Discussion Random Kits/Uniforms Discussion Thread

[akkaps]

I have been meaning to start of this thread for a few months now.


This is a thread for all sport discussion that doesn't already have its own thread, like hockey, American Football, baseball, etc.



First thing I wanted to ask was why was Carolina wearing their white uniforms at home again Arizona in the NFL playoffs today? The color uniforms are worn by the home team, and the away team then wears their white uniform.

 

[Cody_]

I have been meaning to start of this thread for a few months now.


This is a thread for all sport discussion that doesn't already have its own thread, like hockey, American Football, baseball, etc.



First thing I wanted to ask was why was Carolina wearing their white uniforms at home again Arizona in the NFL playoffs today? The color uniforms are worn by the home team, and the away team then wears their white uniform.

Sounds like a good thread mate, sorry can't answer your question cause I don't follow American football

 

[akkaps]

No worries, it's just been bugging me all day.

 

[El_Scorcho]

From what I read, the Panthers have never lost a home game while wearing white in the playoffs, but i'm not sure how true that is.

Sometimes teams just like to wear a colour because they feel it's lucky. Look at the Steelers white jerseys during the playoffs in their last Superbowl win.

 

[Craegus]

From what I read, the Panthers have never lost a home game while wearing white in the playoffs, but i'm not sure how true that is.

Sometimes teams just like to wear a colour because they feel it's lucky. Look at the Steelers white jerseys during the playoffs in their last Superbowl win.

That is correct. They have never lost at home in the playoffs while wearing all white, but have lost in black.

I am fairly certain that unlike the NBA and NHL (though it does happen in the NHL) the designated home team can chose what they want to wear at home, this is seen with teams like Washington, Miami and Tampa Bay wearing white during the early season due to higher temperatures and making their opponents wear dark in the heat, or like Dallas who wear their whites at home out of tradition.

During the playoffs it is not uncommon for a team to want to wear a certain set all the way through for luck and sometimes carry that on across seasons (happens in both NFL and NHL {in recent years San Jose and Anaheim come to mind when they wore their alternates for the entire playoffs at home}, but not the NBA that I am aware of).

 

[Craegus]

I should add this is Carolina's playoff record in their uniform combinations at home (as of today):

White on white: Played 3 Won 3

Black on silver: Played 1 Lost 1

Black on Black: Played 1 Lost 1

Overall (home and away) in white on white (worn in first 9 playoff games and today):

Played 10 Won 7 Lost 3

So they have played in 12 playoff games and only twice have they not played in white on white, losing both.

 

[rabbitoh21]

Speaking of the NFL, I've always wondered what a proper colour-v-colour match will look like, both teams in coloured kits (obviously it'd have to be like Denver vs. Indy or something else distinct)

 

[rabbitoh21]

Some teams wear white at home. Cleveland and Dallas are rarely seen in their dark jerseys, for example. Teams who normally wear dark at home will wear white at home v. Cowboys to make them wear blue (in the hopes that the color of the jersey will make a difference).

Carolina occasionally wears white at home. GUD shows them wearing white at home 5x (two of those in preseason) last year. I don't know about the playoff theory, however. They wore white in the only SB they've ever appeared in (2003) and lost.



It used to happen quite often in the early days, simply because most teams only had one jersey. GUD doesn't have every design from the first few years, but no APFA (now NFL) teams (of the ones we know the designs/color for) had white in 1920 or 1921, and only one is shown with white, while the Bears wore white tank tops over their jerseys in some games in 1922 (the year the name changed to NFL). Colored photos from NFL games are almost non-existent until the days of the AFL in the 1960s. Cleveland/Los Angeles never wore white until 1957, but colored photos from then are rare.

There have been some recent ones. KC and Dallas both wearing their 1960 Dallas Texans/Dallas Cowboys throwback uniforms. Cowboys again wearing dark at Washington wearing burgundy in throwbacks. Another throwback game featuring Detroit and New England. And another throwback, this one with Dallas v. Chicago.

Not always in throwback games, however. This thread has some other instances.

Sick dude! Always liked the Rams FWIW

 

[rabbitoh21]

It would have been very confusing to watch old NFL games on B&W TV. (I'm old enough to remember watching shows in black & white when I was very young, but by then they had realized the teams needed more contrast and games were always light v. dark.)

Sammy Baugh and the Washington Redskins (v. I think could be Brooklyn Tigers from 1944, based solely upon #43, who could be a 'Skins lineman, but I'm guessing he's on defense because the helmet looks like the leather stripes are painted; also hard to see but Washington had pants that were lighter on front than back, due to the pants being made from a tougher material on backside):

This is from 1946, Chicago Bears (with the ball) v. Green Bay Packers. The Pack's shoulder/helmet color thankfully were yellow, because the only other noticeable difference watching in black & white would have been the Bears arm/pants stripes and slightly lighter pants (which would have been less noticeable as the game went on due to the mud/dirt):

Also cool to note in that photo is the old wooden offset goal posts. Goal posts were on the goal line during that era beginning with the first unofficial NFL championship in 1932 which had to be played indoors because of the weather. They were not the end line, like today, which made kicking easier but caused problems; players would run into them on occasion, plus they caused problems when a team was deep in their own territory to start a down, so they came up with this idea so the the posts were actually a couple of yards deep in the end zone but the crossbar and the uprights were still over the goal line. (This link is for a photo of LA Coliseum and shows the placement of the offset goal posts.)

I ran across a colorized photo of Bob Waterfield of the LA Rams in a night game (when they used white footballs at night in NFL) v. either the 1951 NY Yanks or 1952 Dallas Texans (same uniform was used for both teams, but their pants were gray, not light blue as shown):

And I ran across an actual (I think) color photo from a card of Norm Van Brocklin played for the Rams from 1949-57. From 1950-56, the Rams only had yellow jerseys:

Those jerseys created some light v. light games, of course, like this one v. the Cleveland Browns with Otto Graham carrying the ball in this photo (check out his Converse tennis shoes!):

Rams also wore these throwback jersey (with their current helmets, at the time) in 1994, in a color-on-color game:

I have some old color shots on my computer, but very few from prior to 1960, and only a couple from before that showing color v. color. I found them again online, one from 1947 and one from 1949, both featuring the Chicago Cardinals and both probably colorized at the time (which would have been hand painted over a black and white photo), first one is v. Detroit, the second is v. Philadelphia:

EDIT: Speaking of the Rams, they may be moving back to LA soon.

I'd love them in LA (be easier to go over and watch a game than to go to Missouri) and those last few pics are definitely hand coloured haha. Sick collection of images dude!

 

[rabbitoh21]

Thanks, mate!

If any team is moving to LA, it should be the Rams since they have the longest history there, IMHO. Chargers played there in the inaugural AFL season and Raiders played there for 13 NFL seasons, but Rams were in LA/Anaheim for almost half a century.

It'd be a shame for St. Louis to lose them but LA not having an NFL team (and suitable stadium) is an atrocity.

 

[rabbitoh21]

Only LA has yet to get a replacement franchise. The problem is that 32 is pretty much a perfect number of teams, but either LA will continue to not have a franchise (although a bunch of teams have considered a move there) or else St. Louis will not have a team soon. The only viable solutions are that one of the Jersey-based teams (Giants/Jets) move out of Greater NYC area, or expansion. The current commissioner wants to expand (so some teams can be located in Europe), so there's a way for St. Louis (or LA) to get a new franchise at some point, no matter how it plays out.

LA would have a team if it had a decent stadium, no doubt. I'm not big on American geography and demographic but I can't imagine Jacksonville, Baltimore, Tennessee and Houston would ever dislodge LA from top of a "must-be" list of sports franchises IF they had a suitable facility.

I might disagree with whether LA has a suitable stadium for NFL. The Coliseum is a 93,000 seat stadium in LA (where the Rams played for nearly 50 years during the days when it held over 100,000) that serves USC and UCLA. The Rose Bowl (also over 90,000 capacity, but has seen crowds over 100,000 in the past) is not far from there (Pasadena, Los Angeles County, California), as well as Anaheim Stadium. Lots of NFL teams once played in baseball parks, so Anaheim is less than ideal but has historic precedence and had expanded seating of nearly 70,000 for football at one time (the Raiders played there for a while), so there are currently multiple options.

I might disagree with your disagreement LA Coliseum = how many millennia old now? Way too big and not designed for football in any way, USC and UCLA put up with it because of tradition, prestige and because it's a college type stadium (single tier coliseum). Rose Bowl is the Rose Bowl,.. LA needs a stadium like Ford Field or Levi's with a BIG focus on corporate and club seating. They really need sky boxes, which the Rose Bowl and Coliseum will never have for several reasons. It's LA, they're going to have celebrities at most of their games, and the rest of the crowd will be separated on the other three sides haha. When I went to LA a few years back I was struck at the way the precinct and the interior of Staples was, that arena was like Allphones on steroids. But it worked. Not a bad seat in the house. LA is screaming for the NFL to commit and to build a big, brash stadium.

I wouldn't necessarily say LA deserves another NFL franchise. The city has been home to Chargers/Rams/Raiders, as well as Dons (from AAFC, the league the Browns/49ers came from) and all moved to greener pastures (aside from the Dons who merged with Rams, but were outdrawing them in the first 3 years, just after the Rams moved from Ohio to not go head-to-head with the newly-formed AAFC's Browns and the AAFC put a franchise in LA to counter the Rams move) so aside from the Rams who played there for almost 5 decades, I don't know how quickly LA area residents would warm up to another team.

They'd have a 2 year honeymoon period where people would go just to see the NFL I reckon, then after that they'd need to perform to really draw. If someone can give the Rams' brand some "swagga" then they'll be set. Although NWA is long gone and blue and yellow just aren't as gangsta as black and white/grey/silver.

Rams are definitely the best fit for LA if they really want an NFL team again.

I reckon the Raiders would be just because of the connection they had with the "street" there and the reputation they built, but aren't they leaving O.co for Levi's? Or are they getting their own?

 

[rabbitoh21]

That was never an issue prior to the Raiders and Rams exiting LA in 1995, which was the last expansion year (Jax and Carolina, bringing the league to 32 teams). I totally agree, had LA not had a team in the mid-90s, they would have been chosen over Jax/Carolina.


The Coliseum is pretty much considered one of the meccas of NCAA football here, and same is true of the Rose Bowl. (Props to the 'Shoe, too! Sadly, Cleveland/Cincinnati/Pittsburgh/Indy owners would never allow a pro team in Columbus. ) Your reasoning sounds like an NFL fan, for sure. And I was going to mention the reason for a new stadium being the luxury boxe$. Your assessment of why the Rams owner wants a new stadium is dead on. But that shouldn't be an issue these days. Here's why:

One of the problems when Rams/Raiders played at the Coliseum was they couldn't sell out, thus the games were blacked out in the Los Angeles area. The reasoning behind that is the agreement NFL (similarly with MLB) has with Congress, which allows them to basically run a monopoly, legally (though we have federal laws against that very thing). That exemption led to things like the FCC ruling on behalf of NFL and MLB to blackout games in local areas if the games weren't sold out so that locals wouldn't just stay home and watch the game being played on TV in front of an empty stadium. Those rules were set up at a time when ticket sales were a big % of team income, before the mega-billion $ deals those leagues now enjoy, and since both of those leagues, along with NHL and NBA, now have their own pay channels, the FCC recently (just a month or two ago) dropped the mandatory blackout rule. The NFL still is allowed to impose that rule over its broadcasts, however, even though it is no longer a federal law. So, because of the TV contracts, it's not as important to sell out (for the sake of payroll/profit) as it once was. And, because of the recent FCC ruling, I don't think it will be as necessary as it once was to have those luxury suites to make up for the 30,000-40,000 fewer seats in NFL stadiums (as opposed to some of the big stadiums that used to hold NFL games, like the Coliseum) IF the NFL drops the blackout rule. That was the biggest reason Rams moved to Anaheim (which left the Coliseum open for the Raiders move in '82); it was easier for the Rams to sellout a game there. The blackout rule then became a problem for the Raiders while in LA Coliseum.

But in this situation, at the present time, I think you're right. At one time it was a necessity, but not so with revenue sharing multi-billion dollar TV deals. Now it's just greed. And there's a possibility (if that trend continues, because salaries will continue to skyrocket) of a bust coming in our pro leagues (and we've nearly had contraction in NBA, NHL and MLB as it is). But, they are on top of the heap now, and they're milking it for all it's worth.

The Coliseum is a great place to watch football but you have to like NCAA until/unless another NFL team moves in. USC has just recently taken over part of the renovation of the stadium, including $70 million (from just the school) going to improvements over the next decade. So, it's old, but all of our mega-stadiums are. Still, that doesn't mean they are run down or not modernized (jumbo screens, etc.). I've been to the 'Shoe, and there isn't a seat I wouldn't sit in that I'm aware of, and Ohio Stadium holds nearly 105,000. Some of the old stadiums are the best. (Side note: I went to the 100th anniversary game at Wrigley Field in Chicago last year. While maybe not as cozy or comfy as the Reds ballpark (only 10 years old), it was well worth every penny to watch a Cubs game there in the 2nd oldest MLB stadium.)


No solid evidence, just what I know of our culture, but I think that "gangsta" thing is something our pro leagues are staying away from while trying to create a more "family friendly" atmosphere at games. (That's why the NFL has been pushing the Breast Cancer Awareness thing with pink everywhere; to draw more women.) There's no doubt that (Raiders, especially) certain teams colors have been used that way outside the league, but I don't think the NFL teams promote that in any way, or see that as a plus. I have a close friend in Oakland who says that gangs are (basically) ruining Oakland for normal folk, so I can't see that as a positive for any team. If so, they certainly wouldn't advertise it.


I don't know for certain, but I do know the Raiders have wanted out of O.co (Oakland County Coliseum) for a long time. San Fran, right across the bay, probably wouldn't let the Raiders come to town for a number of reasons (fan base protection being foremost; there are rules in place that must be waived before the league would even allow that). The Raiders have been talking about moving to LA for a couple of years or so (and no doubt that lease is problematic for them), and I would imagine they were considering moving back into the Coliseum (at least temporarily). There was also talk of a stadium in San Jose, I think, but the Niners (and the league) shot that down over that territorial rule they have. So Levi's Stadium is undoubtedly off-limits to the Raiders for as long as the Niners are still across the bay.

Good points, completely forgot about the blackout issue. The gangsta thing was never really "sanctioned" by the Raiders either, it just sort of happened due to NWA wearing the jackets? But in this day of $200 Starter Jackets, $100 snapbacks and the like, you do need to tap the youth with merchandise. Great response man good to see someone so knowledgeable and passionate about a sport and it's history

 

[rabbitoh21]

rabbitoh20, just saw this: http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on...rendering-plans-for-new-st-louis-rams-stadium

64000 seats in the open after coming from 66000 in a dome, please tell me this is a joke hahaha

 

[rabbitoh21]

I can't see the logic in it because the article said "Some of the economic benefit comes from making the entire convention center, including the attached Edward Jones Dome, available for conventions and events in the fall each year."

Just took a peek at this season's numbers and the two teams with lowest attendance this season are the two top candidates to move to LA; Rams and Raiders.

If that's the best STL will do, guess which city will be losing its team. No way the Rams will stay, they'll either be in LA or LDN (London) in the next 5 years. If Kroenke has his way they'll play at the Emirates (he owns) but most likely Wembley or the new LA stadium

 

[Bacon Warrior]

No way the Rams will stay, they'll either be in LA or LDN (London) in the next 5 years.

Wait, what? Are the NFL seriously trying for a team in London before, say, Canada?

 

[Bacon Warrior]

NHL All-Star Game sweaters, courtesy of the NHL's Facebook page.

Response has not been great. I like the black and fluro green, but the crest with its chrome look (actually is screen printed plastic) is pretty average, as is the underarm striping.

6/10 from me.

 

[Jack Stevens]

NHL All-Star Game sweaters, courtesy of the NHL's Facebook page.

Response has not been great. I like the black and fluro green, but the crest with its chrome look (actually is screen printed plastic) is pretty average, as is the underarm striping.

6/10 from me.

I've been meaning to ask for a year now, but with Reebok's rebranding, is there a chance that the NHL will change uniform sponsor soon? Nike seems an obvious choice after the winter Olympics

 

[El_Scorcho]

Nike would be worse than Reebok IMO.

Their world championships jerseys were not well received at all.

I think it would be a bit of an NFL situation where some teams would ask for basically no changes to be made, although Nike would get their hands on a few teams without a doubt.

The All Star jerseys are okay for All Star jerseys

 

[El_Scorcho]

On further looking, they look like motocross jerseys.

They'll still do the job though

 

[COHL]

NHL All-Star Game sweaters, courtesy of the NHL's Facebook page.

Response has not been great. I like the black and fluro green, but the crest with its chrome look (actually is screen printed plastic) is pretty average, as is the underarm striping.

6/10 from me.

 

[Bacon Warrior]

I've been meaning to ask for a year now, but with Reebok's rebranding, is there a chance that the NHL will change uniform sponsor soon? Nike seems an obvious choice after the winter Olympics

Heard a whisper that Adidas may put their logo on sweaters in the future. Nothing confirmed yet, though.

Also, as Scorch touched on, the template Nike used at the Olympics was not well received by fans or players, so there would be some s**t flying should the NHL award the next contract to Nike.

Yes. There are legal issues regarding Canada because of Federal laws there to protect their own league, CFL. Buffalo Bills had to get permission before playing some of their games in Toronto and many years ago the WFL tried to put a team in Toronto and were blocked by Canadian govt. If Buffalo had been sold to someone who was not adamant about keeping the Bills in upstate NY, for example, and tried outright to move the Bills to Toronto, the Argonauts (11% of the CFL; they only have 9 teams) would no doubt suffer and potentially risk the entire league.

Current NFL commish already stated London is on the NFL map in the future, and that announcement was made prior to the recent announcement about no team being allowed to move to LA for '15 season, so not only is London on the radar, but all of Europe is. I foresee an NFL with a Euro division (time zone and travel issues make it impractical to simply move the Jags to London), probably expanding the league to 40 teams, overall. My guess is within 10 years.

Thanks for the explanation. I always wondered why the NFL never had a Toronto team and had no idea the CFL was big enough to block any attempt.

This move into Europe is definitely interesting. A quick google tells me that the NFL has already tried establishing a league in Europe, but that collapsed back in 2007. I think any owner of a European-based team would need to have some serious balls to even attempt the move.

I'll be keeping an eye on this because this is definitely peaking my interest.

 

[Red Crow]

Current NFL commish already stated London is on the NFL map in the future, and that announcement was made prior to the recent announcement about no team being allowed to move to LA for '15 season, so not only is London on the radar, but all of Europe is. I foresee an NFL with a Euro division (time zone and travel issues make it impractical to simply move the Jags to London), probably expanding the league to 40 teams, overall. My guess is within 10 years.

Curious on your thoughts re: London. Do you think it actually is a viable long-term permanent location for a team? I'm not sure what the crowds are like that they get to the few games they play there (I think they're attended quite well though?), but do you think that is just a "theatre-goer" crowd or will it translate to full time dedicated support? Would it be more about TV viewers in the US?

 

[Jack Stevens]

Whale

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...um=referral&utm_campaign=programming-national

 

[Bryce_Jersey17]

Whale

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...um=referral&utm_campaign=programming-national

Star Wars night? I would've thought that'd be done in May

 

[El_Scorcho]

omg want