Some comments from Ross and Bush about team, stadium and uni.

Tampa Bay

 

Sigh...another off season uniform thread.

Well since i already replied, back to thefuture for me...all white all the time.

 

See, I was unaware that we now needed to write a thesis every time we had an opinion around here.....its not appealing to my eyes. Its two lines going across the side of a helmet in the vague shape of a dolphin. It looks like it was conceived and drawn all in about 90 seconds.
Good enough for you, professor or do you need more?

 

You are the one that is sounding offended. Is it really that bad to be asked to explain an opinion?

Thank you for the explanation. Now I understand your point more.

 

IMO, the only time since the mid 60s that a major uniform change was sorely needed and has been a marked improvement. Those old creamsicle orange Bucs unis were hideous. IMO.
The other two major changes that come to mind, the Pats and Broncos, were neither one any improvement at all. Instead much worse, IMO. In fact, to me the Pats throwbacks are the 2nd best uniforms after the Dolphins throwbacks.

 

Pats new logo is pretty terrible. It is so generic and hard to tell what it is.

I disagree with the Bucs. I miss the creamsicles. Their new uniform and logos make them look like wannabe Raiders. I think they could have kept the color scheme with making a stronger logo. Just like the Dolphins logo, that guy was way too cartoony.

 

While I agree that NE's new logo is nothing special, their old one was even worse. I liked the Broncos new logo about as much as their old logo. Tampa Bay's uni change I saw as a vast improvement.

 

Totally disagree. Pat Patriot was a cool very well thought out and designed logo IMO. The dude dressed in 1776 style clothes, in a center stance, what's not to like?

 

IMO, the Bucs could have kept the same logo and totally changed their color scheme and been better off. I think their current colors are among the sharpest in the league. It would have looked as good to me, had they just kept and recolored the old logo to go with it, though the new logo seems fine too. So many teams had orange, and when a team has a shade that looks basically washed out, it just wasn't good, or for me, that easy to read the numbers. Especially if the unis got really muddy or dirty, or the other extreme, the bright glare from the sun reflected on them. I have only ever seen them on TV though, and maybe in person one would form a different opinion.

 

FTR:
Combined Super Bowl wins of the Pats, Bucs & Broncos before their logo/color change: 0
Combined Super Bowl wins of the Pats, Bucs & Broncos after their logo/color change: 6

I'm not saying they won because of the changes....but I'm just saying.........

 

Good, because they didn't.

 

But it does prove, it doesn't hurt.

Again, just saying........

 

Not at all. In fact, its all been tongue-in-cheek and sarcastic for.
Except for my orginal post about the logo being hideous. Thats is still my opinion on the matter.

 

I always felt it looked like a cartoon figure waiting to take it up the *ss. So IMO improving on that wasn't too difficult. But you know, different strokes for different folks.

 

You could make an argument that it did help win. Changes often energize a team and improved energy contributes to winning. Not all change is good of course, but alternatively not all change is bad either.

 

Hey if that's all it takes to get two SB wins what are we waiting for?

 

If I'm not mistaken the SB wins came pretty quick after the changes too.

 

Obviously, that's not all it takes, but IMO it doesn't hurt and it might actually help a little. That wouldn't be the reason you do it. I'd imagine the reason would be to energize the fan base and increase merchandise revenue, but I really don't see much of a downside other than few old-timers averse to change being miffed. You have to figure that most of the fan base doesn't associate the current logo with tradition and winning. They just see a cartoon dolphin that appears to be wearing one of those protective helmets the mentally handicapped wear.

 

Usually the uni change would be around the same time as other changes like maybe when a new regime, coaches and starting QB come in. Hmm, I wonder if any team is going through something like that...?

 

The only changes IMO that will lead to more wins are better talent and/or better coaching. Of course it's more or less a moot point since it cannot be proven, but I totally believe the 3 teams would have won the same games in their old unis. After all the unis didn't give them any super magic powers that helped them be better players.

 

Seems like the Pats changed in the early 90s. I remember they had the current unis when Parcells coached them and they lost the SB to GB. I do not recall Bledsoe being on the team when they still had the old ones. Seems like Tampa changed over in the mid 90s, about the time Dungy took over and/or about the time they drafted Sapp and Brooks.
I'd estimate the Broncos were the team closest between the time of new unis and a SB win.

Edit: Pats changed in 1993. Bucs and Broncos changed in 1997

 

Oakland Raiders? You really think they'll make a change huh? Now that old Al is dead and all?

 

If that's all it takes, heck teams could just change to new unis every decade and it would be a sure fire guarantee that they'd have at least 2 Sb wins in the coming ten years. Now that we know the secret, let's jump on that idea! How the heck did teams like the Packers, Colts, Giants etc win without a uniform makeover? They must of made a deal with satan!!!

 

I doubt that any objective person would argue that the team being energized by a change wouldn't contribute to winning. I also doubt that any objective person would argue that changing uniforms won't energize at least some of the players.

 

Funny, but it does bring up an important point. I have heard of people who said they became Raider fans b/c they liked the logo as a kid. I've never heard anybody say that about the Dolphins. The reasons I hear from Dolphin fans are the colors, the mascot and Marino (that's why it would be stupid to make orange a primary). I've also heard non-Raider fans say they like the Raider's logo. I don't hear non-Dolphin fans say they like the Dolphin's logo. But I have heard many non-Dolphin fans laugh at the Dolphin's logo. Even among Dolphin fans, I would say it's at best 50/50 for those who want a change and those who don't. Basically the Dolphin's logo is probably an impediment to fandom rather than something that fans are proud of.

 

Really? People became fans of Miami for the green-aqua? I doubt it, seriously. Orange > aqua-green. There's no good reason to keep teal (that's what it is) around.

 

Sure, I've heard several people say that. Aqua is a unique color. Teal is fairly common, but that's not what is listed as the official color. Orange, on the other hand, is very common. And IMO, ugly. Officially the color isn't orange either, it's coral. At least that was what it was originally.

 

I guess it depends on how much you believe changing the uniforms will energize a team. If the players lack the talent they can be energized til the cows come home and it won't make any difference in wins and losses. I also honestly find it hard to believe that any pro athlete will look at a new uniform, such as a Bucs player between 1996 and 97, and say to himself my god, this red and pewter uniform makes me feel so much more energized, I think I'll go out and play much better now.

 

The Jags uniform color is teal. The Dolphins is aqua. Although the shade of aqua has varied over the years.

 

Well anyone who became fans primarily because of a team's logo is probably a pretty simple fan anyway. I know people who liked the Dolphins logo as a kid. I know people who started liking the Dolphins as a kid because they like the tv show Flipper. I really can't say that I know anyone who became a fan of any team mainly due to the logo. If I were such a fan, I'd sure never admit it, unless I wanted to look like a fool.
I don't care really if non-Dolphins fans like our logo or not. Though it's a question I do not recall ever feeling compelled to ask. I have also never heard anyone literally laugh at the Dolphins logo.
So you agree 50% of the fans do not want a change. The 50% that do, very likely cannot agree among themselves what the change should be, so the 50% who don't want change are likely the largest percentage.

 

Businesses are always looking to energize their workforce b/c it leads to better productivity. Team sports are really no different. And no pro athlete would think of it in the way you put it, but all humans will work harder at things they enjoy and feel positive about. The uniform is part of that. I certainly recall being excited when we got our game uniforms on teams I've played on. And I see the kids I've coached have similar reactions when they get their uniforms. Pros are no different. Just this year you heard many positive comments from the Heat players when the new black uniforms were introduced. It's not a magic bullet, but a uniform change would most likely be another positive. I don't really see a negative unless the new unis take away something valuable like the aqua color. I don't see the logo as one of the things that attracts fans so I wouldn't count that as something that adds value.

 

I said it was at best 50/50. That was a guess not an agreement, but in reality I rarely hear people say anything positive about the logo. I have heard people openly laugh at it and I have heard Dolphin fans say they don't care for it.

 

One thing I think you and I can agree on regarding this topic, is we are never going to agree. If up to me I'd either leave it alone, or do something minor like remove the navy stripes and the shading on the numbers. You prefer some sort of change more extreme then that. DSFDF.

 

Agreed. I could care less about navy stripe or the shading. In fact, I barely notice them. As for the logo and the uniform, I would say that most don't care for them. I've seen various polls over the years and Miami is almost always in the bottom half of the league. I've seen maybe one or two ever who listed Miami among the best. You have a few teams who are almost always at the bottom, Cleveland, Tennessee and Buffalo come to mind. Miami's aren't generally thought of as bad as those, but we're rarely thought well of. And when there are positive comments it generally references how well the colors aqua and coral reflect Miami. I can't recall any body ever singling out the logo as a positive. On the other hand I can recall numerous cases where the logo was mocked.

 

I am not a fan of Tennesee's logo. For one it looks like the mascot should be the Comets.

 

The baby blue is turrible as well. I can't stand any logo/uni with baby blue in it.

 

The colors and the mammal are the reasons a lot of 8 to 10 year old kids became fans back in the 60's/70's...

 

Funny, but that's the same way I always feel when I see Rex Ryan

 

I guess what it comes down to for me is that I don't really like logo changes.
I don't mind uniform or even color scheme changes, but usually a logo change ends up not being as good.
If you look at any of the significant logo changes of the last 20 years, none of them have been successful, IMO.



This one is probably a push and could go either way, but I'd give a slight edge to the old one.



I love the old Broncos logo and have never really cared for the new logo or uniforms. Edge to the old.



This is the easiest choice to make. The old Patriots logo is a classic and never should have been scrapped. Big edge to the old.



This is the lone win for the new logos. But really, how could you not improve ol' Buccaneer Bruce or whatever he was called. Edge to the new

So I'm all for a uniform change, even maybe slight color scheme change.
But I'm opposed to anything other than a slight tweak to the logo.

 

You have to get with the times. Some people like the traditional classical look, but eventually those people die. Sorry, it is a fact of life, and the team's image has to be well represented with the current fanbase. That is why the logo changes. Some were generated that don't need a change, as they were basic and not too detailed, Steelers, Colts, etc.

The old DEN you posted looks like it was drawn in MS Paint. The Patriot is not a logo, it is a detailed drawing. Since when do logos have that much detail? Plus, you can't market that nowadays. The Buc looked like a gay pirate (not that there is anything wrong with that) again was too detailed for logo. Why don't we just get a line art portrait of Don Shula for ours?

Ultimately, all of the ones you posted needed upgrades imo. But, it is also my opinion that our currently logo is fine.