This real money site caters to all players, with reviews on mobile games you can play, including slots, blackjack, and roulette.

BFBS…PT III – Your Turn

bfbs poll hed

By Phil Hecken, with James Huening

Three weeks ago, Uni Watch Pollster Extraordinaire James Huening and I teamed up to bring you the first of two comprehensive looks at the sartorial statement known as “Black For Black’s Sake.” Two weeks ago, we followed up with a second exporation of “BFBS.” We asked you for your opinions and suggestions as to what constituted BFBS, and we got many insightful and thoughtful responses. Today, we’d like to know how you really feel.

It’s sometimes difficult to ascertain the various tastes, likes and dislikes of the readership in this area, although I’d venture to guess the majority of us don’t like BFBS. But, in order to conclusively determine whether that is so, we’re going to let you have your say, via democracy in action — it’s time for the BFBS poll.

Rather than “automatically” assume it’s universally disliked, and simply ask you to “rank” the BFBS teams from worst to first, we thought it would be better to ask you for your actual opinion of 13 teams who wear black for black’s sake in the three major sports, as well as hockey. At the conclusion of the survey, you’ll be asked if you feel we missed anyone (yes — the poll doesn’t include college teams or sports besides the big four, so you may certainly mention any team in those other disciplines); please feel free to nominate a team and you’ll then be taken to a bonus question. We’ll leave this poll open for two weeks and then give you the results. OK? OK!

And now, I’ll turn it over to James:

~~~

Once again, we want to know what you think. It’s pretty simple. Just rate some “BFBS” uniforms.

The rating system is a little different this time around. Rather than rating based on aesthetic value, we just want to know you feel these about these teams wearing them in general.

Whether you think these uniforms shouldn’t even even exist or if you feel that they are the perfect look for the team in question or maybe somewhere in the middle, that’s what we want to know.

Sounds simple enough, right? Sure it is. So here we go:



~~~

OK, thanks for voting (you did vote, right?), and big thanks to James for setting up this one as well. Since we gave you the option to nominate another team, if you did so, please feel free to reveal that in the comments below. We’re pretty sure we chose the worst offenders in the MLB, NFL, NBA and NHL, but you never know. If you think there is a team who doesn’t deserve to be on that list, you’d be wrong, let us know that as well.

~~~~~~~~~

squiddie files 2From The Squiddie Files: Back again with our Life Coach, Lance Smith, who’s back with more great stuff. Well, spring, for most of the US, is here. So of course it’s time to pump up the tires, check the gears, and throw on a helmet for the first leisurely bike ride of the year. Unless you’re these guys, of course. Here’s Squiddie:

~~~

Today when we think of bicycle racing, if we think of it at all, we mainly think of Lance Armstrong and road racing. (If you’re not American, you may think of a whole pantheon of riders and events, but I’m being parochial here.) However, the stage road races are only a portion of bicycle racing and their popularity in the US is a relatively new phenomenon.

Racing indoors on high banked tracks was more popular in the first half of the 20th century. The six-day bicycle race or Madison (named after Madison Square Garden) was one of the most popular types of races. Teams of two riders would compete over six days. The team with the most laps completed would win. Most of the actual racing would happen at nights when the crowds fans would be watching, but riders would be usually circling the track for the whole six days. To increase the excitement at night, cash prizes (primes) would be offered for the lap sprints.

By the late 1930s, about fifty years after it was introduced in the US, the Six-Day was on the decline. It would undergo a slight surge after World War II, but by 1950 it would be almost gone from the US.

In March 1948, Life photographed a six-day race in New York, one of 70 held in the city between 1899 and 1961 according to wiki. They captured both the excitement of the racing in front of the crowds and the down time during the rest of the six days.

Let’s look at some photos.

The track with and without fans.

When not on the bike, most riders spent their time in these boxed beds on the track infield (Nice Schwinn jersey), where they could sleep, wash and shave while discussing strategy.

Without a crowd, the riders on the bikes would read newspapers or letters, enjoy a refreshing beverage or get something to eat. Even carry on conversations with other riders.

Casual but jaunty attire for the off-hours. Cleats allow the rider to pedal with one foot while steering with the other.

Quick snack before taking over from the other team rider.

Still not sure this is legal, but it can’t be very fast.

Mechanics are also busy inflating and retreading tires and getting bicycles ready for racing.

Racing on the track. You can see a scoreboard just above the bank.

Riders getting a shove from teammate and team crew.

Good view from the infield. I’m presuming that’s a Canadian rider going by.

Nice assortment of jerseys. The gloves the riders are wearing look really heavy compared to modern gloves.

Getting crowded on the straights.

And the winners are Angelo DeBacco and Alvaro Giorgetti. The winners pose with a copy of La Gazzetta dello Sport.

~~~

Super stuff as always, Lance. Check back next week for more.

~~~~~~~~~~

Benchies HeaderEbby Calvin LaLoosh once opined, “This is a very simple game. You throw the ball, you catch the ball, you hit the ball. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes it rains.” Then, there the boys of Benchies. Here’s Ricko:

Some nights of the week are more important than others. They just, y’know, are. Now, when two critical social conventions intersect, that can create a problem. Sometimes, however, we get a sign telling us which of the two important paths we should choose. And though there may be disappointment, the clarity of Nature is a relief.

Enjoy your Saturday Bencies.

~~~~~~~~~~

30-46 cards rup of the dayBefore donning their current classic stirrups, which they have basically been wearing, unchanged, since the end of the 1940’s, the St. Louis Cardinals sported some equally gorgeous and very similar stirrups. With the exception of 1932, when they wore red over white, from 1930 through 1946, the Cardinals wore a white bottomed, red stirrup with alternating stripes of white, red, white, blue, white, red, and white.

After claiming their first pennant and World Series in 1926 (defeating the Yankees), and a second trip to the fall classic in 1928, from 1930 through 1946, the Cardinals would field a powerhouse team, winning pennants in 1930, 1931, 1934, 1942, 1943, 1944 and 1946 (including victorious World Series’ in five of those seven trips — 1931, 1934, 1942, 1944 and 1946).

Boasting stars like Joe Medwick, 1942 Series Hero Whitey Kurowski, “Dizzy” Dean, Enos Slaughter & Terry Moore (seen standing next to Joe DiMaggio and Charley Keller of the Yanks in the 1942 World Series), “Dizzy” Dean’s brother Paul “Daffy” Dean, and of course, the one and only Stan “The Man” Musial.

Musial joined the Cardinals in 1941, and turned them into a superpower, leading them to the World Series four times in five years (1942-44 & 1946). He’d play for them for 22 years, winning three MVPs and being inducted into the Hall of Fame in 1969. Unfortunately, no color photos of Musial seem to exist wearing the 30-46 stirrups, so I took the liberty of colorizing one.

Another standout for the Cards during those years was Dizzy Dean who played in the years preceeding Musial and led the Cards to several World Series. His best season was arguably 1934, when he won 30 games (the last NL pitcher to do so) and led the Cards over the Tigers to win that year’s World Series. Super slugger Joe Medwick won the triple crown in 1937 (also the last NLer to accomplish that feat). Musial’s “6” and Dizzy Dean’s “17” are both retired by the Cardinals.

Great teams, great set of stirrups. While the current stirrups, which they have been basically wearing since 1947, are timeless classics, I actually prefer their white bottomed predecessors.

~~~~~~~~~~

kek's pitt newsEverybody’s favorite Yinzer, Douggie Keklak, checks in with a new stirrup development for D.J. Tarrasco:

“DJ has worn stirrups before but I don’t recall “P” being on there,” notes Doug. Although it’s a cam phone pic, you can clearly see the “P” on his rup.

Thanks for the heads up Douggie.

~~~~~~~~~~

scoreboardGuess The Game From The Scoreboard: Today’s scoreboard shouldn’t be particularly difficult, but it sure is a pretty picture. Location’s obvious, as are the teams…fans in cold weather gear? Yup. Piece of cake, right? Right. 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!

~~~~~~~~~~

uni template 2Back 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.

~~~

Kicking off today is Joe Katz, who has decided the Colts need something new:

Phil,

Here’s a new, modern (probably unnecessary) Colts design.

Home

Road

Alternate (Potentially both home and road)

Thanks,

Joe Katz

~~~

Next up is Ashley York, who has a bunch of interesting concepts — for the Texans and the OKC Thunder:

Hi Phil,

I have a couple tweaks for you. I’ve done these before, but I never get up the nerve/time to send them in. As a new graphic designer, though, I use these tweaks to refine my abilities with programs. Your site is educational in the real world now!

Tweak 1 — Houston Texans

I’ve loved my Texans since they replaced my departed Oilers. The uniforms and branding still leave something to be desired, though. Going with the Texan idea, here is a uniform based on the Texas flag. I like that it has some modern flair to it, but still looks old school. For a young team, that’s quite a feat.

Tweak 2 — Oklahoma City Outlaws (Thunder)

I did this years ago when you had your contest to rebrand the Zombie Sonics. Ignore the decrepit MSPaint technology. I didn’t have access to a better program.

The term outlaw pays homage to Oklahoma’s “Wild West” history. The Outlaw’s colors represent the state’s history; black for oil, gold for Spanish explorers, and maroon to honor the state’s rich heritage in college athletics.

There are a few things to note about the uniform(s):

1) Side-weaving: While also looking cool (at least to me), the weaving on the sides of the uniform harkens back to Native American culture. I felt it was important to honor that history.

2) Positive-Negative: The strips of alternate color at the belt and hems of the shorts represent a negative of the pattern going down the sides. This was not perfectly clear in my drawing due to poor technology. (Ahh, the wonders of MSPaint!)

3) College alternates: The alternate uniforms pay respect to the major Oklahoma colleges. The maroon alternate represents Oklahoma University (As a Longhorns fan, this was difficult to do), while the black alternate represents Oklahoma State. Note: A gold alternate with different details could also be created for Tulsa.

These alternates could make an appearance once or twice a season on important dates. For instance, the team’s management could hold a student day for each college and give students half-price tickets. In addition, the Outlaws could wear the jerseys to honor conference and national championships.

Well, the first submission is out of the way. Maybe in the future I’ll send quality stuff. Thanks for giving uni-nerds like me a forum.

Ashley W. York

~~~

And in the three hole today is Randy Parrish, who has a tweak…and a tweak of a tweak…for the Preds:

Just wanted to pass along a minor tweak that a couple of us collaborated on. This is the Nashville Predators alternate jersey, but we thought the clean looking jersey was cluttered up by their busy saber toothed logo. This tweak doesn’t change anything other than the logo, which we simplified by eliminating several of the non-essential colors and random geometric shapes.

~~~

Well there you have it. Another set of tweaks in the books — and not a single one of ’em baseball. Check back next time for more.

~~~~~~~~~~

That’s all for today folks.

Just want to take a moment to wish a Happy Mother’s Day to everyone’s Mom tomorrow. Paul is going to take the Sunday Post, and he has something special planned. Me? I’ll be spending part of the day with my mom, taking her out to her favorite restaurant, telling her I love her, etc., and probably missing out on the annual taking a bat to breast cancer festival. So, that’ll be good.

You guys and gals have a great Saturday (and Mother’s Day) and don’t forget to vote!

~~~

The mother loves her child most divinely, not when she surrounds him with comfort and anticipates his wants, but when she resolutely holds him to the highest standards and is content with nothing less than his best.
— Hamilton Wright Mabie

 

85 comments to BFBS…PT III – Your Turn

  • The Jeff | May 8, 2010 at 7:55 am |

    The only teams on the list that I voted for as completely unacceptable were the A’s and Blue Jays.

    …and the Ravens shouldn’t be on the list. When you come into existence wearing black helmets, you’re allowed to wear black jerseys.

    There’s just too much of a trending toward darker colors in general. Which is worse, a few teams adding black trim and a black jersey, or the NFL having 8 teams in a 10 year span switch to darker shades of the same basic colors?

  • Ricko | May 8, 2010 at 8:22 am |

    [quote comment=”389355″]The only teams on the list that I voted for as completely unacceptable were the A’s and Blue Jays.

    …and the Ravens shouldn’t be on the list. When you come into existence wearing black helmets, you’re allowed to wear black jerseys.

    There’s just too much of a trending toward darker colors in general. Which is worse, a few teams adding black trim and a black jersey, or the NFL having 8 teams in a 10 year span switch to darker shades of the same basic colors?[/quote]

    Agree about the Ravens. Came into the league wearing far more black than purple. Not only black helmets, but black pants both home and road, too. Almost no purple on the roads, relatively speaking. Had the monochrome look been in vogue at the time of their inception, they might naver have had the purple jerseys in the first place; might have gone with mono black at home right from the get-go. I’ll wager they were tempted, but at the time it just wasn’t done.

    Plus, kinda diffucult to condemn a team called “Ravens” for wearing black, isn’t it?

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | May 8, 2010 at 8:55 am |

    As to the general darkening of color schemes, that really is the rub, isn’t it, with hockey and basketball being as bad or worse.

    That overall “somberizing” The Jeff mentioned that really gets me, too.

    What, royal blue is a horrible color, only for losers? (Tell that to Johnny Unitas)
    And we all know kelly green isn’t nearly “tough” enough, of course. Better switch to forest. (How did the Celtics EVER win all those titles?)

    Y’know, the yutz who published that study showing that teams wearing black were regarded as “more agressive” didn’t do anyone any favors.

    First off, instead of being revered as a great scholar uncovering unknown truths he should have been immediatley accorded a Lifetime Achievement “No Shit, Sherlock” Award.

    Secondly, he also should have been larger ignored. Because while that was, indeed, the psychology of it, it almost universally did NOT translate into practical reality. UCLA’s basketball in bright blue team still beat everyone in sight with a regularity that likely never will be equalled. And some North Carolina basketball team did pretty well in powder blue, too.

    Conversely, the Kings, for example, have shown it is just as easy to not win a Stanley Cup in black and silver as it had been in purple and gold. And the Royals. They added black and went right to kicking ass and taking names, didn’t they. Ask Georgia how the black football jerseys have worked out for them.

    But, let’s face it, most people in sports are never going to be listed in “Who’s Who of Great Original Thinkers and Visionaries.”

    “Hey, we suck, but if we went to a darker color we’d win more. Yeah, that’s our problem, these frickin’ bright colors we wear.”

    Riiiiiight.

    —Ricko

  • Erik Morris | May 8, 2010 at 8:58 am |

    I can’t believe nobody has said anything about the Jaguar’s old monochrome black “hey we look like the Ravens” alternates from a few years back.

    http://jacksonville....

    I know their helmets have always been black and all, but to have an absolutely great teal jersey and introduce the black helmet, jersey, pants & socks is way overdoing the black for black’s sake.

  • Ricko | May 8, 2010 at 9:00 am |

    Yeah, black’ll get you a dynasty.
    Look at the Pirates.
    A juggernaut to be sure.

  • Ben | May 8, 2010 at 9:08 am |

    The scoreboard is game 5 of the 2006 world series. St. Louis won 4-2 over Detroit in St. Louis. http://en.wikipedia....

  • Aaron | May 8, 2010 at 9:22 am |

    I die a little bit inside each time I see the Suns’ Gray for Gray Sake.

  • Oakville Endive | May 8, 2010 at 10:00 am |

    [quote comment=”389361″]I die a little bit inside each time I see the Suns’ Gray for Gray Sake.[/quote]

    Does the grey symbolize clouds? are they the Partly Suns?

  • Sam | May 8, 2010 at 10:26 am |

    what about the white sox emphasis on the WHITE. BTW don’t the words black sox bring up bad memories. http://www.youtube.c...

  • The Ol Goaler | May 8, 2010 at 10:49 am |

    Guess The Scoreboard… Game 5 of the 2006 World Series, featuring this and this! (Sadly, the game didn’t feature this

  • scott | May 8, 2010 at 10:52 am |

    [quote comment=”389355″]
    There’s just too much of a trending toward darker colors in general. [/quote]

    Which is why I suspect so many younger fans seem to think that the dark-colored “alt” jerseys that so many baseball teams wear are acceptable. No longer are white and gray jerseys good enough, now they need to be black or red or blue to be interesting. I dislike the overuse of these jerseys, much as I disliked the look of the pullover jerseys and elastic waistbanded pants of the ’70s and ’80s.

  • inkracer | May 8, 2010 at 11:07 am |

    [quote comment=”389357″]
    And we all know kelly green isn’t nearly “tough” enough, of course. Better switch to forest. (How did the Celtics EVER win all those titles?)
    .

    —Ricko[/quote]

    As I’ve said once before on here, the Eagles went to the darker green to set themselves apart from the Jets, who were also in Kelly green at the time.

    That being said, now that the Jets have gone to a darker shade of green as well, and that the Kelly Green Throwbacks look great, I wouldn’t mind a permanent return to Kelly Green.

  • The Jeff | May 8, 2010 at 11:17 am |

    [quote comment=”389365″][quote comment=”389355″]
    There’s just too much of a trending toward darker colors in general. [/quote]

    Which is why I suspect so many younger fans seem to think that the dark-colored “alt” jerseys that so many baseball teams wear are acceptable. No longer are white and gray jerseys good enough, now they need to be black or red or blue to be interesting. I dislike the overuse of these jerseys, much as I disliked the look of the pullover jerseys and elastic waistbanded pants of the ’70s and ’80s.[/quote]

    As someone who likes colored baseball jerseys, let me just say that I’m also perfectly cool with lighter colors like powder blue, yellow and orange.

    Wanting something more than just white vs gray is a bit different from liking the gradual switch from royal & kelly to navy & forest, which I don’t.

  • Matthew Robins | May 8, 2010 at 11:27 am |

    Great poll! The only team I gave “It Suits them” is Miami Heat, since this is their original road uniform. That was my highest grade. The red was a 3rd design they incorporated after they went with the total jersey redesign. All of the rest received “They have no business wearing this” or “It’s acceptable — but just barely”

    The Ravens is okay (though I am in the minority of people that like purple in sports), but not with those black pants.

  • Giancarlo | May 8, 2010 at 11:35 am |

    You never hear Eagles fans taunted with the chant “19… 60… 19… 60… ” the way Red Sox fans used to be taunted with “19… 18… ”

    This is probably because football fans are nicer & more polite than baseball fans. But it would be helpful if Philadelphia fans
    themselves started chanting “1960” at their team to get the Eagles to return to the Van Brocklin green of the Championship years.

    The Eagles added black trim in 1969 & have not won since. The football Cardinals added black trim in 1964 & have not won since. Hmm…

  • LI Phil | May 8, 2010 at 11:36 am |

    [quote comment=”389366″][quote comment=”389357″]
    And we all know kelly green isn’t nearly “tough” enough, of course. Better switch to forest. (How did the Celtics EVER win all those titles?)
    .

    —Ricko[/quote]

    As I’ve said once before on here, the Eagles went to the darker green to set themselves apart from the Jets, who were also in Kelly green at the time.

    That being said, now that the Jets have gone to a darker shade of green as well, and that the Kelly Green Throwbacks look great, I wouldn’t mind a permanent return to Kelly Green.[/quote]

    wait…what?

    this confused people?

    while i won’t argue that the change from kelly to midnight wasn’t due in some small part to their similarity to the jets, the change was most definitely brought about by jeff lurie, who set about to change the colorscheme almost as soon as he bought the team; 2 years after the sale was complete, the iggles switched and have NEVER worn kelly since

    he didn’t even want to bring back the kelly to honor the 1960 squad, apparently, because he thought “honoring the 1960 team was just a painful reminder that his team hasn’t won a title in 50 years and during his nearly two-decade long tenure”

    switching colors because you “look like the jets”? doubtful

    switching colors because you just bought a team and because you could? more likely

    that being said, i happen to like the midnight green, so i didn’t mind the change, but saying they switched to avoid confusion with the jets is rather specious

  • Giancarlo | May 8, 2010 at 11:49 am |

    If only Lurie would have waited a year, since that’s when the Jets switched from kelly to hunter green.

  • mtjaws | May 8, 2010 at 11:51 am |

    Good poll. Obviously not all-inclusive, but a good gauge on the biggest offenders.

    I picked the Heat, Ravens, and Ducks as being “completely acceptable”. Those uniforms just seem better than the rest.

    For my bonus question, I put the Florida Marlins. This black alt just works as a road uniform since black has replaced teal as the main uniform (accent) color. No complaints from me.

  • JTH | May 8, 2010 at 12:13 pm |

    [quote comment=”389370″]switching colors because you “look like the jets”? doubtful

    switching colors because you just bought a team and because you could? more likely
    [/quote]
    The way I remember it was that Lurie wanted them to be considered a “premier” or “elite” franchise or something to that effect.

    High merchandise sales = elite franchise, right? He felt that kelly green wasn’t a “badass” enough color and that’s why merchandise sales were not where he felt they could be. So he made the switch to midnight green.

  • Ricko | May 8, 2010 at 12:13 pm |

    [quote comment=”389362″][quote comment=”389361″]I die a little bit inside each time I see the Suns’ Gray for Gray Sake.[/quote]

    Does the grey symbolize clouds? are they the Partly Suns?[/quote]

    Probably cuz they play in the Valley of the Partly Cloudy.

    Say what?

  • Ricko | May 8, 2010 at 12:15 pm |

    [quote comment=”389373″][quote comment=”389370″]switching colors because you “look like the jets”? doubtful

    switching colors because you just bought a team and because you could? more likely
    [/quote]
    The way I remember it was that Lurie wanted them to be considered a “premier” or “elite” franchise or something to that effect.

    High merchandise sales = elite franchise, right? He felt that kelly green wasn’t a “badass” enough color and that’s why merchandise sales were not where he felt they could be. So he made the switch to midnight green.[/quote]

    Yeah, I’d say the Jets had little or nothing to do with the Eagles’ change. Maybe if they played in the same divsion. Or, even, y’know, conference.

    —Ricko

  • JTH | May 8, 2010 at 12:19 pm |

    [quote comment=”389372″]I picked the Heat, Ravens, and Ducks as being “completely acceptable”. Those uniforms just seem better than the rest.[/quote]
    Better than the rest in what respect? Aesthetically? Because that’s not what we’re looking for.

    Anyway, that leads me to something I really have to ask.

    2 people so far have nominated the Blackhawks in the “other” category. That’s fine. But they both rated them as having “no business wearing these”.

    Uh… nevermind that they’ve always worn black and in fact have worn black longer than they’ve worn red and that their road (which should really be their home) sweater has far more black than red in it. I can overlook that. Their dark jersey has been predominantly red for decades.

    HOWEVER, a quick sampling of the other ratings both of these respondents have given shows that 1 said that the Bulls’ alt was “acceptable, but just barely” and the other one said the same thing for the A’s.

    Care to explain that reasoning?

  • Ricko | May 8, 2010 at 12:24 pm |

    Couch. Russell.

    Okay, here’s the deal. Don’t give your number one overall choice quarterback number two.

    Just not…advisable.

    Apparently.

    Which does pose an interesting question. Great QB’s–pro or college–who wore #2? Tom Clements at Notre Dame is all I can come up with. He had a fine career with Ottawa, Hamilton and Winnipeg wearing it in the CFL, too. And, I suppose, Doug Flutie, who was #2 with the Patriots and the Bears (and going 14-9 as a starter in the NFL, btw) before he was let go and moved on to Canada.

    —Ricko

  • Oakville Endive | May 8, 2010 at 12:39 pm |

    [quote comment=”389374″][quote comment=”389362″][quote comment=”389361″]I die a little bit inside each time I see the Suns’ Gray for Gray Sake.[/quote]

    Does the grey symbolize clouds? are they the Partly Suns?[/quote]

    Probably cuz they play in the Valley of the Partly Cloudy.

    Say what?[/quote]

    Really doesn’t make any sense does it – a team called the Suns – has the colour grey in it.

    Interesting program on the CBC TV right now, about an individual searching for an original Hamilton Tigers hockey sweater. Lots of general comments of the meaning of the uniform, and how it’s evolved.

  • LI Phil | May 8, 2010 at 12:48 pm |

    [quote comment=”389369″]You never hear Eagles fans taunted with the chant “19… 60… 19… 60… ” the way Red Sox fans used to be taunted with “19… 18… ”

    This is probably because football fans are nicer & more polite than baseball fans.[/quote]

    you owe me a new monitor

    or how islander fans pelted the rangers with “nineteen…forty”

    back to baseball fans v football fans…i suppose in philly that’s true; as far as i know, you’re less likely to be tased or vomited on at an iggles game than a phillies game

  • James Hayden | May 8, 2010 at 1:11 pm |

    Speaking of the Eagles green (sort of) – I’ve always felt the midnight green doesn’t “pop” against a black background. I have an older Reebok BFBS Celtics jersey that is basically black w/ kelly green trim and I must say the kelly green really stands out from the black (as much as red stands out more than maroon against black, for example).
    Maybe the Eagles could consider something like a BFBS jersey with kelly numbers (trimmed in silver) and kelly sleeve gathers.
    Also, I may be confused, but doesn’t the throwback kelly replace the BFBS jersey as the NFL mandated “third” uni or is a throwback not considered a “third”?

  • Ricko | May 8, 2010 at 1:19 pm |

    re: Eagles.

    I saw the Randall Cunningham Eagles (in kelly jerseys over silver) play the Redskins (white over burgundy) at RFK on a bright summer Sunday back in ’83.

    Damn, that was a great looking game.

    —Ricko

  • mmwatkin | May 8, 2010 at 1:19 pm |

    I put the Athletics as the biggest BFBS offenders.

    I am still trying to see where they got black from. Other teams at least had black outlines in their original logo.

  • ab | May 8, 2010 at 1:20 pm |

    I have to agree with JTH about the Bulls and Blackhawks and their black uniforms. The Blackhawks had a black uniform at (a year into) inception, and the Bulls have always had black as a team color. It looks good on both teams. They aren’t a radical departure from their color scheme. The current retro-inspired (fauxback?) Hawks black’n’tans are beautiful.

    I think I voted for the Heat, Bulls, Ravens and Ducks as most acceptable. The Heat’s current set is probably one of the nicest in the NBA. The Ravens pretty much have to wear black, based on their name. The Ducks’ current scheme, although a redesign, is a marked improvement its Disneyfied predecessor.

    I could take or leave the black alts for the baseball teams (as well as the AZ Cardinals). Unnecessary, but not ugly. The one I couldn’t stand was the Eagles’ black alt, but it was because they were depicted in the poll with the midnight green pants. Puke.

  • Geeman | May 8, 2010 at 1:23 pm |

    [quote comment=”389362″][quote comment=”389361″]I die a little bit inside each time I see the Suns’ Gray for Gray Sake.[/quote]

    Does the grey symbolize clouds? are they the Partly Suns?[/quote]

    Don’t think anyone has mentioned that the Suns wore orange at home the other night and the Spurs wore black. Saw that on the highlights last night. Except for gold or silver, that is the first time I have ever seen a home team wear a dark color in the NBA playoffs.

  • traxel | May 8, 2010 at 1:24 pm |

    I voted not acceptable for all but the NBA teams (for some reason I’m okay with it in the NBA don’t ask me why – not college though). As for the ravens (and any other team) you don’t need two dark jerseys (purple AND black). And when it comes to color or black, I’ll choose color any day. Hence, not acceptable for the Ravens.

  • Ricko | May 8, 2010 at 1:57 pm |

    [quote comment=”389383″]I have to agree with JTH about the Bulls and Blackhawks and their black uniforms. The Blackhawks had a black uniform at (a year into) inception, and the Bulls have always had black as a team color. It looks good on both teams. They aren’t a radical departure from their color scheme. The current retro-inspired (fauxback?) Hawks black’n’tans are beautiful.

    I think I voted for the Heat, Bulls, Ravens and Ducks as most acceptable. The Heat’s current set is probably one of the nicest in the NBA. The Ravens pretty much have to wear black, based on their name. The Ducks’ current scheme, although a redesign, is a marked improvement its Disneyfied predecessor.

    I could take or leave the black alts for the baseball teams (as well as the AZ Cardinals). Unnecessary, but not ugly. The one I couldn’t stand was the Eagles’ black alt, but it was because they were depicted in the poll with the midnight green pants. Puke.[/quote]

    Was just imagining the Cunningham Eagles with a black alt. Kelly and white numbers. Would be kinda like the original Falcons but with a kelly green helmet instead of red. Woulda been interesting anyway, and certainly more colorful than the current look when the Eagles employ their black alts.

    —Ricko

  • LI Phil | May 8, 2010 at 1:59 pm |

    [quote comment=”389382″]I put the Athletics as the biggest BFBS offenders.

    I am still trying to see where they got black from. Other teams at least had black outlines in their original logo.[/quote]

    yesterday, reader ‘scott’ opined it was from their TATC uniforms…

    he may have a point…look at the black vest with slight green for the ‘fake’ undershirt

    here’s a better look

    not saying that’s where they got the idea from, but that’s probably the first example of black in the a’s uniforms

  • LI Phil | May 8, 2010 at 2:19 pm |

    [quote comment=”389386″]
    Was just imagining the Cunningham Eagles with a black alt.[/quote]

    wonder no more

  • Ricko | May 8, 2010 at 2:22 pm |

    [quote comment=”389388″][quote comment=”389386″]
    Was just imagining the Cunningham Eagles with a black alt.[/quote]

    wonder no more[/quote]

    Needs sunlight so the kelly gets nice and bright.
    But, nevertheless, interesting.

  • Ricko | May 8, 2010 at 2:34 pm |

    As long as we’re sort on the subject…
    see the difference sunlight makes?
    http://farm5.static....

    Also, ATTN: Falcons.
    See above?
    Do that.
    (or something close it)

    —Ricko

  • JTH | May 8, 2010 at 2:41 pm |

    [quote comment=”389383″]I have to agree with JTH about the Bulls and Blackhawks and their black uniforms. The Blackhawks had a black uniform at (a year into) inception, and the Bulls have always had black as a team color. It looks good on both teams. They aren’t a radical departure from their color scheme. The current retro-inspired (fauxback?) Hawks black’n’tans are beautiful.[/quote]
    Yeah, well my point with that was along the lines of “if the Blackhawks in black is completely UNacceptable, how can the Bulls and A’s possibly be acceptable?”

  • K Dawg | May 8, 2010 at 2:52 pm |

    Have these logos been posted here yet?

    http://forums.warrio...

  • LI Phil | May 8, 2010 at 3:27 pm |

    [quote comment=”389389″][quote comment=”389388″][quote comment=”389386″]
    Was just imagining the Cunningham Eagles with a black alt.[/quote]

    wonder no more[/quote]

    Needs sunlight so the kelly gets nice and bright.
    But, nevertheless, interesting.[/quote]

    im not so sure about that

    needs a ‘reflective’ material more than pure sunlight

  • Geeman | May 8, 2010 at 3:29 pm |

    [quote comment=”389390″]As long as we’re sort on the subject…
    see the difference sunlight makes?
    http://farm5.static....

    Also, ATTN: Falcons.
    See above?
    Do that.
    (or something close it)

    —Ricko[/quote]

    A great looking uniform, not to far off what UGa. had a year or so in a couple of games.

  • traxel | May 8, 2010 at 3:29 pm |

    [quote comment=”389390″]As long as we’re sort on the subject…
    see the difference sunlight makes?
    http://farm5.static....

    Also, ATTN: Falcons.
    See above?
    Do that.
    (or something close it)

    —Ricko[/quote]
    Looks like the 7 on the sleeve is different from the 7 on the body. I’ve always been partial to eliminating the block on the bottom of the 7. It looks longer and sleeker without it. 17 has always been my favorite QB number.

  • Geeman | May 8, 2010 at 3:31 pm |

    [quote comment=”389387″][quote comment=”389382″]I put the Athletics as the biggest BFBS offenders.

    I am still trying to see where they got black from. Other teams at least had black outlines in their original logo.[/quote]

    yesterday, reader ‘scott’ opined it was from their TATC uniforms…

    he may have a point…look at the black vest with slight green for the ‘fake’ undershirt

    here’s a better look

    not saying that’s where they got the idea from, but that’s probably the first example of black in the a’s uniforms[/quote]

    I think it was the following year or the year after that they wore black jerseys for the first time. When you have green and gold to work with, there is no reason for black jerseys.

  • Kurt Allen | May 8, 2010 at 3:32 pm |

    Got some pictures from the Wisconsin Timber Rattlers game at Miller Park last night, they were wearing Brewers-themed 1982 road jerseys. The pants were white but the entire team had the blue stockings pulled up (Believe it’s a team rule) and I found the blue hat and the ‘Wisconsin’ script very well done…

  • Mike Edgerly | May 8, 2010 at 3:42 pm |

    Very appropriate, Squiddie, that you should post a link to “La Gazetta Dello Sport” on the first day of this year’s Giro d’Italia! Thanks for that and all the great cycling pics!

  • Squiddie | May 8, 2010 at 3:59 pm |

    [quote comment=”389398″]Very appropriate, Squiddie, that you should post a link to “La Gazetta Dello Sport” on the first day of this year’s Giro d’Italia! Thanks for that and all the great cycling pics![/quote]
    Careful. We don’t want to start that whole Pink for Pink’s Sake argument again. Especially just before Mother’s Day.

    One more for the road.

  • Petedz | May 8, 2010 at 4:18 pm |

    I’m against most of the BFBS unis. I also think that there should be no colored alts in baseball. Whites and grays. What else is needed.

    And guess the game from the scoreboard. Since no one else has listed it yet.

    Game 5, http://www.baseball-...
    Score was the clincher.

  • JimV19 | May 8, 2010 at 5:34 pm |

    [quote comment=”389393″][quote comment=”389389″][quote comment=”389388″][quote comment=”389386″]
    Was just imagining the Cunningham Eagles with a black alt.[/quote]

    wonder no more[/quote]

    Needs sunlight so the kelly gets nice and bright.
    But, nevertheless, interesting.[/quote]

    im not so sure about that

    needs a ‘reflective’ material more than pure sunlight[/quote]

    Snow.

    Black unis look best in snow. Never enjoyed watching the Steelers on a sunny September day as much as I did on a snowy December day.

  • Ricko | May 8, 2010 at 5:42 pm |

    [quote comment=”389393″][quote comment=”389389″][quote comment=”389388″][quote comment=”389386″]
    Was just imagining the Cunningham Eagles with a black alt.[/quote]

    wonder no more[/quote]

    Needs sunlight so the kelly gets nice and bright.
    But, nevertheless, interesting.[/quote]

    im not so sure about that

    needs a ‘reflective’ material more than pure sunlight[/quote]

    Well, certainly never said would be as bright as red. Just that the green would be as bright as it could be in sunlight.

    —Ricko

  • JimV19 | May 8, 2010 at 5:52 pm |

    [quote comment=”389379″]back to baseball fans v football fans…i suppose in philly that’s true; as far as i know, you’re less likely to be tased or vomited on at an iggles game than a phillies game[/quote]

    Dude, where have you been?
    http://www.nestofdea...

    Certain numbers of Iggles fans have been lowering the class bar since the days of Franklin Field.

  • Ricko | May 8, 2010 at 5:59 pm |

    Braves-Phillies on Fox.

    Gotta vote “No” on the solid Navy Braves hats. Not a resounding no, but a no, certainly with the gray jerseys, anyway. For the sake of tradition and familiarity, mostly.

    a) Looked great with the navy pins (and plain gray) set of the late ’60s, early ’70s. But after so many years of a red visor with the current look (so many the franchise has worn it in three differnt cities) the all-navy hat just seems terribly out of place with the red script, the tomahawk and the banded piping.

    b) Designwise, it’s a really dull hat for such an ornate and colorful jersey.

    c) Also comes across as another example of the “sombering” of unis…as does their navy jersey with the navy edged-in-white lettering. With those jerseys that hat works is a little better. In that case is meh, more than a no.

    —Ricko

  • Chris Mayberry | May 8, 2010 at 6:02 pm |

    IMO…

    BFBS: If black is already part of a team’s established colour scheme via trim, then fine. To add BFBS, then I’m totally against it — especially when it involves colleges.

  • jesse | May 8, 2010 at 6:04 pm |

    [quote comment=”389404″]Braves-Phillies on Fox.

    Gotta vote “No” on the solid Navy Braves hats. Not a resounding no, but a no, certainly with the gray jerseys, anyway. For the sake of tradition and familiarity, mostly.

    a) Looked great with the navy pins (and plain gray) set of the late ’60s, early ’70s. But after so many years of a red visor with the current look (so many the franchise has worn it in three differnt cities) the all-navy hat just seems terribly out of place with the red script, the tomahawk and the banded piping.

    b) Designwise, it’s a really dull hat for such an ornate and colorful jersey.

    c) Also comes across as another example of the “sombering” of unis…as does their navy jersey with the navy edged-in-white lettering. With those jerseys that hat works is a little better. In that case is meh, more than a no.

    —Ricko[/quote]
    kinda how I feel about the Nats road hat with the red script on their road grays.

  • LI Phil | May 8, 2010 at 6:28 pm |

    [quote comment=”389404″]Gotta vote “No” on the solid Navy Braves hats.

    Looked great with the navy pins (and plain gray) set of the late ’60s, early ’70s.[/quote]

    yes it did

    of course, in a less politically correct time, their best look EVER was with the black tomahawk

    on the current set tho…

    the two tone cap looks better on the homes, but the blue cap on the roads sometimes looks out of place, and once you add the red brim, it works so much better

    and while i hate the softball top by itself…i actually like that jersey — they just need to get a matching pair of pants and some sharp stirrups, and that could work

    unfortunately, the way the players dress today, it would end up looking like this and that’s just unaccpetable

  • Mike Engle | May 8, 2010 at 6:35 pm |

    [quote comment=”389407″][quote comment=”389404″]Gotta vote “No” on the solid Navy Braves hats.

    Looked great with the navy pins (and plain gray) set of the late ’60s, early ’70s.[/quote]

    yes it did

    of course, in a less politically correct time, their best look EVER was with the black tomahawk

    on the current set tho…

    the two tone cap looks better on the homes, but the blue cap on the roads sometimes looks out of place, and once you add the red brim, it works so much better

    and while i hate the softball top by itself…i actually like that jersey — they just need to get a matching pair of pants and some sharp stirrups, and that could work

    unfortunately, the way the players dress today, it would end up looking like this and that’s just unaccpetable[/quote]
    Hey Phil, can you mock up the Braves in their current grays (with either cap), but with the navy tomahawk as seen on the navy top? Always thought that would look really good, providing a bit of red/navy balance and harking back to the black Milwaukee tomahawk.

  • Ricko | May 8, 2010 at 6:53 pm |

    [quote comment=”389407″][quote comment=”389404″]Gotta vote “No” on the solid Navy Braves hats.

    Looked great with the navy pins (and plain gray) set of the late ’60s, early ’70s.[/quote]

    yes it did

    of course, in a less politically correct time, their best look EVER was with the black tomahawk

    on the current set tho…

    the two tone cap looks better on the homes, but the blue cap on the roads sometimes looks out of place, and once you add the red brim, it works so much better

    and while i hate the softball top by itself…i actually like that jersey — they just need to get a matching pair of pants and some sharp stirrups, and that could work

    unfortunately, the way the players dress today, it would end up looking like this and that’s just unaccpetable[/quote]

    See now, here’s where “frame of reference” comes in. Some of you say a dark shirt with white or gray pans looks like softball. To me, the monochrome look with ankle length looks like a softball uni. Why? Because through the ’40s, ’50s and well in to the ’60s, THIS is what softball unis looked like…
    http://farm5.static....
    (photo taken in 1969; know that for sure cuz it’s the opponents from one of my games at Ft. Benjamin Harrison)

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | May 8, 2010 at 6:59 pm |

    Also why I think elastic in pants way down near the ankle looks dopey. If they’re that long, better to wear them like cricket pants. Better lines, if you know what I mean. These look like Mom forget to buy your pants long enough for you to “grow into them”.
    http://farm5.static....

    —Ricko

  • LI Phil | May 8, 2010 at 7:05 pm |

    [quote comment=”389408″]Hey Phil, can you mock up the Braves in their current grays (with either cap), but with the navy tomahawk as seen on the navy top? Always thought that would look really good, providing a bit of red/navy balance and harking back to the black Milwaukee tomahawk.[/quote]

    quick, dirty and not particularly good…

    but here

  • Ricko | May 8, 2010 at 7:14 pm |

    Oh, but they’d be nice and somber, and isn’t that the goal these days? I mean, it would be so wonderfully dull to watch team dressed like that. Just a treat for the eyes. So visually stimulating.
    http://farm4.static....
    At least white or gray pants provide contrast to the jersey and wake up the eyeballs a little. Count our blessings, is what I’m saying. It could be worse.

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | May 8, 2010 at 7:22 pm |

    [quote comment=”389411″][quote comment=”389408″]Hey Phil, can you mock up the Braves in their current grays (with either cap), but with the navy tomahawk as seen on the navy top? Always thought that would look really good, providing a bit of red/navy balance and harking back to the black Milwaukee tomahawk.[/quote]

    quick, dirty and not particularly good…

    but here[/quote]

    Red tomahawk’s better. At least these days. Back then they had the red TV number on the front and the largely red shoulder patch to balance/offset it and brighten things up a bit. Plus the tri-color stirrups.

    –Ricko

  • Mike Engle | May 8, 2010 at 7:30 pm |

    [quote comment=”389413″][quote comment=”389411″][quote comment=”389408″]Hey Phil, can you mock up the Braves in their current grays (with either cap), but with the navy tomahawk as seen on the navy top? Always thought that would look really good, providing a bit of red/navy balance and harking back to the black Milwaukee tomahawk.[/quote]

    quick, dirty and not particularly good…

    but here[/quote]

    Red tomahawk’s better. At least these days. Back then they had the red TV number on the front and the largely red shoulder patch to balance/offset it and brighten things up a bit. Plus the tri-color stirrups.

    –Ricko[/quote]
    Never got a chance to agree, Ricko. I never would have come up with your reasons, but I was disappointed I didn’t like the navy tomahawk as much as I thought I would. (Nothing against Phil’s work, which was fine. Just not a fan of the concept after all, no matter the execution.)

  • JTH | May 8, 2010 at 7:55 pm |

    White Sox/Blue Jays on WGN now. Sox in their rarely-seen pinstriped alts. It’s a good look for them. They should wear them more often.

  • Ricko | May 8, 2010 at 7:58 pm |

    [quote comment=”389415″]White Sox/Blue Jays on WGN now. Sox in their rarely-seen pinstriped alts. It’s a good look for them. They should wear them more often.[/quote]

    At this point they’re practically throwbacks, aren’t they? Y’know, to when they won the W-S?

    —Ricko

  • JTH | May 8, 2010 at 8:00 pm |

    [quote comment=”389416″][quote comment=”389415″]White Sox/Blue Jays on WGN now. Sox in their rarely-seen pinstriped alts. It’s a good look for them. They should wear them more often.[/quote]

    At this point they’re practically throwbacks, aren’t they? Y’know, to when they won the W-S?

    —Ricko[/quote]
    Seems like that’s about how long it’s been since they wore them with any degree of regularity.

  • Ricko | May 8, 2010 at 8:20 pm |

    [quote comment=”389417″][quote comment=”389416″][quote comment=”389415″]White Sox/Blue Jays on WGN now. Sox in their rarely-seen pinstriped alts. It’s a good look for them. They should wear them more often.[/quote]

    At this point they’re practically throwbacks, aren’t they? Y’know, to when they won the W-S?

    —Ricko[/quote]
    Seems like that’s about how long it’s been since they wore them with any degree of regularity.[/quote]

    Given what passes for thinking and planning in MLB these days, kinda surprised they aren’t both in black.

  • Ricko | May 8, 2010 at 8:32 pm |

    For second game, Orioles in black alts, Twins in creams. Cuddyer going high cuffed.

    Millwood on the mound for O’s. Target Field is 40th MLB ballpark in which he’s pitched.

    Jamie Moyer has pitched in 48, I think they said.

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | May 8, 2010 at 8:34 pm |

    Wonder if the script “Minnesota” on the roads this year is a hint they’re pondering going to the creams full-time at home in 2011?

    Y’know, give the current homes at least one year in the sunshine and then change.

    —Ricko

  • Mike Engle | May 8, 2010 at 9:06 pm |

    [quote comment=”389420″]Wonder if the script “Minnesota” on the roads this year is a hint they’re pondering going to the creams full-time at home in 2011?

    Y’know, give the current homes at least one year in the sunshine and then change.

    —Ricko[/quote]
    Current roads have Minnesota script similar to the creams, but the “win” underline like the whites. Looks like they designed to go in either direction. But if/when the creams become full-time, the roads will probably get tweaked.

  • LI Phil | May 8, 2010 at 9:35 pm |

    [quote comment=”389412″]Oh, but they’d be nice and somber, and isn’t that the goal these days? I mean, it would be so wonderfully dull to watch team dressed like that. Just a treat for the eyes. So visually stimulating.
    http://farm4.static....
    At least white or gray pants provide contrast to the jersey and wake up the eyeballs a little. Count our blessings, is what I’m saying. It could be worse.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    now…i NEVER advocated for the look i posted…but i am saying if they HAVE to wear a softball top, they should wear matching pants

    BUT

    i don’t think they should wear a softball top

    IF the wear the softball top AND they wear dark pants, no WAY can they wear them as pajamas

    but that’s inevitable

    because they cant stop that look…they can’t even hope to contain it

    when guys won’t even wear proper stirrups for a throwback, i don’t even want to see it

    so until such time as fashion comes back around, and they stop wearing these fancy shoes…im not gonna advocate for a monochrome uni (and even then, i’d say ONLY on a very limited basis)

  • Ricko | May 8, 2010 at 9:37 pm |

    [quote comment=”389421″][quote comment=”389420″]Wonder if the script “Minnesota” on the roads this year is a hint they’re pondering going to the creams full-time at home in 2011?

    Y’know, give the current homes at least one year in the sunshine and then change.

    —Ricko[/quote]
    Current roads have Minnesota script similar to the creams, but the “win” underline like the whites. Looks like they designed to go in either direction. But if/when the creams become full-time, the roads will probably get tweaked.[/quote]

    This would be a decent road counterpoint to the creams. There’s no Commandment that says the “tail” has to connect, especially because it never works real well when last letter is an “a”.

    Took off the front TV number because there isn’t one on the cream pins.

    Ditched the trim striping, too. Doubleknit era is only time in franchise history (incl. Washington) that they ever went in for such things.

    http://farm5.static....

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | May 8, 2010 at 9:56 pm |

    Or maybe this…
    http://farm5.static....

    —Ricko

  • LI Phil | May 8, 2010 at 10:05 pm |

    just wondering

    is there some kind of “mandate” that the twins roadies have to say “minnesota”?

    i know we bemoan some teams (brewers, who just added it to their alt., cards, rays…and then there are the texases) who don’t do CNOJ…but if minnesota is so difficult to depict in script…

    why can’t they just do this for their roadies?

  • Mike Engle | May 8, 2010 at 10:08 pm |

    [quote comment=”389425″]just wondering

    is there some kind of “mandate” that the twins roadies have to say “minnesota”?

    [/quote]
    Yes. :-P

  • Ricko | May 8, 2010 at 10:09 pm |

    [quote comment=”389425″]just wondering

    is there some kind of “mandate” that the twins roadies have to say “minnesota”?

    i know we bemoan some teams (brewers, who just added it to their alt., cards, rays…and then there are the texases) who don’t do CNOJ…but if minnesota is so difficult to depict in script…

    why can’t they just do this for their roadies?[/quote]

    I agree. They just seem to be fixated on it for some reason. Maybe because “MINNESOTA” has been on the roads since 1987.

    Anyway, my bad on my mock up. If they changed the wordmark, the road patch would be outdated. Could wear same sleeve patch home and road, as they did in the ’60s…
    http://farm5.static....

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | May 8, 2010 at 10:12 pm |

    Howcum no one ever complains that “sleeves are too long these days, look like pajama tops; should be shorter like they used to be”?
    http://thatsmyboy03....

    Just, y’know, asking.

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | May 8, 2010 at 10:17 pm |

    Also…no one ever seems to notice how much more “peaked” the “T” in the hat logo originally was…
    http://thatsmyboy03....

    And it isn’t just the hat in that photo. It WAS more peaked. Looked like garage roof back then.

    I will, however, say I don’t know when they flattened it out. Sometime in the doubleknit era, I’d say.

    —Ricko

  • Don | May 8, 2010 at 10:48 pm |

    I disliked the wording of the poll. It seems worded more to complain about the use of black at all, which is biased and doesn’t concern itself with what the team colors are in the first place.

    I’m of the opinion that if black is one of the team’s colors, why the hell shouldn’t they wear it as a black uniform? And since I keep seeing black (now) listed as a Met color, why keep bellyaching about it?

    Sure, I think some teams could do better than going black all the time, like the Blue Jays or Anaheim Ducks. Ideally I would prefer basic colored unis, with black alts if they want black.

    Black is a neutral color (like white) so I can’t really criticize the “non-black” teams (e.g., Oakland) that much. (Besides, it isn’t like Oakland has replaced their regular look; it’s just an alternate!)

    Why aren’t the authors complaining about too much white in sports uniforms? Or the hideous grays the MLB teams use for that matter?

  • Don | May 8, 2010 at 10:53 pm |

    Okay, I shouldn’t have said the grays are “hideous”… I should’ve said “bland”. I don’t object to their use but I find them too close in shade to the white and actually rather bland.

  • Neil | May 8, 2010 at 10:54 pm |

    For me, the problem with any of those uniforms isn’t the black jersey… It’s the colors of the pants, or the color/style of the logo and/or accents. The Ducks uniform is terrible not because it has a black jersey, but because the pants are black too, and the logo they adopted in 2006 is brutal. The A’s and Jays’ black unis aren’t bad because of the black, they’re bad because the rest of the design is poor. Now, maybe this means the margin for error is that much smaller when using black as a dominant color. That’s probably true, but I don’t mind BFBS if it’s done right and looks good. IMO, the Mets black unis look good. Some people here would prefer to have black unis banned from sports, period, which I think would be a mistake. There are good and bad black unis, just like there are good and bad white unis and good and bad gray unis. It’s all about the execution, and the poll examples succeed or fail not because of the black per se, but because of the design elements that have been packaged with the black.

  • Nick | May 9, 2010 at 12:21 am |

    [quote comment=”389356″][quote comment=”389355″]The only teams on the list that I voted for as completely unacceptable were the A’s and Blue Jays.

    …and the Ravens shouldn’t be on the list. When you come into existence wearing black helmets, you’re allowed to wear black jerseys.

    There’s just too much of a trending toward darker colors in general. Which is worse, a few teams adding black trim and a black jersey, or the NFL having 8 teams in a 10 year span switch to darker shades of the same basic colors?[/quote]

    Agree about the Ravens. Came into the league wearing far more black than purple. Not only black helmets, but black pants both home and road, too. Almost no purple on the roads, relatively speaking. Had the monochrome look been in vogue at the time of their inception, they might naver have had the purple jerseys in the first place; might have gone with mono black at home right from the get-go. I’ll wager they were tempted, but at the time it just wasn’t done.

    Plus, kinda diffucult to condemn a team called “Ravens” for wearing black, isn’t it?

    —Ricko[/quote]

    I also agree, and I am a rabid BFBS critic. I am probably the Rex Reed of BFBS dis-a-dain!

    An I gotta say this, the original Ravens Black Pants with both the White and Purple jerseys were just a bit too much dark in that world – I would much rather see an alternate Black jersey 2-3 times a year with White Pants, the Purple jersey with the White Pants, and just get rid of the Black Pants altogether.

    I also happen to think that either the Ravens or the Jaguars would do well to work their fourth color Gold into the mix.

    Would it be so bad to see the Jags in a Black Helmet/Pants, Gold jersey combination? That would certainly beat the Black alternate jersey the have polluted the world with. That would be a true alternate look, and also true to the team’s official colors.

  • Nick | May 9, 2010 at 12:23 am |

    [quote comment=”389366″][quote comment=”389357″]
    And we all know kelly green isn’t nearly “tough” enough, of course. Better switch to forest. (How did the Celtics EVER win all those titles?)
    .

    —Ricko[/quote]

    As I’ve said once before on here, the Eagles went to the darker green to set themselves apart from the Jets, who were also in Kelly green at the time.

    That being said, now that the Jets have gone to a darker shade of green as well, and that the Kelly Green Throwbacks look great, I wouldn’t mind a permanent return to Kelly Green.[/quote]

    Also agree. At the very least, go back to a Green/Silver template. The Eagles, moreso than the Pats, would be the team that should have a Silver alternate jersey – but ONLY if the Silver is oticible, and not weak “Vegas Silver” as worn by the Pats.

  • traxel | May 9, 2010 at 12:25 am |

    [quote comment=”389427″][quote comment=”389425″]just wondering

    is there some kind of “mandate” that the twins roadies have to say “minnesota”?

    i know we bemoan some teams (brewers, who just added it to their alt., cards, rays…and then there are the texases) who don’t do CNOJ…but if minnesota is so difficult to depict in script…

    why can’t they just do this for their roadies?[/quote]

    I agree. They just seem to be fixated on it for some reason. Maybe because “MINNESOTA” has been on the roads since 1987.

    Anyway, my bad on my mock up. If they changed the wordmark, the road patch would be outdated. Could wear same sleeve patch home and road, as they did in the ’60s…
    http://farm5.static....

    —Ricko[/quote]
    That’s the look they need to adopt. Now they are out of the plastic dome and into the classic fresh air, they need go back to their original successful look. Keep Minnesota on the roadies though. I’m big on that.

    Yeah, sleeves are too long. You’d think with the arogence in sports these days they’d be wanting to show off the pipes. But no one does. Deion used to do it but with an undershirt. Got the team forced to adopt it briefly. I kinda liked it.

    What was the last team to wear dark pants? The 76-82 White Sox? I love those by the way. Before that? Pirates did it for a while. Indians? Phillies maroon, Orioles orange, who else?

  • traxel | May 9, 2010 at 12:29 am |

    geez, my spelling sucks. ARROGANCE.

  • traxel | May 9, 2010 at 1:08 am |

    According to Dressed to the Nines, it’s been a while since anyone wore dark pants. Now we had a few in the seventies: Pirates, Indians, Phillies, Orioles, White Sox, A’s, and Padres. I’m counting colored as dark. I think the Pirates win as most recent – 1984. White Sox next in 1981. Before the 70’s though, it’s been a while.

    Looks like the 1936 Reds http://exhibits.base... are the most recent. Followed by the 1931 White Sox http://exhibits.base....

    Before that, the White Sox were the most occasional wearer of dark pants and in the early teens several other teams joined them. Never was it regular. The Reds surprisingly come in second.

    Since I like the quirky strange college try, let the Braves try the navy pants. Why not. Ditch the BFBS and make your pants your team colors.

  • John | May 9, 2010 at 12:30 pm |

    As far as BFBS goes, the Ducks nee Mighty Ducks always look bad to me, but black is better than the eggplant/teal they initially had. Those may have been the oddest uniforms in NHL modern history. Bias cut lines, cartoon characters, eww.

  • teenchy | May 9, 2010 at 6:42 pm |

    I know I’ll catch flak for this, but I don’t see how the author can favor the white-bottomed Cardinals stirrups. From a distance, you can’t tell that they’re stirrups; the white of the sani blends with the white of the stirrup itself. Isn’t part of the whole aesthetic appeal of stirrups the fact that they are separate from the sani?