Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

I can't remember a time where the games were this unpleasant aesthetically. Now of course this isn't all the teams, many traditional franchises have carried into the Nike-ification quite nicely. Chicago, Pitt, KC, NYJ, Oakland, GB...the usual suspects still look great. But some of these other franchises have just flown off the handle into the depths of idiocy. I never thought I'd see so much neon on a football field. The Jaguars helmets and general look. The Falcons and their bush league mish mash. The Bucs, the Seahawks. The Cardinals were a huge tragedy. Plus silly monochrome looks that the Ravens and Saints bust out (enough of the black on black)

And then you have the awful strange neckline and discolored sweat boxes. Make the jersey look like a skintight bumpy patchwork mess

Now I realize a lot of this is function. Of course players want to wear tighter jerseys which gives the opposition less of a chance to grab them by the jersey to hold or slow them down. That's all well and good but it just looks terrible. I can't stand seeing Larry Fitzgerald in his spandex tanktop when I'd much rather be looking at something like this Imagine that. Enough room on the sleeve for non truncated stripes AND a Cardinal bird.

To answer the question, yes.

We have this discussion (old forums now) every year when teams change logos or uniforms, pretty much everyone agrees about the bad save for one or two (we don't all have to think the same) who will disagree and that'll carry the thread.

Long story short, they're bad. BFBS is bad, most of the logo changes have been for the worse, ruining tradition(s), etc ...

Not to mention the new Bucs are an absolute joke.

ChrisBabcock wrote:Not to mention the new Bucs are an absolute joke.

I liked their post 1996 uni's. Looked like a nice marriage of the old 9ers and Raiders uniform. Why they got rid of it...who knows.

I liked their post 1996 uni's. Looked like a nice marriage of the old 9ers and Raiders uniform. Why they got rid of it...who knows.

I think their 1996-2013 unis were one of the best in the league.

ChrisBabcock wrote:

I liked their post 1996 uni's. Looked like a nice marriage of the old 9ers and Raiders uniform. Why they got rid of it...who knows.

I think their 1996-2013 unis were one of the best in the league.

That uni was fine and I also liked their creamsicle uni a lot.
Bucco Bruce could have been toughened up a bit but it was one of my favorites.

We've reached a new low for another reason... the presence of (non-NFL) advertising on uniforms.

The nike "swoosh" on the shoulders is just the beginning (of the end). It won't be long till NFL uniforms look like NASCAR's.

ChrisBabcock wrote:

I liked their post 1996 uni's. Looked like a nice marriage of the old 9ers and Raiders uniform. Why they got rid of it...who knows.

I think their 1996-2013 unis were one of the best in the league.

The Bucs changed their uniforms in 1997. 1996 was the last year of the creamsicles.

JuggernautJ wrote:We've reached a new low for another reason... the presence of (non-NFL) advertising on uniforms.

The nike "swoosh" on the shoulders is just the beginning (of the end). It won't be long till NFL uniforms look like NASCAR's.

That is not new. Puma, Apex One, Reebok and Champion have advertised on NFL uniforms in the past.

They should play night games with real neon uniforms, or phosphorescent, fluorescent. Turn off the lights and play under black light illumination , with a white or neon green uniform Glow in the dark games would attract a new audience completely. The numbers and names would remain black.