stadium, yes, there would be no game before Halloween where you could realistically wear black jerseys. Even if you played the game at 11pm (trust me on this).
But they could (as someone here noted) wear them against New Orleans at home on October 10. The Monday Night home game is in late November, that would be fine, too, regardless of venue. The roof on U of P Stadium is usually closed early in the season.
[quote comment=”387307″]”In 1964, the Cards added black stripes to the white jersey sleeves and their white pants. Then in 1970, they added black outlines to their jersey numbers on both jerseys and kept them on the white jerseys until they moved to the Valley of the Sun in 1988.”
Pays to read – I just realized this sounds as if the black outlines were only on the red jerseys in 1970. Is that correct?[/quote]
’71, too, for sure. Still digging through manila files of clippings. Found a couple, though. Also a sketch I made of Cardinal WR Dave Williams in ’71, because that was the year white cleats (specifically adidas) started appearing all over the place in the NFL, including on him and teammate John Gilliam, to name two. It’s hard to see the black in most photos, but can spot them quickly because the white numbers look SO much thinner than in the photo you posted…or any other time on Cards’ red jerseys during those years.
Also, Eagles added a black outline to numbers home and road, and a couple black stripes to pants, too, about that time (the white helmet-green cleats days).
—Ricko
[quote comment=”387325″]the Avalanche, for something different. Pull the black (which is only there because there wasn’t time for custom colored gear when they first moved), and you have the same core uni, even if the pants wound up blue or maroon. Actually, come to think of it, blue would look pretty good on them. Photoshop coming.[/quote]
hmmm…
interesting
[quote comment=”387327″]”With that in mind, the future looks pretty bleak. Soon, the sports landscape will consist of nothing but games where one team is dressed head-to-toe in black, the other in white.”
Thought some of you traditional gray vs. white baseball fans would like that sort of landscape. ;)[/quote]
Not quite valid.
Until Charlie Finley came along (and lately), the focus of team colors in baseball, starting about 90 years ago, has never been on the jersey, because of the largely universal color scheme for them. It’s on the hats, lettering, numbers, sleeves and socks. Different sports have different paradigms.
—Ricko
A couple of really well done (IMO) BFBS entries, but how about looking at teams that have done other colors for the sake of those colors.. The US Women’s National Team’s Gold Jerseys (link) come to mind, as do the US Men’s team’s Charcoal Grays.
Next year, a red alt jersey, and no one can complain, right?
link
—Ricko
Could somebody tell me what is up with the MSU goaltender having a captain’s C on his jersey? I have to assume that it was purely for the purposes of the picture.
[quote comment=”387334″]Next year, a red alt jersey, and no one can complain, right?
link
—Ricko[/quote]
Or, based on that banner, royal blue.
[quote comment=”387332″][quote comment=”387327″]”With that in mind, the future looks pretty bleak. Soon, the sports landscape will consist of nothing but games where one team is dressed head-to-toe in black, the other in white.”
Thought some of you traditional gray vs. white baseball fans would like that sort of landscape. ;)[/quote]
Not quite valid.
Until Charlie Finley came along (and lately), the focus of team colors in baseball, starting about 90 years ago, has never been on the jersey, because of the largely universal color scheme for them. It’s on the hats, lettering, numbers, sleeves and socks. Different sports have different paradigms.
—Ricko[/quote]
Yeah, that’s why I added the little wink at the end.
Not saying I would welcome it, but just wondering what football would look like in a gray vs. white paradigm. Wouldn’t have worked too well in the days of muddy fields, but in today’s sanitized league they could pull it off.
Change the Chiefs’ uniforms? I think not. Classic.
Royals’ uniforms were cool, too, until they dinked around with the black. Now they’re back to where they should be (save the powder blue caps).
[quote comment=”387331″][quote comment=”387325″]the Avalanche, for something different. Pull the black (which is only there because there wasn’t time for custom colored gear when they first moved), and you have the same core uni, even if the pants wound up blue or maroon. Actually, come to think of it, blue would look pretty good on them. Photoshop coming.[/quote]
hmmm…
link[/quote]
Relearning how to do it, but I got ya beat. Did the gloves and helmets too, though helmets turned out somewhat crappy.
link
link
And becuase as this came by as I was adjusting the slider on the pants and gloves, what the Avs would look like if they played with 1920’s style link pants and gloves.
Thoughts on Michigan State’s corporate roll-out:
– Football: Broke up a good thing. Bad.
– Basketball: Nothing revolutionary. Hate to see “State” go.
– What? Don’t they run track in East Lansing?
– Hockey: Whatever. (Do love that big Spartan, though.)
– Volleyball: OK.
– Slash numbers: Don’t bother me. If they think they need a unique font, I’m not going to lose sleep over it.
[quote comment=”387339″][quote comment=”387331″][quote comment=”387325″]the Avalanche, for something different. Pull the black (which is only there because there wasn’t time for custom colored gear when they first moved), and you have the same core uni, even if the pants wound up blue or maroon. Actually, come to think of it, blue would look pretty good on them. Photoshop coming.[/quote]
hmmm…
link[/quote]
Relearning how to do it, but I got ya beat. Did the gloves and helmets too, though helmets turned out somewhat crappy.
link
link
And becuase as this came by as I was adjusting the slider on the pants and gloves, what the Avs would look like if they played with 1920’s style link pants and gloves.[/quote]
nice
i just did a q&d…yours are much better ;)
Stirrups of the Day: Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet.
[quote comment=”387291″]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4047/4536850174_7ece263544_o.png
I shall call this the “Baryshnikov Bronco.”[/quote]
This has legs.
Arizona Cardinals: Sad to see a pro team try to mimic a college team link Kurt Warner, you got out just in time. (That side-by-side comparison to the Falcons was tragic – two bad looks.)
I have to admit that the leather one looks really weird with the ultra modern skates… though I’m not a fan of white skates. Or white footwear in general, actually.
While searching for footage of the ’70 Cards, I found this gem: Jack Buck narrating the ’69 Mizzou highlight film.
link
Love the Tigers’ field, with the alternating gold and white numbers every five yards.
I like this Twins concept, link ‘cept you have to keep the TC logo. It’s just part of the package. Like the road jersey. Reminds me of this. link
[quote comment=”387347″]While searching for footage of the ’70 Cards, I found this gem: Jack Buck narrating the ’69 Mizzou highlight film.
link
Love the Tigers’ field, with the alternating gold and white numbers every five yards.[/quote]
Remember liking those Missouri unis. Something nicely basic about them, and a great color combo (great helmet, too). Notice also that they had two sets of black jerseys. Mesh style with white numbers and no TVs for warm weather…and a more standard fabric with old gold numbers, including sleeve TVs the rest of the time.
—Ricko
[quote comment=”387348″]I like this Twins concept, link ‘cept you have to keep the TC logo. It’s just part of the package. Like the road jersey. Reminds me of this. link
Hey, the Minnesota Indians.
I really really really did think the Cardinals were gonna unveil a new red “fauxback” or throwback uni. Instead we get a Falcons ripoff. Siiiiiggggghhhh.
But good news is, we get to see the Bears 1940’s throwback unveiled today. I can’t wait to see how they’ll look on the players and on the field. For those who haven’t seen ’em yet check it out here…
link
That Michigan State white home hockey jersey looks so great with that crest. The green roads should be the same: no wordmark, no number, just the simple, powerful, dignified crest which says so much.
Oh, yeah…and get rid of all the stupid nike logos plastered all over the place. Jesus.
[quote comment=”387348″]I like this Twins concept, link ‘cept you have to keep the TC logo. It’s just part of the package. Like the road jersey. Reminds me of this. link
I dig the Primary logo, road cap logo and wordmarks! But I agree ya gotta keep the “TC” logo.
[quote comment=”387351″]I really really really did think the Cardinals were gonna unveil a new red “fauxback” or throwback uni. Instead we get a Falcons ripoff. Siiiiiggggghhhh.
But good news is, we get to see the Bears 1940’s throwback unveiled today. I can’t wait to see how they’ll look on the players and on the field. For those who haven’t seen ’em yet check it out here…
link
yep…FINALLY a new uni we can probably safely say we’ll love
check back tomorrow…gonna be a whole revue of the 1940’s bears unis…
[quote comment=”387351″]I really really really did think the Cardinals were gonna unveil a new red “fauxback” or throwback uni. Instead we get a Falcons ripoff. Siiiiiggggghhhh.
But good news is, we get to see the Bears 1940’s throwback unveiled today. I can’t wait to see how they’ll look on the players and on the field. For those who haven’t seen ’em yet check it out here…
link
VERY nice.
@#&^$#@*&
STOP COMING UP WITH HORRID TWEAKS FOR THE CHIEFS.
I NEVER want more black creeping into our uni, ESPECIALLY the helmet that should ALWAYS stay red.
I don’t care if you people somehow think that we’re searching for an identity b/c ESPN decided to act like we haven’t existed as a franchise outside of the Montana years, but for the love of god, stop adding black. I already had to sweat out the fan-push for those stupid BFBS alt’s to be worn on the field.
Black=Raiders in the West. Always has, always will. It’d be like saying the Yankees need to wear red socks b/c there’s red in their logo – while also forgetting about who their main rival is. It’s sickening.
Those new white pants Michigan State has make them look like they’re wearing diapers. What’s up with that?
I hate BFBS, especially since my alma mater recently joined the moronic trend.
link
The Flyers won the NIT, which is OK I guess. But now when anyone at UD looks back at it all they’ll see are these monstrosities.
[quote comment=”387357″]Those new white pants Michigan State has make them look like they’re wearing diapers. What’s up with that?[/quote]
C’mon, Terry, you know Nike is the ultimate when it comes to magnificently redefining uni design.
Just ask ’em. I’m sure they’ll tell you.
THEY know how things should be.
THEY’re the ones finally getting things right after, what, a century or more of everyone getting it wrong.
We should thank them for showing the entire world the error of its ways.
And, we definitely should hang our heads in shame for being so eggregisouly off the mark for so very, very long.
Probably we should even bow.
Uniforms aren’t uniforms, they’re “sports costumes.”
HOW could we have missed that? ;)
—Ricko
Seriously, most of the designs Nike comes up with look like Nike must have hired a whole bunch of people who got laid off when “Will & Grace” was cancelled.
—Ricko
Easy definition of BFBS: Has your team ever had a black jersey in its history? If not, then its BFBS. Also applies if the team changes its color scheme (i.e. ’90s Sabres).
Same goes for any color. Why do all these UniTweaks want to give the Bills a red jersey? RFRS, I guess.
I do not care for the bfbs. It is way overdone. The trim such as for Ohio State is ok by me.
Today on Big Ten network, Ohio State has has the pink accent uniforms. I just saw the white jersey team run on the field. They had pink numbers and black outlines.
Have not seen the scarlet jerseys on the field yet.
[quote comment=”387358″]I hate BFBS, especially since my alma mater recently joined the moronic trend.
link
The Flyers won the NIT, which is OK I guess. But now when anyone at UD looks back at it all they’ll see are these monstrosities.[/quote]
Dayton graduates NEVER miss an opportunity to tell people they went to Dayton.
I really don’t mind that the AZ Cardinals are experimenting with a black uniform. One of the main reasons the NFL adopted an official alternate 3rd uniform was for NFL teams to have fun. As long as a team doesn’t drastically alter their 2 main uniforms, the 3rd one should be a “do whatever they want” type of uniform. Plus, I’ll bet the Cards new black uni sells.
Need a hint on GUESS THE SCOREBOARD?
It’s from 1964.
—Ricko
[quote comment=”387364″]I really don’t mind that the AZ Cardinals are experimenting with a black uniform. One of the main reasons the NFL adopted an official alternate 3rd uniform was for NFL teams to have fun. As long as a team doesn’t drastically alter their 2 main uniforms, the 3rd one should be a “do whatever they want” type of uniform. Plus, I’ll bet the Cards new black uni sells.[/quote]
Fun as a policy in the No Fun League?
Surely, you jest.
That’s like saying, “Boy, the military, what a sense of humor.” ;)
—Ricko
[quote comment=”387366″][quote comment=”387364″]I really don’t mind that the AZ Cardinals are experimenting with a black uniform. One of the main reasons the NFL adopted an official alternate 3rd uniform was for NFL teams to have fun. As long as a team doesn’t drastically alter their 2 main uniforms, the 3rd one should be a “do whatever they want” type of uniform. Plus, I’ll bet the Cards new black uni sells.[/quote]
Fun as a policy in the No Fun League?
Surely, you jest.
That’s like saying, “Boy, the military, what a sense of humor.” ;)
—Ricko[/quote]
haha…Actually I’m in the military (14 years) and we have tons of fun. ;)
[quote comment=”387312″]I feel the need to resubmit my revisions to the cardinals uniforms:
link
link
this is brilliant
[quote comment=”387356″]@#&^$#@*&
STOP COMING UP WITH HORRID TWEAKS FOR THE CHIEFS.
I NEVER want more black creeping into our uni, ESPECIALLY the helmet that should ALWAYS stay red.
I don’t care if you people somehow think that we’re searching for an identity b/c ESPN decided to act like we haven’t existed as a franchise outside of the Montana years, but for the love of god, stop adding black. I already had to sweat out the fan-push for those stupid BFBS alt’s to be worn on the field.
Black=Raiders in the West. Always has, always will. It’d be like saying the Yankees need to wear red socks b/c there’s red in their logo – while also forgetting about who their main rival is. It’s sickening.[/quote]
Woah…take it easy, fella. The main reason I experimented with black in my Cheifs prototype is because the are about to add black to their main uniforms. Sorry, but it is very close to becoming a done deal in the near future in KC. They may not change the helmet, but get ready for black.
[quote comment=”387367″][quote comment=”387366″][quote comment=”387364″]I really don’t mind that the AZ Cardinals are experimenting with a black uniform. One of the main reasons the NFL adopted an official alternate 3rd uniform was for NFL teams to have fun. As long as a team doesn’t drastically alter their 2 main uniforms, the 3rd one should be a “do whatever they want” type of uniform. Plus, I’ll bet the Cards new black uni sells.[/quote]
Fun as a policy in the No Fun League?
Surely, you jest.
That’s like saying, “Boy, the military, what a sense of humor.” ;)
—Ricko[/quote]
haha…Actually I’m in the military (14 years) and we have tons of fun. ;)[/quote]
Didn’t mean the people therein.
Rather, the institution.
Was gonna say the “Joint Chiefs” or the “Supreme Court”.
Maybe shoulda stuck with one of them, huh.
—Ricko
[quote comment=”387368″][quote comment=”387312″]I feel the need to resubmit my revisions to the cardinals uniforms:
link
link
this is brilliant[/quote]
hahaha…classic!!!
[quote comment=”387296″]Gee, I had no idea the dumb jock world tradition for changing the actual meaning of words went back that far. Taking an existing natural hue such as Cardinal Red and using it to name something NOT that color. So, that’s why they can get away with the eternal misuse of catalyst & the incorrect pronunciation of comparable! No doubt this evolved from a deep seated need to always win or sleeping through every class since 5th grade.[/quote]
i know i am somewhat random and confrazing mostly, but i don’t understand one sentence of this.
[quote comment=”387371″][quote comment=”387368″][quote comment=”387312″]I feel the need to resubmit my revisions to the cardinals uniforms:
link
link
this is brilliant[/quote]
hahaha…classic!!![/quote]
Thought them after I posted those photos earlier. Glad you brought them back.
[quote comment=”387370″][quote comment=”387367″][quote comment=”387366″][quote comment=”387364″]I really don’t mind that the AZ Cardinals are experimenting with a black uniform. One of the main reasons the NFL adopted an official alternate 3rd uniform was for NFL teams to have fun. As long as a team doesn’t drastically alter their 2 main uniforms, the 3rd one should be a “do whatever they want” type of uniform. Plus, I’ll bet the Cards new black uni sells.[/quote]
Fun as a policy in the No Fun League?
Surely, you jest.
That’s like saying, “Boy, the military, what a sense of humor.” ;)
—Ricko[/quote]
haha…Actually I’m in the military (14 years) and we have tons of fun. ;)[/quote]
Didn’t mean the people therein.
Rather, the institution.
Was gonna say the “Joint Chiefs” or the “Supreme Court”.
Maybe shoulda stuck with one of them, huh.
—Ricko[/quote]
lol…I knew what you meant. All good ;)
[quote comment=”387371″][quote comment=”387368″][quote comment=”387312″]I feel the need to resubmit my revisions to the cardinals uniforms:
link
link
this is brilliant[/quote]
hahaha…classic!!![/quote]
Love the helmets.
Playing is slippers is gonna suck, though.
[quote comment=”387372″][quote comment=”387296″]Gee, I had no idea the dumb jock world tradition for changing the actual meaning of words went back that far. Taking an existing natural hue such as Cardinal Red and using it to name something NOT that color. So, that’s why they can get away with the eternal misuse of catalyst & the incorrect pronunciation of comparable! No doubt this evolved from a deep seated need to always win or sleeping through every class since 5th grade.[/quote]
i know i am somewhat random and confrazing mostly, but i don’t understand one sentence of this.[/quote]
i think he means they misnamed “cardinal” red from the beginning
Will we be tested on link during tomorrow’s discussion of the new Bears throwbacks?
I mean, what was so good about the T-formation?
[quote comment=”387369″][quote comment=”387356″]@#&^$#@*&
STOP COMING UP WITH HORRID TWEAKS FOR THE CHIEFS.
I NEVER want more black creeping into our uni, ESPECIALLY the helmet that should ALWAYS stay red.
I don’t care if you people somehow think that we’re searching for an identity b/c ESPN decided to act like we haven’t existed as a franchise outside of the Montana years, but for the love of god, stop adding black. I already had to sweat out the fan-push for those stupid BFBS alt’s to be worn on the field.
Black=Raiders in the West. Always has, always will. It’d be like saying the Yankees need to wear red socks b/c there’s red in their logo – while also forgetting about who their main rival is. It’s sickening.[/quote]
Woah…take it easy, fella. The main reason I experimented with black in my Cheifs prototype is because the are about to add black to their main uniforms. Sorry, but it is very close to becoming a done deal in the near future in KC. They may not change the helmet, but get ready for black.[/quote]
If they’re going to add black to the uni, then they’d better add yellow to the helmet. I’ve said it on here a gazillion times. All they have to do is make the K and the C yellow.
[quote comment=”387372″][quote comment=”387296″]Gee, I had no idea the dumb jock world tradition for changing the actual meaning of words went back that far. Taking an existing natural hue such as Cardinal Red and using it to name something NOT that color. So, that’s why they can get away with the eternal misuse of catalyst & the incorrect pronunciation of comparable! No doubt this evolved from a deep seated need to always win or sleeping through every class since 5th grade.[/quote]
i know i am somewhat random and confrazing mostly, but i don’t understand one sentence of this.[/quote]
Over the years, intellectual types have often been bullied by those who are more athletic.
well even though they didnt go orange brimmed last night, lincecum DID wear one a couple starts ago so it had nothing to do with feeling lucky.
p.s. he did win the orange brim start
[quote comment=”387377″]Will we be tested on link during tomorrow’s discussion of the new Bears throwbacks?
I mean, what was so good about the T-formation?[/quote]
dammit lance…stop stealing material from tomorrow’s post ;)
[quote comment=”387377″]Will we be tested on link during tomorrow’s discussion of the new Bears throwbacks?
I mean, what was so good about the T-formation?[/quote]
Well, for one thing, it created a postion for guys who probably couldn’t play any other position.
Not an indictment, not a kudo. Just an observation.
Cuz, y’know, really can’t see Sonny Jurgensen, Joe Namath or Dan Marino (and plenty of others) at, say, WR.
—Ricko
[quote comment=”387359″][quote comment=”387357″]Those new white pants Michigan State has make them look like they’re wearing diapers. What’s up with that?[/quote]
… “sports costumes.”
-Ricko[/quote]
Of course, silly me!
[quote comment=”387381″][quote comment=”387377″]Will we be tested on link during tomorrow’s discussion of the new Bears throwbacks?
I mean, what was so good about the T-formation?[/quote]
dammit lance…stop stealing material from tomorrow’s post ;)[/quote]
We WILL be debating who was the best running back ever to wear the Navy & Orange–Red Grange, Gale Sayers, Walter Payton or Rashad Salam–though, right?
—Ricko
Salaam.
Lost my “a” on that one, didn’t I.
Is the answer to Guess The Scoreboard at
link
re: Cardinals black outline on white numbers, early ’70s, check this out…
link
link
—Ricko
One of the great ironies in baseball history.
His last hit.
#3,000.
link
More on GUESS THE SCOREBOARD…
I didn’t know the answer, but figured it out by prowling around baseball-reference.com, which now includes players’ uni numbers.
Pitcher is Jim Bunning.
Focus on who’s at bat.
—Ricko
Have the Dodgers always had a white squatchee/button on top of their caps?
[quote comment=”387390″]Have the Dodgers always had a white squatchee/button on top of their caps?[/quote]
Don’t know “always”, but they did in Brooklyn.
link
link
link
—Ricko
[quote comment=”387390″]Have the Dodgers always had a white squatchee/button on top of their caps?[/quote]
link
[quote comment=”387386″]Is the answer to Guess The Scoreboard at
link
Right pitcher and catcher.
Not the right game, though.
Notice, too, the centerfielder for the opposition.
—Ricko
Mets on the other hand added the orange button sometime in the mid to late 90’s.
link
Dressed to the Nines says link
Are the Braves link the best in baseball?
[quote comment=”387394″]Mets on the other hand added the orange button sometime in the mid to late 90’s.
link
Dressed to the Nines says link[/quote]
1995 (im 99% positive of that)
Ok, last attempt at Guess The Scoreboard…
link
[quote comment=”387398″]Ok, last attempt at Guess The Scoreboard…
link
Bingo.
[quote comment=”387379″][quote comment=”387372″][quote comment=”387296″]Gee, I had no idea the dumb jock world tradition for changing the actual meaning of words went back that far. Taking an existing natural hue such as Cardinal Red and using it to name something NOT that color. So, that’s why they can get away with the eternal misuse of catalyst & the incorrect pronunciation of comparable! No doubt this evolved from a deep seated need to always win or sleeping through every class since 5th grade.[/quote]
i know i am somewhat random and confrazing mostly, but i don’t understand one sentence of this.[/quote]
Over the years, intellectual types have often been bullied by those who are more athletic.[/quote]
but what is the catalyst and comparable reference? did a dumb jock really create cardinal red? is that the implication? or are most of the cardinals we see flying around a somewhat dirty red? and why malign a great number like 5? 8th grade is much more evil. i’ll give him props for “deep seated” rather then using “deep seeded”, but intellectual? i don’t see that at all, i want to give him a swirly because he doesn’t make sense. and why does one have to be necessarily one or the other? that’s somewhat limiting. what does the fact that i could throw a 90 mph fastball at one time have anything to do with my brain~pan? kids.
Due to no cable subscription and a general disinterest dating to the canceled Stanley Cup playoffs, I see very little of the NHL. But as I watch Blackhawks/Preds today, an observation. While Chicago’s traditional hem stripe creates the “diaper dandy” effect with the new Reebok hem, Nashville’s widely panned wide side panel nicely disguises the cut. Of course, an even better fix would be Reebok going back to the more traditional straight hem.
Anyone have this card?
link
He’s wearing a mesh hat in a photo from ’56 (early series ’57 card).
Remember the card (and the mesh hat) well, but the mesh just doesn’t show up in any scans I can find on line.
As I kid, I figured it must have been some kind of spring training hat…for the heat of Vero Beach.
—Ricko
[quote comment=”387402″]Anyone have this card?
link
He’s wearing a mesh hat in a photo from ’56 (early series ’57 card).
Remember the card (and the mesh hat) well, but the mesh just doesn’t show up in any scans I can find on line.
As I kid, I figured it must have been some kind of spring training hat…for the heat of Vero Beach.
—Ricko[/quote]
i think i have that in the “posed, fat, and hairy” collection that i put together some 20 years ago because of that mesh hat.
[quote comment=”387369″][quote comment=”387356″]@#&^$#@*&
STOP COMING UP WITH HORRID TWEAKS FOR THE CHIEFS.
I NEVER want more black creeping into our uni, ESPECIALLY the helmet that should ALWAYS stay red.
I don’t care if you people somehow think that we’re searching for an identity b/c ESPN decided to act like we haven’t existed as a franchise outside of the Montana years, but for the love of god, stop adding black. I already had to sweat out the fan-push for those stupid BFBS alt’s to be worn on the field.
Black=Raiders in the West. Always has, always will. It’d be like saying the Yankees need to wear red socks b/c there’s red in their logo – while also forgetting about who their main rival is. It’s sickening.[/quote]
Woah…take it easy, fella. The main reason I experimented with black in my Cheifs prototype is because the are about to add black to their main uniforms. Sorry, but it is very close to becoming a done deal in the near future in KC. They may not change the helmet, but get ready for black.[/quote]
I completely understand Trevor’s animosity. Putting the Chiefs in a black helmet is more of an idea for a designer like you than what the Chiefs fans really want. It’s like when I see Padres concepts in navy, it’s more of something that’s not really a good idea.
Getting ready for black on the Chiefs? That’s just WRONG. If they add it as trim, they’ll look like another crud version of the Buccaneers or former 49ers.
[quote comment=”387402″]Anyone have this card?
link
He’s wearing a mesh hat in a photo from ’56 (early series ’57 card).
Remember the card (and the mesh hat) well, but the mesh just doesn’t show up in any scans I can find on line.
As I kid, I figured it must have been some kind of spring training hat…for the heat of Vero Beach.
—Ricko[/quote]
Or it could be a messed up 50+ year old memory. I’m just trying to figure out which. :)
found it. it is mesh.
[quote comment=”387406″]found it. it is mesh.[/quote]
That’s what I thought. Thanks.
I just bought the card, cheap, at ebay, so I’ll be able to check it again soon, too.
Thought Paul would be interesed in that but, understandbly, he’s not seeing it in the scans.
Hell, I can’t tell for sure in the scans, either, but I have such a vivid memory of being a kid and wonderering what that weird hat was.
—Ricko
[quote comment=”387404″][quote comment=”387369″] get ready for black.[/quote]
Getting ready for black on the Chiefs? That’s just WRONG.[/quote]
no shit
but, since it’s in the arrowhead, i guess that wouldn’t be BFBS, at least according to some of the
numbnutz’fine folks on this board, since it is an official color (albeit a “secondary” color)[quote comment=”387387″]re: Cardinals black outline on white numbers, early ’70s, check this out…
link
I have that stamp album, and if you hadn’t shown that closeup I probably wouldn’t have noticed. Out of 24 players, 17 are in red. Only Fred Heron has that jersey (MAYBE Martin Imhof, but it’s too hard to tell).
The Cards are also shown on the cover with an inaccurate uni:
link
[quote comment=”387335″]Could somebody tell me what is up with the MSU goaltender having a captain’s C on his jersey? I have to assume that it was purely for the purposes of the picture.[/quote]
In college hockey, a goalie can wear the captain’s C. I don’t know if this year the Spartan captain is the goalie or it is just was put there for the photo shoot. A lot of teams over the years have had a goalie with the C.
Here is Jeff Lerg wearing the “C” for MSU.
link
Sorry, that link didn’t work. Let’s try again:
link
[quote comment=”387408″][quote comment=”387404″][quote comment=”387369″] get ready for black.[/quote]
Getting ready for black on the Chiefs? That’s just WRONG.[/quote]
no shit
but, since it’s in the arrowhead, i guess that wouldn’t be BFBS, at least according to some of the
numbnutz’fine folks on this board, since it is an link (albeit a “secondary” color)[/quote]Using my standard, it’s not. Their colors would be considered Red, Yellow and white. Besides, any changed to those unis would be the work of the devil.
That music that gets played after the Blackhawks score at home, is quite distinctive , is it this era’s version of the Hartford Whalers music.
[quote comment=”387413″][quote comment=”387408″][quote comment=”387404″][quote comment=”387369″] get ready for black.[/quote]
Getting ready for black on the Chiefs? That’s just WRONG.[/quote]
no shit
but, since it’s in the arrowhead, i guess that wouldn’t be BFBS, at least according to some of the
numbnutz’fine folks on this board, since it is an link (albeit a “secondary” color)[/quote]Using my standard, it’s not. Their colors would be considered Red, Yellow and white. Besides, any changed to those unis would be the work of the devil.[/quote]
I would use the Sega Genesis NHL series as the standard: what are your teams two main colors? It should be as simple as that.
[quote comment=”387415″][quote comment=”387413″][quote comment=”387408″][quote comment=”387404″][quote comment=”387369″] get ready for black.[/quote]
Getting ready for black on the Chiefs? That’s just WRONG.[/quote]
no shit
but, since it’s in the arrowhead, i guess that wouldn’t be BFBS, at least according to some of the
numbnutz’fine folks on this board, since it is an link (albeit a “secondary” color)[/quote]Using my standard, it’s not. Their colors would be considered Red, Yellow and white. Besides, any changed to those unis would be the work of the devil.[/quote]
I would use the Sega Genesis NHL series as the standard: what are your teams two main colors? It should be as simple as that.[/quote]
I always find that simple is often wrong. Occam was a moron.
[quote comment=”387387″]re: Cardinals black outline on white numbers, early ’70s, check this out…
link
link
—Ricko[/quote]
Good catch, Sir Ricko.
This was worn in 1970 only. And the Heron stamp looks like it might have some from that 38-0 shellacking of the Cowboys on MNF (note the darkness in the background).
In 1971, the Cardinals went with stubby style front numerals with straight white #s on the red jersey, but kept the black outline on the red numbers of the white jersey for a long time.
Not only have the Brewers added their 40th Anniversary logo behind home plate, they have added “Vote Brewers” in the dirt behind home plate. Does All-Star voting really start this early? Are any other teams doing this?
link
Forgive my low quality pic. The only way I can watch the game is on non-HD WGN. Some stupid playoff basketball game is on FS Wisconsin right now.
The “C” on Aramis Ramirez’s batting helmet is crooked. You can see it on WGN. PS: I was at the Blackhawks game today.
[quote comment=”387414″]That music that gets played after the Blackhawks score at home, is quite distinctive , is it this era’s version of the Hartford Whalers music.[/quote]
The Fratellis’ Chelsea Dagger is quite distinctive, but comparing it to Brass Bonanza is like comparing your kid’s finger painting on the fridge to the Mona Lisa.
It may be good to you, but it sucks to everyone else.
[quote comment=”387420″][quote comment=”387414″]That music that gets played after the Blackhawks score at home, is quite distinctive , is it this era’s version of the Hartford Whalers music.[/quote]
The Fratellis’ Chelsea Dagger is quite distinctive, but comparing it to Brass Bonanza is like comparing your kid’s finger painting on the fridge to the Mona Lisa.
It may be good to you, but it sucks to everyone else.[/quote]
Always the voice of subtle and clever retorts
if anyone is interested, senor zito is wearing the new soccer socks on the MLB channel
[quote comment=”387415″]
I would use the Sega Genesis NHL series as the standard: what are your teams two main colors? It should be as simple as that.[/quote]
DING DING DING! We have a winnah!
Here’s my dissertation on black as an acceptable jersey colour since people above think they know why I dislike it.
Every team needs to grasp this concept that anything more than two colours to identify you is beyond stupid, and accent colours do not define your uniform. Since black is used as an accent colour because it makes other colours stand out, it is, by definition in sports, AN ACCENT COLOUR.
For the Hurricanes, since Jeff doesn’t grasp the concept of how black is in EVERY colour scheme except a select few, it becomes a non-colour in a team’s scheme.
Therefore, the Hurricanes, like the Red Wings, would be red-and-white. Maybe you could get away with red-and-silver/gray. But red-and-black? No. Not in this lifetime. Why? BECAUSE BLACK IS THEIR ALTERNATE JERSEY COLOUR, AND IT IS AN ACCENT COLOUR.
Since they made their alternate uniform black, it is definitely BFBS. They had other colour options if you want to use the SSUR info, but they decided to follow a trend that should have died a long, long time ago.
One team from a league has a black uniform? Unique.
Another team follows? Trend.
A third team follows? Enough.
Any others? BFBS to capitalize on the trend.
Any alternate jerseys that come out as black? Beating a dead black horse.
Why is this so hard to grasp?
You don’t see traditional teams putting out black alternate uniforms. The Yankees could go with red (as pointed out above), but they don’t because that would be un-Yankee-like.
The Columbus Blue Jackets had “electric green” as part of their colour scheme because it was part of their logo. How stupid would the BLUE JACKETS be if they came out in GREEN? How about silver? Maybe red? All of those are part of the colour scheme, after all.
This is the reason why teams that have great colour schemes look fantastic when they play against one another – Yankees and Red Sox, Red Wings and Maple Leafs, Canadiens and Maple Leafs, Celtics and Lakers.
We’re drawn to colour, not to black. This trend needs to die sooner than later. It’s the colours that make teams unique, not black.
So, in that regard, stop claiming it as a valid reason to use black in any team’s colour scheme. Unless the team is rebranding its entire identity or has a long history as a team with a black jersey/sweater, any use of black for a jersey colour is BFBS.
[quote comment=”387421″]
Always the voice of subtle and clever retorts[/quote]
I swing the hammer of reality around this place. See above.
[quote comment=”387424″][quote comment=”387421″]
Always the voice of subtle and clever retorts[/quote]
I swing the hammer of reality around this place. See above.[/quote]
I think you may have swung that hammer a little too loosely , and its come in inadvertent contact with your noggin one too many times.
[quote comment=”387425″][quote comment=”387424″][quote comment=”387421″]
Always the voice of subtle and clever retorts[/quote]
I swing the hammer of reality around this place. See above.[/quote]
I think you may have swung that hammer a little too loosely , and its come in inadvertent contact with your noggin one too many times.[/quote]
You’re welcome to your opinion, but Chelsea Dagger will be replaced eventually. Brass Bonanza? It lives forever.
If you look at the cover for NCAA Football 11 for Xbox, Tim Tebow is wearing the goofy spiral-graph jersey but is holding a traditional orange Gator helmet.
link
When looking at those new Cardinals jerseys by themselves, they really don’t identify the team well at all. Look at the pic of the fans with the jersey on. If you block out the giant Cardinals logo in the background, you would have no idea what team they were supporting.
Anyone just see Zambrano lose his shoe running to 1st? Almost looked like he was wearing stirrups under his long pants.
Teebz makes a lot of good points.
Black is not generic but rather “universal,” as in, “to the world beyond sports”, because of its common use as a possible accent color or for definition, or often as a basic part of a logo in all kinds of different media (for example, the drop shadow on Wisconsin’s “W” or in the logo on Superman’s chest in comic books).
White IS generic in sports, by rule, because virtually every sport we discuss here requires a white jersey at some time or another.
Hence everyone’s colors are (again, by RULE)…”and white”.
And some are, at their CHOICE, “with black”.
And for others, who have a history of choosing to wear black garments, it IS a team color.
But when a team just flings a black garment into a longstanding color scheme, even if they have been “with black”, even if they suddenly list black as a additional “team color,” then it’s bogus and a trendy marketing ploy.
—Ricko
You’re welcome to your opinion, but Chelsea Dagger will be replaced eventually. Brass Bonanza? It lives forever.
Like flies encased in amber.
[quote comment=”387385″]Salaam.
Lost my “a” on that one, didn’t I.[/quote]
A couple of them. link.
[quote comment=”387419″]The “C” on Aramis Ramirez’s batting helmet is crooked. You can see it on WGN. PS: I was at the Blackhawks game today.[/quote]
Len Kasper actually mentioned it.
PS: I was at a link today.
I believe I was helping remove an elbow pad when Kaner tied it up.
[quote comment=”387414″]That music that gets played after the Blackhawks score at home, is quite distinctive , is it this era’s version of the Hartford Whalers music.[/quote]
it is nowhere near as groovy as the whalers, it is a total nuisance. i want to hear the fans go nuts not that annoying song that sticks in my noodle the rest of the day. it is still there, and i am posting this 7 hours after the game ended because my link.
the scene above runs from 0:57 through 2:44
[quote comment=”387434″][quote comment=”387414″]That music that gets played after the Blackhawks score at home, is quite distinctive , is it this era’s version of the Hartford Whalers music.[/quote]
it is nowhere near as groovy as the whalers, it is a total nuisance. i want to hear the fans go nuts not that annoying song that sticks in my noodle the rest of the day. it is still there, and i am posting this 7 hours after the game ended because my link.[/quote]
link?
[quote comment=”387436″][quote comment=”387434″][quote comment=”387414″]That music that gets played after the Blackhawks score at home, is quite distinctive , is it this era’s version of the Hartford Whalers music.[/quote]
it is nowhere near as groovy as the whalers, it is a total nuisance. i want to hear the fans go nuts not that annoying song that sticks in my noodle the rest of the day. it is still there, and i am posting this 7 hours after the game ended because my link.[/quote]
link?[/quote]
i will kill you.
[quote comment=”387432″][quote comment=”387385″]Salaam.
Lost my “a” on that one, didn’t I.[/quote]
A couple of them. link.[/quote]
Damn, and he was so famous, too. How could I have messed that up.
Actually, it’s okay, Memphis’ clever use of “x” kinda makes up for it.
[quote comment=”387437″][quote comment=”387436″][quote comment=”387434″][quote comment=”387414″]That music that gets played after the Blackhawks score at home, is quite distinctive , is it this era’s version of the Hartford Whalers music.[/quote]
it is nowhere near as groovy as the whalers, it is a total nuisance. i want to hear the fans go nuts not that annoying song that sticks in my noodle the rest of the day. it is still there, and i am posting this 7 hours after the game ended because my link.[/quote]
link?[/quote]
i will kill you.[/quote]
So you’re definitely stopping by tomorrow?
Teebz, you still don’t get it. For some teams, black is integral to the color scheme. I don’t give a shit about what you opinion on that is, whether you think black should be used as a part of a color scheme or not. For the hurricanes, black is part of their color scheme. For some teams, it’s not, but merely used as a neutral to make things pop.
You also missed my point totally and completely with the blue jackets example. Is electric green integral? No, it’s not. As with many other patriotic teams, all of red, white and blue are integral. Same with the Rangers and the team that formerly existed in your hometown of winnipeg, which just took patriotic US colors. If the blue jackets were to break out a red third with the same sort of patriotic color scheme as their others, I wouldn’t bat much of an eye. It wouldn’t be much different then Colorado breaking out the blue alts this year, which no one questioned the Avalanche’s claim to, even though as the avalanche they had NEVER had a blue uniform before. I certainly don’t remember you arguing that it wasn’t a team color and that they weren’t entitled to wear a certain hue. They have a maroon uniform, and they have a white one. That means their colors are maroon and white. (You have used this exact argument before in discussions of the hurricanes. It was just as moronic then as it is here).
Some teams chose two color color schemes. Some choose three color color schemes. You can argue which they should choose, but you cannot argue which they did choose. Those are what they are.
Hurricanes are Red/Black/White. Gray is an accent and accent only, it has never been anything else. Black has always been used as a much more prominent element in everything associated with the Hurricanes. It is flat out wrong to say that gray could be a team color and that it would be impossible for black to be. I’m not going to sugarcoat that. It is quite simply false.
Black as a color may be written into almost every team’s scheme. Black is not integral to the scheme of all of them. the ones that genuinely use black as an accent color are going BFBS when they throw in an alt. Teams where it’s an integral part are not.
Contrast the Canes with the Coyotes. Black is an accent in the logo. It does not show on their uniform templates at all. Black is listed as an official team shade. Is it integral to their identity? Is it really a team color? No. Theirs are brick and white. Perhaps you could allow for the sand color. Their black alts are BFBS. Go rag on them.
I DON’T think the Yankees could come out in red, and you had to have utterly failed 3rd grade reading comprehension to think so. Does anyone think that if you took away the red it would substantially change the Yankee’s identity, as was the test I mentioned way earlier? Would anyone even notice in the slightest?
Another thing that your logic would lead to: If the capitals were to try and introduce a third, since the two most prominent colors on their current uniforms are red and white, they would not be allowed to have a navy alt. Huh. Interesting theory that.
Newsflash: old videogames used only two colors not out of any concern for purity, but becuase the three pixel high players couldn’t be portrayed with more, and to save memory.
It seems there is a philosophical difference here. You think only link can ever be combined at a time in the way of establishing an identity, I think that sometimes link or more colors can be used to build the fundamental identity of something.
BTW, if you can successfully compress that last one down to two colors I will never disagree with you on an issue again, meaning narrow it to two colors that will in their combination, retain all or virtually all of the identity inherent in the full scheme.
[quote comment=”387438″][quote comment=”387432″][quote comment=”387385″]Salaam.
Lost my “a” on that one, didn’t I.[/quote]
A couple of them. link.[/quote]
Damn, and he was so famous, too. How could I have messed that up.
Actually, it’s okay, Memphis’ clever use of “x” kinda makes up for it.[/quote]
Sorry to leave you hanging. I know you’ve been dying to see link.
[quote comment=”387439″]
So you’re definitely stopping by tomorrow?[/quote]
family day right?
[quote comment=”387439″][quote comment=”387437″][quote comment=”387436″][quote comment=”387434″][quote comment=”387414″]That music that gets played after the Blackhawks score at home, is quite distinctive , is it this era’s version of the Hartford Whalers music.[/quote]
it is nowhere near as groovy as the whalers, it is a total nuisance. i want to hear the fans go nuts not that annoying song that sticks in my noodle the rest of the day. it is still there, and i am posting this 7 hours after the game ended because my link.[/quote]
link?[/quote]
i will kill you.[/quote]
So you’re definitely stopping by tomorrow?[/quote]
to wrap stirrups around your neck, yes.
Black is not an \”accent\” color if it is used in any striping pattern. The Carolina Hurricanes are more red and black (and silver) to me than they are red and white.
I hate when \”accent\” colors are used in certain areas of a uniform, but not in others.
The Wisconsin logo is unacceptable to me. The black drop shadow on the W is useless, and it makes it seem like black is one of their colors. Honestly, I can\’t even get with what the Chiefs are doing. Especially with the total absence of yellow. A team color.
I\’m not a huge fan of logos on pants. However, placing that logo on the pants (Wisconsin as well) would provide the synergy I\’m looking for from head to toe.
I would be remiss if I did not state any contradictions to my belief system. Those come to the forefront in my acceptance of the Steelers and Blackhawks. However, those logos are so riddled with color, that they somehow stand apart.
It is very difficult for me to articulate the thoughts I\’ve been pondering since 1977.
I\’m not trying to pick a fight, and I habitually regret every comment I make.
I would also like to apologize for one too many \”Howevers\”.
What the fuck is all of that slanted shit. ////
[quote comment=”387442″][quote comment=”387439″]
So you’re definitely stopping by tomorrow?[/quote]
family day right?[/quote]
Yes. The question is: will they be witnesses or accessories?
[quote comment=”387445″]What the fuck is all of that slanted shit. ////[/quote]
you gotta type the secret word before you hit send, marty
[quote comment=”387446″][quote comment=”387442″][quote comment=”387439″]
So you’re definitely stopping by tomorrow?[/quote]
family day right?[/quote]
Yes. The question is: will they be witnesses or accessories?[/quote]
i have evillink
I’m a High School Volleyball coach, and as far as why Volleyball teams wear black spandex I can tell you that the reason is for appearance – first of all, black doesn’t show sweat like other colors do, and secondly, at the risk of sounding sexist (but this is what my players say) lighter colors make your butt look bigger!
Marty Hick said…
“The Wisconsin logo is unacceptable to me. The black drop shadow on the W is useless, and it makes it seem like black is one of their colors.”
That’s a serious reach. First off, it’s not useless. It gives depth and creates movement.
Ever really looked at sports logos, past and present? What about the black in the logo on the 49ers helmet? Or in the Chiefs’ helmet arrowhead? Who honestly thinks that makes it look like black must certainly be one of those team’s colors? Puh-leeze.
It’s just artwork, and some things, to get what you’re after artistically, are gonna need a bit of black. How you gonna render that Wisconsin “W” in red and white for use on a white background? The black is just an optical effect. No more, no less. An artistic device to convey a concept.
For example, a flagpole…
link
That gonna make anyone automatically think U.S. colors are red, white, blue and black?
—Ricko
[quote comment=”387449″]I’m a High School Volleyball coach, and as far as why Volleyball teams wear black spandex I can tell you that the reason is for appearance – first of all, black doesn’t show sweat like other colors do, and secondly, at the risk of sounding sexist (but this is what my players say) lighter colors make your butt look bigger![/quote]
Doesn’t sound sexiest at all. Is fact, visually speaking. Lighter colors, because they reflect more light, make the object look bigger. Wanna look like you’re in better shape? Never wear a dark sweater with light pants. Always the other way around. Dark pants slim like crazy.
It just is. Isn’t even debatable. That’s how our eyes work.
—Ricko
BFBS= Black For Butts Sake?
[quote comment=”387452″]BFBS= Black For Butts Sake?[/quote]
Damn straight. No one’s ever noticed how skinny the players’ legs look when football teams such as the Saints, Bengals, Missouri, Purdue, Texas Tech and others go black leotard?
Or similarly with the optics of vertical stripes, that everyone on the Broncos looked at least 6’4″ in those brown and gold socks last fall?
—Ricko
[quote comment=”387451″]Doesn’t sound sexiest at all.[/quote]
what’s wrong with sexy?
[quote comment=”387440″]a lot of nothing to prove why black is important[/quote]
Jeff, what you fail to see is this: outside of the logo, where most of those extraneous colours I listed above for the Yankees and Blue Jackets are found, black is an accent colour for the Hurricanes.
Black does nothing except accent the red and white colours used on the home and road jerseys.
I encourage you to prove this wrong. I encourage you to prove how the Hurricanes’ alternate black jersey is not BFBS when they clearly reduced as much red and white as possible on their alternate jersey. Please… impress me. I beg of you, show me something other than “leave my effing Hurricanes alone”.
As for the Coyotes’ alternate, we already know that’s black for black sake, yet they link. Why? They link, and then went back to it. Hence BFBS.
The Blackhawks had a link before they went to their red and white ensemble. Therefore, moving to link, but bringing it back to link is a nice balance between colour and black while incorporating a traditional design.
Shall I keep going? The Philadelphia Flyers decided to ditch their link in favour of a link which soon became their everyday home uniform. Again, this is a very BFBS move, DESPITE THE FLYERS HAVING A LONGER HISTORY WITH BLACK THAN THE HURRICANES. And what did the Flyers find out? Hey, look at that: those link are what makes Philadelphia Flyers hockey unique!
Shall I continue? Ok, let’s.
Buffalo Sabres? Yeah, they went link. In fact, they were wearing link before Carolina decided to follow that trend. But whatever… Carolina is “unique”. Did I mention that Buffalo decided to link? And are even going further back to a link? It’s funny how the people in Buffalo hated the black-and-red Sabres after growing up watching link. I wonder why that is if black is such a “popular” colour.
Everyone’s favorite team for the BFBS on this board is the Calgary Flames who, in a wave of ingenuity, decided link. Forget the fact that this look was amazingly clean and simple. What’s that you say? They brought back link this season? And will link going forward? Wow. Interesting turn of developments for a team with such a rich history of black in their uniforms.
All of my evidence, Jeff, proves that your beloved Hurricanes are simply BFBS. Other teams have claimed the “importance” of black in their colour schemes, but it’s simply rationalizing the choice of a black jersey.
Come up with something better, please. I can’t bear to hear these bullshit reasons for the Hurricanes being black any longer.
Dammit.
“this look” = link
[quote comment=”387454″][quote comment=”387451″]Doesn’t sound sexiest at all.[/quote]
what’s wrong with sexy?[/quote]
Nothing. And it, unlike my typing, is improved by black slacks.
—Ricko
[quote comment=”387450″]Marty Hick said…
“The Wisconsin logo is unacceptable to me. The black drop shadow on the W is useless, and it makes it seem like black is one of their colors.”
That’s a serious reach. First off, it’s not useless. It gives depth and creates movement.
Ever really looked at sports logos, past and present? What about the black in the logo on the 49ers helmet? Or in the Chiefs’ helmet arrowhead? Who honestly thinks that makes it look like black must certainly be one of those team’s colors? Puh-leeze.
It’s just artwork, and some things, to get what you’re after artistically, are gonna need a bit of black. How you gonna render that Wisconsin “W” in red and white for use on a white background? The black is just an optical effect. No more, no less. An artistic device to convey a concept.
For example, a flagpole…
link
That gonna make anyone automatically think U.S. colors are red, white, blue and black?
—Ricko[/quote]
Bullshit.
They are the Wisconsin Badgers. Not the Wisconsin Express. The black on that logo stands out in a bad way. The logo is wack. A simple block “W” is all that is needed. I believe that I commented on said Chiefs. Niners fall in the same shit camp with that black oval “accent” that they now sport. A remnant from when black was one of their colors. The older Niners logo (non offset) is acceptable. This is one of those “I don’t make monkeys, I just train em” scenarios. I can’t explain it. There are natural truths that don’t fit “artistic” guidelines.
I have do desire to get into this soap opera, but when the Hartford Whalers moved and became the Carolina Hurricane in 1997, their official colors became: Red, Black, and White. Therefore, if their primary uniform isn’t black, then their alternate should be.
Their original logo from 1997 is equal parts Black and Red in a “ying-yang” way.
link
Their original alternate logo from 1997 has Black as the predominate color.
link
They do not fall into the BFBS category.
I forgot to state that, as much as I am not a huge fan of logos on pants, the Niners would create more synergy with a logo on the pants.
Every color represented, with the exception of logos like the Blackhawks and the Steelers, should be represented on other parts of the uni. Colors are important. All of them.
Colors. Colors.
Why do you think the Bloods wear khakis so much?
teebz…
how can you say a team named the BLACK hawks (and yes, i know it’s the “translated name” of sauk makataimeshekiakiak … or something …)
but how the hell can you say a team called the BLACK hawks is BFBS? especially with all that black in their past???
have you totally lost your shit?
seriously, you make some good arguments, but then you throw that one out there…
[quote comment=”387461″]teebz…
how can you say a team named the BLACK hawks (and yes, i know it’s the “translated name” of sauk makataimeshekiakiak … or something …)
but how the hell can you say a team called the BLACK hawks is BFBS? especially with all that link???
have you totally lost your shit?
seriously, you make some good arguments, but then you throw that one out there…[/quote]
Besides, the red is just link.
And Phil, it’s sex-IST.
i LOVE the sans black flames, thanks for those shots teebz. vancouver and calgary have fabulous colour combos, it is why they are my favourite nhl teams. i would root for the hawks, but that stupid stupid song has me not wanting them to score goals at home.
i hate the motion W too, but mostly for the motion, but the black also bothers me a bit. black is fine on the chiefs and niners though.
[quote comment=”387461″]teebz…
how can you say a team named the BLACK hawks (and yes, i know it’s the “translated name” of sauk makataimeshekiakiak … or something …)
but how the hell can you say a team called the BLACK hawks is BFBS? especially with all that link???
have you totally lost your shit?
seriously, you make some good arguments, but then you throw that one out there…[/quote]
Is that directed at me?
I’m arguing against a majority of the “BFBS” shit.
I’m saying that the Blackhawks do not need to incorporate the the flesh of the native and the colors of the feathers in the rest of the uni. Their logo gets a pass in my book. Logos like theirs, and the Steelers, stand alone. Team colors do not scream from them. They are islands… in the stream.
[quote comment=”387464″]i LOVE the sans black flames, thanks for those shots teebz. vancouver and calgary have fabulous colour combos, it is why they are my favourite nhl teams. i would root for the hawks, but that stupid stupid song has me not wanting them to score goals at home.
i hate the motion W too, but mostly for the motion, but the black also bothers me a bit. black is fine on the chiefs and niners though.[/quote]
What is this link you keep referring to?
[quote comment=”387463″]And Phil, it’s sex-IST.[/quote]
that’s just nitpicking, isn’t it
Wait.
Nevermind.
It was not directed at me. It was to Teebz.
I thought it was Teebz directing it at me.
Funny thing about regret.
[quote comment=”387465″][quote comment=”387461″]teebz…[/quote]
Is that directed at me?
[/quote]
yes
[quote comment=”387464″]i LOVE the sans black flames, thanks for those shots teebz. vancouver and calgary have fabulous colour combos, it is why they are my favourite nhl teams. i would root for the hawks, but that stupid stupid song has me not wanting them to score goals at home.
i hate the motion W too, but mostly for the motion, but the black also bothers me a bit. black is fine on the chiefs and niners though.[/quote]
What about the absence of yellow on the Chiefs helmet?
Are people down with that?
Teebz – I’m up to a tie for 7th in the pool! I told you the Wamsley factor would ride me deep. One BIG question, do we fill out the second round after the first or since I didn’t do it before it started I might as well give up now?
Phil – I’ll sell you my A’s stirrups – for $500. Let me know.
JTH – What a hawks game. Damn.
One BFBS comment, Phil’s right. Cardinals is completely BFBS. That thing is a fashion jersey. Just like the pink Yanks jerseys I unfortunately see around.
Just watched Avatar for the first time. Computer graphics were cool, not impressed overall. Story was not original, basic cowboys and indians with earth day thrown in. Guy gets girl. Big burly army bully gets beat down. Too much politics for me.
[quote comment=”387470″][quote comment=”387464″]i LOVE the sans black flames, thanks for those shots teebz. vancouver and calgary have fabulous colour combos, it is why they are my favourite nhl teams. i would root for the hawks, but that stupid stupid song has me not wanting them to score goals at home.
i hate the motion W too, but mostly for the motion, but the black also bothers me a bit. black is fine on the chiefs and niners though.[/quote]
What about the absence of yellow on the Chiefs helmet?
Are people down with that?[/quote]
how aboot this?
[quote comment=”387472″][quote comment=”387470″][quote comment=”387464″]i LOVE the sans black flames, thanks for those shots teebz. vancouver and calgary have fabulous colour combos, it is why they are my favourite nhl teams. i would root for the hawks, but that stupid stupid song has me not wanting them to score goals at home.
i hate the motion W too, but mostly for the motion, but the black also bothers me a bit. black is fine on the chiefs and niners though.[/quote]
What about the absence of yellow on the Chiefs helmet?
Are people down with that?[/quote]
how aboot link?[/quote]
Switch the red with the white, and you’ve got something.
[quote comment=”387461″]teebz…
how can you say a team named the BLACK hawks (and yes, i know it’s the “translated name” of sauk makataimeshekiakiak … or something …)
but how the hell can you say a team called the BLACK hawks is BFBS? especially with all that link???
have you totally lost your shit?
seriously, you make some good arguments, but then you throw that one out there…[/quote]
Look up the reason why they were named the Black Hawks, Phil. It has ZERO to do with colour.
Frederic McLaughlin was part of the 333rd Machine Gun Battalion of the 86th Infantry Division in World War 1. That Division was named the “Black Hawk Division” after a prominent native American chief from Illinois, Chief Black Hawk. It had nothing to do with the colour of their uniforms, the native chief it was named for, or anything else black. The team was named after the military unit, and the logo honours the name of Chief Black Hawk.
The fact that they used black in their uniforms is fine, but an all-black Blackhawks team is BFBS. Use some colour, break up the black. After all, the previous black Blackhawks teams never went solid black in their history. Neither should the modern one.
[quote comment=”387466″][quote comment=”387464″]i LOVE the sans black flames, thanks for those shots teebz. vancouver and calgary have fabulous colour combos, it is why they are my favourite nhl teams. i would root for the hawks, but that stupid stupid song has me not wanting them to score goals at home.
i hate the motion W too, but mostly for the motion, but the black also bothers me a bit. black is fine on the chiefs and niners though.[/quote]
What is this link you keep referring to?[/quote]
dude!!!
actually the blackhawks are named after a restaurant, the blackhawk restaurant, which in turn was named for an army squad.
[quote comment=”387471″]Teebz – I’m up to a tie for 7th in the pool! I told you the Wamsley factor would ride me deep. One BIG question, do we fill out the second round after the first or since I didn’t do it before it started I might as well give up now?[/quote]
Wait until all the series all done, Ben. Otherwise, I’ll have people sending me all sorts of confusing stuff. :o)
And long live Wamsley!
[quote comment=”387476″][quote comment=”387471″]Teebz – I’m up to a tie for 7th in the pool! I told you the Wamsley factor would ride me deep. One BIG question, do we fill out the second round after the first or since I didn’t do it before it started I might as well give up now?[/quote]
Wait until all the series are done, Ben. Otherwise, I’ll have people sending me all sorts of confusing stuff. :o)
And long live Wamsley![/quote]
Fixed. And I’m off to bed.
ooops, teebz already hit it in much more detail. i r dumb with song in head.
the kc could be yellow on the logo, but it has been that way forever so it is fine as is.
teebz did leave out the part about how he owned a restaurant in chicago, also called the blackhawk, and he was promoting that too with the name.
[quote comment=”387479″]the kc could be yellow on the logo, but it has been that way forever so it is fine as is.
teebz did leave out the part about how he owned a restaurant in chicago, also called the blackhawk, and he was promoting that too with the name.[/quote]
Teebz also didn’t mention that the Blue Jackets don’t even wear jackets, so a green or red or silver jersey for them would be just fine and dandy.
[quote comment=”387461″]teebz…
how can you say a team named the BLACK hawks (and yes, i know it’s the “translated name” of sauk makataimeshekiakiak … or something …)
but how the hell can you say a team called the BLACK hawks is BFBS? especially with all that link???
have you totally lost your shit?
seriously, you make some good arguments, but then you throw that one out there…[/quote]
I will add this, Phil, since you clearly didn’t read what I wrote where I commended the Hawks for using colour on their black uniforms.
The all-black Blackhawks = shit.
The traditional Blackhawk designs = good.
Why? The traditional uniforms use black as a way to make the stripes pop off the uniform. Reds look brighter, yellows look sharper, whites look whiter.
The all-black Blackhawks don’t get that benefit because they are employing an all-black uniform, meaning the logo – the most important part of the uniform – will not draw people’s eyes to it. The stripes around the chest surrounded by black, however, do.
Why is this such a difficult design concept to grasp?
[quote comment=”387473″]
Switch the red with the white, and you’ve got something.[/quote]
better?
[quote comment=”387480″]
Teebz also didn’t mention that the Blue Jackets don’t even wear jackets, so a green or red or silver jersey for them would be just fine and dandy.[/quote]
Teebz also didn’t mention that they didn’t fight in the civil war, so the “blue jacket” concept should be totally foreign to everyone.
Teebz also didn’t mention that the Flames were named as such due to the fact that Atlanta burned in 1917. The Flames moved to Calgary and simply kept the name and colours.
But these little details aren’t why we’re discussing uniforms, are they? ;o)
[quote comment=”387479″]the kc could be yellow on the logo, but it has been that way forever so it is fine as is.
teebz did leave out the part about how he owned a restaurant in chicago, also called the blackhawk, and he was promoting that too with the name.[/quote]
Forever isn’t right. Right isn’t right. But it is important that colors be represented accordingly. Colors are colors. Team colors are team colors.
Old Crow isn’t necessarily old, but it is tasty.
[quote comment=”387481″]
Why is this such a difficult design concept to grasp?[/quote]
im not sure if you’re acting like veruca salt, looking like violet beauregarde…or just channeling charles whitman…but chill dude
bhawks are NOT bfbs…any more than the stillers, raiders or orioles are
[quote comment=”387485″][quote comment=”387481″]
Why is this such a difficult design concept to grasp?[/quote]
im not sure if you’re acting like veruca salt, looking like violet beauregarde…or just channeling charles whitman…but chill dude
bhawks are NOT bfbs…any more than the stillers, raiders or orioles are[/quote]
When you go all-black for the first time ever in the history of your franchise, that isn’t BFBS? Wasn’t it you who wrote that very definition?
[quote comment=”387477″][quote comment=”387476″][quote comment=”387471″]Teebz – I’m up to a tie for 7th in the pool! I told you the Wamsley factor would ride me deep. One BIG question, do we fill out the second round after the first or since I didn’t do it before it started I might as well give up now?[/quote]
Wait until all the series are done, Ben. Otherwise, I’ll have people sending me all sorts of confusing stuff. :o)
And long live Wamsley![/quote]
Fixed. And I’m off to bed.[/quote]
Thanks Teebz. By the way, is that plural? Are there more than one of you?
[quote comment=”387482″][quote comment=”387473″]
Switch the red with the white, and you’ve got something.[/quote]
link?[/quote]
Red helmet.
White arrowhead.
Yellow “KC”.
Black trim.
That’s what I’m getting at.
However, if you got the tools…
How about…
Red helmet.
White arrowhead.
Red “KC”.
Trim everything in yellow, instead of black. No black whatsoever.
[quote comment=”387482″][quote comment=”387473″]
Switch the red with the white, and you’ve got something.[/quote]
link?[/quote]
Red Helmet.
White arrowhead.
Yellow “KC”.
Now..
Red helmet.
White arrowhead.
Red “KC”.
Yellow trim on everything. No black.
[quote comment=”387486″][quote comment=”387485″][quote comment=”387481″]
Why is this such a difficult design concept to grasp?[/quote]
im not sure if you’re acting like veruca salt, looking like violet beauregarde…or just channeling charles whitman…but chill dude
bhawks are NOT bfbs…any more than the stillers, raiders or orioles are[/quote]
When you go all-black for the first time ever in the history of your franchise, that isn’t BFBS? Wasn’t it you who wrote that very definition?[/quote]
if the blackhawks had NEVER had a black jersey of any kind in their past, then yes…it would be BFBS
this is NOT the case … they’ve had black on several diffent jersey iterations
face it — you just don’t like the 90’s alt…neither do it…but that doesn’t make it BFBS
[quote comment=”387487″][quote comment=”387477″][quote comment=”387476″][quote comment=”387471″]Teebz – I’m up to a tie for 7th in the pool! I told you the Wamsley factor would ride me deep. One BIG question, do we fill out the second round after the first or since I didn’t do it before it started I might as well give up now?[/quote]
Wait until all the series are done, Ben. Otherwise, I’ll have people sending me all sorts of confusing stuff. :o)
And long live Wamsley![/quote]
Fixed. And I’m off to bed.[/quote]
Thanks Teebz. By the way, is that plural? Are there more than one of you?[/quote]
Nope. Only one. But if there were more, it would become Teebzes, I believe. LOL
Thankfully for the world, there is only one of me and my petulant, hockey-loving self that I know of. There could be more Teebzes by name, though. LOL
[quote comment=”387489″]Yellow trim on everything. No black.[/quote]
well, except the arrowhead
remind me tomorrow…and i’ll mock those up
[quote comment=”387490″]
face it — you just don’t like the 90’s alt…neither do it…but that doesn’t make it BFBS[/quote]
So when do multiple chest stripes not become part of the uniform in terms of their colour?
Because, as far as I can tell, they were black-and-white, and then incorporated a bunch of red stripes into their uniform.
If you go all-black after 50 years of not wearing a black uniform? BFBS.
If they had gone back to a traditional design? They get a pass due to tradition. Which is why I appreciate and applaud their decision to stick with their WC uniform. Yes, it’s black, but it is traditional in terms of their history.
All-black? No tradition. No pass.
Huge difference.
[quote comment=”387492″][quote comment=”387489″]Yellow trim on everything. No black.[/quote]
well, except the arrowhead
remind me tomorrow…and i’ll mock those up[/quote]
the yellow kc wouldn’t show up on the white background without black trim, and i hate superfluous strokes.
and i’m with you teebz, the people are smoking the crack.
[quote comment=”387494″][quote comment=”387492″][quote comment=”387489″]Yellow trim on everything. No black.[/quote]
well, except the arrowhead
remind me tomorrow…and i’ll mock those up[/quote]
the yellow kc wouldn’t show up on the white background without black trim, and i hate superfluous strokes.
and i’m with you teebz, the people are smoking the crack.[/quote]
Doesn’t really matter.
The red and the white are what’s important.
Just knowing that the yellow is there is glorious enough.
[quote comment=”387337″][quote comment=”387332″][quote comment=”387327″]”With that in mind, the future looks pretty bleak. Soon, the sports landscape will consist of nothing but games where one team is dressed head-to-toe in black, the other in white.”
Thought some of you traditional gray vs. white baseball fans would like that sort of landscape. ;)[/quote]
Not quite valid.
Until Charlie Finley came along (and lately), the focus of team colors in baseball, starting about 90 years ago, has never been on the jersey, because of the largely universal color scheme for them. It’s on the hats, lettering, numbers, sleeves and socks. Different sports have different paradigms.
—Ricko[/quote]
Yeah, that’s why I added the little wink at the end.
Not saying I would welcome it, but just wondering what football would look like in a gray vs. white paradigm. Wouldn’t have worked too well in the days of muddy fields, but in today’s sanitized league they could pull it off.[/quote]
The UFL certainly agrees – they attempt to use light “Vegas Silver” as a dark jersey color vs. White!
That said, baseblall unis were never meant to be contrasdting each other in hand-to-hand athletic combat in scrums and wedges. It is an entirely different point to make.
The same way that color vs. color was alot easier to pull off when 15,000 people wear at football games with the cheap seats 50 uards from the action. Today the bulk of the fans are much further away, and it is simply a different game – though I still believe the chargers could wear their Baby Blues vs. alot of dark teams and it would not be a bad deal.
As for the Cardinals Black jerseys – they may be BFBS, they technically may not. In any event, they look like the University of Louisville’s Lab School Jr, high team.
It certainly doesn’t look worthy of the NFL.
[quote comment=”387493″][quote comment=”387490″]
face it — you just don’t like the 90’s alt…neither do it…but that doesn’t make it BFBS[/quote]
So when do multiple chest stripes not become part of the uniform in terms of their colour?
Because, as far as I can tell, they were black-and-white, and then incorporated a bunch of red stripes into their uniform.
If you go all-black after 50 years of not wearing a black uniform? BFBS.
If they had gone back to a traditional design? They get a pass due to tradition. Which is why I appreciate and applaud their decision to stick with their WC uniform. Yes, it’s black, but it is traditional in terms of their history.
All-black? No tradition. No pass.
Huge difference.[/quote]
Teebz, you know I dig you, but you’re insane. Is the 96-09 alt good? Not particularly, no. Is it BFBS? No. It’s just a color-shifted version of the white jersey. White -> black; red -> white; black -> red.
Black is not just an accent color that they decided to make into a third jersey color. There’s lots of black on the road uni — a lot more black than red, as a matter of fact.
[quote comment=”387494″][quote comment=”387492″][quote comment=”387489″]Yellow trim on everything. No black.[/quote]
well, except the arrowhead
remind me tomorrow…and i’ll mock those up[/quote]
the yellow kc wouldn’t show up on the white background without black trim, and i hate superfluous strokes.
and i’m with you teebz, the people are smoking the crack.[/quote]
The red and whaite alone is all that matters (to some).
But just knowing that the yellow is there is glorious enough.
[quote comment=”387461″]teebz…
how can you say a team named the BLACK hawks (and yes, i know it’s the “translated name” of sauk makataimeshekiakiak … or something …)
but how the hell can you say a team called the BLACK hawks is BFBS? especially with all that link???
have you totally lost your shit?
seriously, you make some good arguments, but then you throw that one out there…[/quote]
Really really late to the party here (fresh off a train from Montreal to Lawn GUYland, chez les parents, and fighting their pleas for me to shave before the Habs get eliminated).
Here’s my take. Alternate jerseys can work. Simple black substitutions rarely work. And I’d rather a world without alternates, killing the few good ones, but making sure each team has a white and a not-white, which they’d better get right.
NFL alternates, with the exception of total throwbacks, are 99% boring. It’s actually a rule: keep the jersey template, swap one official color for another, and keep the helmet. So as it stands, I like the Chargers’ light blues and Bengals’ oranges enough that they should be promoted to full-time “not-white” status. The Panthers go either way for me, as the black or the blue jersey look great on the condition of silver pants and helmet. They should pick one and kill the loser. Aside from that, NFL alternates range from “bring and indifferent” to “wow, they suck.” So get rid of them all.
Now, moving to the one league that occasionally has good and creative alternates, and Teebz’s favorite: the NHL. In my mind, alternate jerseys SHOULD involve a little bit of imagination. This is why some jerseys are “so bad, it’s good.” (Wild Wing? Burger King? Moo-terus?) My favorite alternate jersey? Believe it or not, the NYR Lady Liberties. They have enough Rangers identifiers on the jersey (the big old NYR, the shield as a sleeve patch, though it’s modified on that jersey), enough consistency with the other jerseys (the fonts, including the unique number shadows), enough differences (darker navy, added silver), and a crest that actually looks good. (Especially with Mike Richter in net, it’s as if the jersey matches his mask.) Now, should that jersey have ever been a primary? HECK NO. But for alternates, Lady Liberty knew her place as the THIRD jersey, and it was my favorite THIRD jersey.
Finally, black substitutions. They just don’t work. Flyers in black? Bad, and definitely BFBS. Blackhawks’ current black? Not bad, not necessary either, and definitely NOT BFBS. Their previous blacks? That’s a bad look, and to me, it mildly reeks of BFBS, or maybe a half-assed alternate that happens to be black. Either way, not a shining hour in alternate jerseys. Now, the Hurricanes’ black jerseys? That’s a textbook case of trying too hard. TOO MUCH BLACK! LOOKS LIKE CRAP! I mean, there’s no good reason to black out the shoulder patches, especially when it’s YOUR PRIMARY LOGO on the sleeve! And the nifty pattern on the hem, why black THAT out too? So congrats to the Hurricanes for blacking out too much, and killing their visual identity there. For their efforts, they get a super-shitty jersey and a spot on the BFBS Hall of Fame. (Once again, not just for a black jersey, but for having too much black on black.)
[quote comment=”387497″][quote comment=”387493″][quote comment=”387490″]
face it — you just don’t like the 90’s alt…neither do it…but that doesn’t make it BFBS[/quote]
So when do multiple chest stripes not become part of the uniform in terms of their colour?
Because, as far as I can tell, they were black-and-white, and then incorporated a bunch of red stripes into their uniform.
If you go all-black after 50 years of not wearing a black uniform? BFBS.
If they had gone back to a traditional design? They get a pass due to tradition. Which is why I appreciate and applaud their decision to stick with their WC uniform. Yes, it’s black, but it is traditional in terms of their history.
All-black? No tradition. No pass.
Huge difference.[/quote]
Teebz, you know I dig you, but you’re insane. Is the 96-09 alt good? Not particularly, no. Is it BFBS? No. It’s just a color-shifted version of the white jersey.
White -> black; red -> white; black -> red.
Black is not just an accent color that they decided to make into a third jersey color. There’s lots of black on the road uni — a lot more black than red, as a matter of fact.[/quote]
true, but the black switcharoo jersey is the worst…jerk
[quote comment=”387497″][quote comment=”387493″][quote comment=”387490″]
face it — you just don’t like the 90’s alt…neither do it…but that doesn’t make it BFBS[/quote]
So when do multiple chest stripes not become part of the uniform in terms of their colour?
Because, as far as I can tell, they were black-and-white, and then incorporated a bunch of red stripes into their uniform.
If you go all-black after 50 years of not wearing a black uniform? BFBS.
If they had gone back to a traditional design? They get a pass due to tradition. Which is why I appreciate and applaud their decision to stick with their WC uniform. Yes, it’s black, but it is traditional in terms of their history.
All-black? No tradition. No pass.
Huge difference.[/quote]
Teebz, you know I dig you, but you’re insane. Is the 96-09 alt good? Not particularly, no. Is it BFBS? No. It’s just a color-shifted version of the white jersey.
White -> black; red -> white; black -> red.
Black is not just an accent color that they decided to make into a third jersey color. There’s lots of black on the road uni — a lot more black than red, as a matter of fact.[/quote]
White = road.
Colour = home.
Black = alternate.
This is the same argument that I just pointed out to Jeff above. I don’t care how much black is on there as an accent, it’s still an accent.
I appreciate that the Blackhawks had black in their history. I like their old designs, and the striping really is a gorgeous design element.
I don’t like how they jumped on the black bandwagon by going all-black. They had a ton of opportunities to dig up a traditional jersey design like link with the NHL 75th anniversary jerseys.
But they didn’t. They went all-black like everyone else did. They followed a trend instead of setting a trend. They never wore an all-black jersey in their history, yet decided to go all-black in 1996, just four years after wearing a black jersey with stripes.
BFBS? Yes.
[quote comment=”387500″][quote comment=”387497″][quote comment=”387493″][quote comment=”387490″]
face it — you just don’t like the 90’s alt…neither do it…but that doesn’t make it BFBS[/quote]
So when do multiple chest stripes not become part of the uniform in terms of their colour?
Because, as far as I can tell, they were black-and-white, and then incorporated a bunch of red stripes into their uniform.
If you go all-black after 50 years of not wearing a black uniform? BFBS.
If they had gone back to a traditional design? They get a pass due to tradition. Which is why I appreciate and applaud their decision to stick with their WC uniform. Yes, it’s black, but it is traditional in terms of their history.
All-black? No tradition. No pass.
Huge difference.[/quote]
Teebz, you know I dig you, but you’re insane. Is the 96-09 alt good? Not particularly, no. Is it BFBS? No. It’s just a color-shifted version of the white jersey.
White -> black; red -> white; black -> red.
Black is not just an accent color that they decided to make into a third jersey color. There’s lots of black on the road uni — a lot more black than red, as a matter of fact.[/quote]
true, but the black switcharoo jersey is the worst…jerk[/quote]
JeRK? WHaT THe HeLL DiD i Do?
oh, yeah, right…
[quote comment=”387502″][quote comment=”387500″]
true, but the black switcharoo jersey is the worst…jerk[/quote]
JeRK? WHaT THe HeLL DiD i Do?
oh, yeah, right…[/quote]
If it makes you feel better, James, I hold you in the highest regard simply due to your link. :o)
[quote comment=”387503″][quote comment=”387502″][quote comment=”387500″]
true, but the black switcharoo jersey is the worst…jerk[/quote]
JeRK? WHaT THe HeLL DiD i Do?
oh, yeah, right…[/quote]
If it makes you feel better, James, I hold you in the highest regard simply due to your link. :o)[/quote]
Hey! I bought that for him. And I have one for myself.
jimboree~
i still have that damn song in my head!!! and you have to admit that teebz has a point. i sort of agree with the both of you, black is for sure more then an accent, but going black to the point that you ditch red is totally wrong.
[quote comment=”387504″][quote comment=”387503″][quote comment=”387502″][quote comment=”387500″]
true, but the black switcharoo jersey is the worst…jerk[/quote]
JeRK? WHaT THe HeLL DiD i Do?
oh, yeah, right…[/quote]
If it makes you feel better, James, I hold you in the highest regard simply due to your link. :o)[/quote]
Hey! I bought that for him. And I have one for myself.[/quote]
No way! I gotta get myself one. Good pick-up, Mike, and worn with pride by James!
[quote comment=”387506″][quote comment=”387504″][quote comment=”387503″][quote comment=”387502″][quote comment=”387500″]
true, but the black switcharoo jersey is the worst…jerk[/quote]
JeRK? WHaT THe HeLL DiD i Do?
oh, yeah, right…[/quote]
If it makes you feel better, James, I hold you in the highest regard simply due to your link. :o)[/quote]
Hey! I bought that for him. And I have one for myself.[/quote]
No way! I gotta get myself one. Good pick-up, Mike, and worn with pride by James![/quote]
They were on sale when I bought them for Jimbo and me. The unbeatable $40 CAD. What’s your size? If (big if) it comes back on sale, I’ll buy one and send it to Winnipeg. (And yes, I have your Gmail address, so I’d ask you there for your shipping info.)
[quote comment=”387501″]I don’t care how much black is on there as an accent, it’s still an accent.[/quote]
I think we have a difference of opinion on what constitutes an accent. I see black is integral to the design.
* The numbers are black with a very thin red edge.
* The NOB is solid black.
* The striping pattern goes black/red/black (so the black stripes outnumber the red ones 2-to-1).
* There’s a big chunk of black at the cuffs.
Take the black out and you have a vastly different sweater altogether.
[quote comment=”387506″][quote comment=”387504″][quote comment=”387503″][quote comment=”387502″][quote comment=”387500″]
true, but the black switcharoo jersey is the worst…jerk[/quote]
JeRK? WHaT THe HeLL DiD i Do?
oh, yeah, right…[/quote]
If it makes you feel better, James, I hold you in the highest regard simply due to your link. :o)[/quote]
Hey! I bought that for him. And I have one for myself.[/quote]
No way! I gotta get myself one. Good pick-up, Mike, and worn with pride by James![/quote]
I still cringe when I see link.
[quote comment=”387509″]
I still cringe when I see link.[/quote]
You were wearing shoes? I don’t think anyone noticed. ;o)
[quote comment=”387509″][quote comment=”387506″][quote comment=”387504″][quote comment=”387503″][quote comment=”387502″][quote comment=”387500″]
true, but the black switcharoo jersey is the worst…jerk[/quote]
JeRK? WHaT THe HeLL DiD i Do?
oh, yeah, right…[/quote]
If it makes you feel better, James, I hold you in the highest regard simply due to your link. :o)[/quote]
Hey! I bought that for him. And I have one for myself.[/quote]
No way! I gotta get myself one. Good pick-up, Mike, and worn with pride by James![/quote]
I still cringe when I see link.[/quote]
That’s the funny thing about regret.
[quote comment=”387501″]
BFBS?
Yesno.[/quote](fixed)
[quote comment=”387512″][quote comment=”387501″]
BFBS?
Yesno.[/quote](fixed)[/quote]
So the fact that they wore a black alternate jersey four years earlier that featured stripes means that the all-black alternate wasn’t BFBS in 1996?
Then why define BFBS at all? Otherwise, this entire process is a joke. You can wear all-black anytime you want as long as you have some semblance of black in your uniform according to this new development.
Oh right… you proved above that it doesn’t work. Therefore, it doesn’t work here either.
[quote comment=”387501″]
White = road.
Colour = home.
Black = alternate.
This is the same argument that I just pointed out to Jeff above. I don’t care how much black is on there as an accent, it’s still an accent.
I appreciate that the Blackhawks had black in their history. I like their old designs, and the striping really is a gorgeous design element.
I don’t like how they jumped on the black bandwagon by going all-black. They had a ton of opportunities to dig up a traditional jersey design like link with the NHL 75th anniversary jerseys.
But they didn’t. They went all-black like everyone else did. They followed a trend instead of setting a trend. They never wore an all-black jersey in their history, yet decided to go all-black in 1996, just four years after wearing a black jersey with stripes.
BFBS? Yes.[/quote]
You know the Hawks alt jersey is primarily based on their 1935-7 jerseys, right?
link
[quote comment=”387514″][quote comment=”387501″]
White = road.
Colour = home.
Black = alternate.
This is the same argument that I just pointed out to Jeff above. I don’t care how much black is on there as an accent, it’s still an accent.
I appreciate that the Blackhawks had black in their history. I like their old designs, and the striping really is a gorgeous design element.
I don’t like how they jumped on the black bandwagon by going all-black. They had a ton of opportunities to dig up a traditional jersey design like link with the NHL 75th anniversary jerseys.
But they didn’t. They went all-black like everyone else did. They followed a trend instead of setting a trend. They never wore an all-black jersey in their history, yet decided to go all-black in 1996, just four years after wearing a black jersey with stripes.
BFBS? Yes.[/quote]
You know the Hawks alt jersey is primarily based on their 1935-7 jerseys, right?[/quote]
he says the alt is cool, you need to re-read what he is saying is good and bad about black on the hawks.
[quote comment=”387387″]re: Cardinals black outline on white numbers, early ’70s, check this out…
link
link
—Ricko[/quote]
i stand corrected. i thought i had a pretty good grasp of cardinal uni history. i’n not sure how that one slipped past me. thanks for digging those up.
Teebz couldn’t be any more wrong about the Blackhawks and BFBS. That’s all I’ve got to say.
Faldinals…..
The new BFBS Cards look like half (if not MOSTLY) the Falcons and half Cardinals. Horrific!!
MSU football’s uni stripes are very close to a short-sleeved version of what you see on the NHL’s link. They should continue that striping on the hockey sweaters instead of basically doing an away version of Canada’s link from the Saskatoon WJC.
The football pants are a more subdued, but equally annoying version of Florida’s link unis from last season.
According to Mike Krukow’s Monday morning segment on the Giants’ flagship KNBR, the G’s didn’t wear the two-toned cap on Friday night because the shade of orange of the bill didn’t match the orange shade on the jersey.
Audio here:
link