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

NFL Going Color vs. Color for Thursday-Night Games

The Packers held their annual shareholders meeting yesterday. They confirmed the legitimacy of the throwback uniform that we discussed here yesterday (it’ll be worn on Oct. 18 against the Chargers), but the real news came from team CEO Mark Murphy, who revealed that the NFL will begin dabbling with color vs. color for its Thursday-night games. This is apparently what came of the rumors and proposals that I reported on last October, when there was word that the Thursday games might feature throwbacks or new alternates.

Murphy said the color on color initiative will be voluntary in 2015 and become mandatory in 2016. He said the Packers have opted not to participate this season, which means they’ll wear white on the road for their Thursday-night game in Detroit on Dec. 3. It’s not yet clear whether other teams on this season’s Thursday-night schedule will opt in or out. NFL teams normally have to declare which jersey they’ll be wearing for each game in late July (i.e., right about now).

The graphic accompanying Murphy’s speech (see above) didn’t just show color vs. color — it showed mono vs. mono. That’s a bold way to sell the concept, but many NFL teams can’t go mono even if they want to because they don’t have matching jerseys and pants in their wardrobes.

Here’s a look at this season’s Thursday-night schedule. Teams listed in italics have the ability to go mono if they choose to; an asterisk indicates that the team can only go mono by wearing its alternate jersey:

Sept. 17: Broncos* vs. Chiefs
Sept. 24: Washington vs. Giants
Oct. 1: Ravens* vs. Steelers
Oct. 8: Colts vs. Texans
Oct. 15: Falcons vs. Saints
Oct. 22: Seahawks vs. 49ers*
Oct. 29: Dolphins vs. Patriots
Nov. 5: Browns vs. Bengals
Nov. 12: Bills vs. Jets
Nov. 19: Titans vs. Jaguars
Dec. 3: Packers vs. Lions
Dec. 10: Vikings vs. Cardinals
Dec. 17: Buccaneers vs. Rams
Dec. 24: Chargers vs. Raiders

So out of 14 games, seven of them could conceivably be mono vs. mono, although that would require some unusual moves, like the Ravens wearing their black alts on the road and the Pats going mono-blue, both of which seem unlikely.

A few additional notes:

•  The very first Thursday-night game of the season, Broncos/Chiefs on Sept. 17, could be messy. Orange vs. red — ugh. Kinda figuring Denver, the road team, will exercise its 2015 option to wear white for that game. (Of course, the Broncos could also wear their blue alts, although that seems unlikely for a road game.)

•  What happens if the Colts and Texans want to go color vs. color on Oct. 8? They can’t both wear blue, so the Texans would have to wear their red alts.

•  I’m assuming the Chargers/Raiders game on Dec. 24 will not be color vs. color, since that would set up a navy vs. black game. (I suppose the Chargers could wear their powder blues, but they’re the road team, so that would be an unusual move.)

•  The Vikes/Cards game on Dec. 10 has the potential to be one of the more unsightly NFL games in recent memory. Grape Ape vs. blood clot — woof.

•  Interesting to see that the Cowboys aren’t on the Thursday-night schedule this season. If they play on Thursday night in 2016, and the if the color vs. color program truly does become mandatory, they might be forced to wear blue at home!

•  Lots of people emailed and tweeted at me yesterday to say things like, “What do they do when the Giants play the Bills?” I’m figuring they just won’t schedule a game like that for Thursday night, although I suppose a more conspiracy-minded observer might assume that teams will suddenly unveil “clash jerseys” for such occasions.

•  A few years ago Phil had a good assessment of how color vs. color could work in the NFL. Check that out here.

And what do I think of all this? I have three main thoughts:

1. I’ve long been on record as being in favor of color vs. color. I don’t think white jerseys should be eliminated, mind you, but I think they can just be part of the mix without any requirement for one team to be wearing white in a given game. So I like the idea of more color vs. color in the NFL.

2. That said, I don’t like the idea of creating a separate category of games with their own uniform protocol. Feels too calculated, too gimmicky, and it gives the Thursday games something of a sideshow feel, like they’re not as official as Sunday games. Just allow color vs. color games throughout the league and be done with it.

3. I hate the mono-color look, which invariably feels more like a costume than a uniform. If this Thursday initiative leads to more mono — and it probably will — I’m not gonna be a happy camper. On the other hand, maybe mono will disappear from Sunday games and be ghetto-ized into the Thursday-night program. I’d be more okay with that.

• • • • •

It’s that time of year again: August is fast approaching, which means it’s almost time for my annual summer break.

For those of you who are new to the site, it works like this: I will basically disappear from the site for the month of August. Phil will be in charge and will handle the weekday content. Webmaster John Ekdahl will handle the weekends (beginning this Saturday). Brinke will still be doing Collector’s Corner on Tuesdays, and Mike will still be doing the Ticker several days a week and will also still do the Question of the Week. He might also contribute a lede entry or two.

As for me, I’ll be taking a short vacation from Aug. 5-11, but for the most part I’ll be around. I’ll still be working on ESPN stuff, including a big, fun project that should drop in mid-August (more on that later) and the annual college football season preview. Phil will link to my ESPN work while I’m away from the site, of course.

I’ll also make cameo appearances to preview and launch the next Uni Watch T-Shirt Club design (which should be a doozy), and I might also drop in here or there if circumstances warrant. Mostly, though, I’ll be keeping my distance from the site. Mega-plus-thanks to Phil, John, Mike, and Brinke for picking up the slack while I recharge my batteries.

• • • • •

Baseball News: Reader Jesse Gavin is covering the Iowa State Baseball Tournament and has noticed a few things, including an increasing number of players with their top jersey buttons unbuttoned; a school with white lettering on a white jersey; a school with three different logos on its cap, sleeve, and back; and a school with gorgeous Northwestsern-striped stirrups. ”¦ Horrific pink camouflage last night for the Morehead City Marlins. ”¦ The Nationals will have an ’80s Night promotion on Aug. 29, featuring a giveaway Rubik’s Cube (from Andrew Hoenig). ”¦ The old story about Hawk Harrelson being the first player to wear a batting glove, which I used to believe myself, has now been debunked many times over. Case in point: Here’s an old Boston Bees photo showing a player — not sure who — wearing an early batting glove. Anyone know who that is? (Photo from David Fitzgerald.) ”¦ After I tweeted that photo last night, Todd Radom responded with a this shot of another Bees player, Tony Cuccinello, also wearing a glove. Must’ve been a team thing. ”¦ Pirates P Charlie Morton is the latest MLBer to wear mismatched shades of grey. Just FYI, yes, I realize it’s caused by sweat, especially when CoolBase jerseys are involved. But it’s still noteworthy. ”¦ Marty Buccafusco noticed that new Hall of Fame inductee John Smoltz’s plaque shows him wearing a jersey without a headspoon. By contrast, the headspoon is shown in on the plaques of Tom Glavine and Bobby Cox. Marty suspects that the Smoltz rendering was based on a photo from his brief tenure with the Cardinals (which, frankly, I had completely forgotten about). ”¦ Someone at Camden Yards last night was wearing an Orioles/Braves Frankenjersey. “I actually saw him walking around but didn’t want to be weird and ask for a Uni Watch photo,” says Andrew Cosentino. “Glad to see someone else photographed him — thanks, social media!” ”¦ The new minor league franchise in Columbia, S.C., will announce its name and logo next Tuesday. ”¦ I’m all for high-cuffery (duh), but this type of radical hosiery inconsistency needs to stop. … The Red Sox retired Pedro Martinez’s No. 45 last night.

NFL News: The 49ers will wear a “79” memorial decal this season for Bob St. Clair (from Josh Hill). ”¦ The Lions will wear a Charlie Sanders memorial decal this season (from Justin Barsotta). ”¦ A bunch of seats at FedEx Field have been removed. Here’s what’s taking their place (from Tommy Turner).

College Football News: Jim Harbaugh says Michigan will not have an alternate jersey this season. Also: No more legends jerseys — instead, the legends numbers will be retired (from Jeremy Troia and Phil, respectively). ”¦ New unis for UNLV (from Sage Simmons).

Hockey News: An auto dealer in Chicago uses the old North Stars logo (thanks, Mike). ”¦ New 60th-anniversary logo for the Rochester Americans (from Andrew Schmitt). ”¦ The San Diego Gulls’ new uniforms were leaked via a video game (from Tod Hess).

Soccer News: Many soccer players are now wearing GPS devices. ”¦ The MLS Homegrown Game was last night, and check out all the tribple-digit uni numbers for the Club America U-20 team. Here’s a photo showing one of the numbers (from Phillip Foose and Phil, respectively).

Grab Bag: A corn maze in Indiana has a Purdue theme. ”¦ Cincinnati Enquirer columnist Paul Daugherty has given his take on the new Chuck Taylors (from Patrick O’Neill). ”¦ Can’t recall if we’ve seen this before, but here are 50 state license plates, redesigned (from Andrew Rader). ”¦ Here’s a piece on hidden meanings in well-known brand logos. “I didn’t know that was the Golden Gate Bridge in the Cisco logo, and I live here,” says Brinke. ”¦ New athletics logos for the University of Hartford. Additional info here (from Caleb Mezzy). ”¦ Arnold Palmer enlisted in the Coast Guard in 1950 as a Yeoman and continued to serve until 1953. Here are two shots of him in his Coast Guard uniform (from Douglas Ford). ”¦ There’s a bit of a kerfuffle about the newly released logo for the 2020 Tokyo Olympics, which some folks think was plagiarized. ”¦ Whiz kid golfer Jordan Spieth turned 22 the other day, and Under Armour marked the occasion by sending him a bunch of golf balls emblazoned with happy-birthday tweets from his followers.

92 comments to NFL Going Color vs. Color for Thursday-Night Games

  • Dale | July 29, 2015 at 7:47 am |

    I beliueve under the current system in place for Thursday night games, you shouldn’t see a Bills v Giants game anyway, as they are supposed to be divisional games.

    • Paul Lukas | July 29, 2015 at 7:56 am |

      Ah, good point — I’d forgotten that the Thursday games were reserved for intra-division match-ups.

      • Pat Davis | July 29, 2015 at 10:00 am |

        Most, not all games are divisional. Min/Ari & TB/StL aren’t divisional, nor was Chi/Dal last year.

    • Rob | July 30, 2015 at 10:19 am |

      Don’t the Giants have red alternate jerseys still? That would eliminate any issues of blue on blue if they played the Bills.

  • Blake | July 29, 2015 at 8:18 am |

    Going from the graphic- is there talk of the Redskins switching to gold numbers?

    • Paul Lukas | July 29, 2015 at 9:20 am |

      No.

    • Phil Hecken | July 29, 2015 at 9:20 am |

      Highly doubtful. That’s a horrible graphic, ripped straight from a Nike pro combat ad (and reversed for one of the models).

      I’m sure it was shown just to give an example of how color vs. color (or in this case, monochrome vs. monochrome) could look. Surprised they even put helmets on the players, but it probably added a *bit* of authenticity to it.

      Paul can probably confirm, but I wouldn’t expect any changes to the ‘skins unis (on another note, their throwbacks do feature gold numbers, but that’s not what’s depicted in the graphic).

  • Lindsay Resnick | July 29, 2015 at 8:19 am |

    How come sometimes (like today) you add everyone’s names who submitted to the ticker, but other times (like yesterday) only some people are credited?

    To be clear: I haven’t submitted anything for a while so it’s not about me personally, I’ve just always wondered that. Is there a system?

    • Paul Lukas | July 29, 2015 at 9:22 am |

      Some things are there because I found them myself, so there’s nobody else to be credited.

      If someone tweets something at me and I link to his/her tweet, I don’t list a credit, because the person’s Twitter handle is right there to see.

      • Lindsay Resnick | July 29, 2015 at 5:34 pm |

        Ah, OK. I didn’t realize it was a division based on twitter/no twitter. Thanks for the explanation!

  • Jim in TN | July 29, 2015 at 8:24 am |

    Not always. Vikings-Cards and Bucs-Rams are inter division games.

  • Dumb Guy | July 29, 2015 at 8:29 am |

    RE: Hidden meanings in well-known brand logos……..

    “Hidden” seems to be the wrong word in most cases.
    “An explanation” is more fitting.

    Most are boring and forced:
    “The BBC logo uses bold typeface to effectively denote its power and superiority over the competitors.”

    ???

    Aaalllrighty then.

    • marc | July 29, 2015 at 10:02 am |

      Many contain interesting facts for those not familiar with logo design. There’s definitely some clunkers though. 3M was especially bad:

      “The 3M logo consists of an overlap of the characters, ‘3’ and ‘M,’ stimulated [sic] by super-tight kerning.”

      Oof.

    • marc | July 29, 2015 at 10:09 am |

      There’s one on that site for a Moby Dick book cover detail in which the lower half of the “M” forms a whale tail in negative space bringing to mind – of course – the Hartford Whalers logo (conspicuously absent, btw).

    • Rob S | July 29, 2015 at 12:04 pm |

      I found the NBC entry to be particularly laughable. Plus, it’d be nice if they’d actually explained what brand is being presented for more than just a few entries. Searching for “truce logo” rather quickly reveals that it’s a vodka brand, but a couple others have stymied me. Eight? Minimum? What are these?

  • Randy | July 29, 2015 at 8:39 am |

    Regarding the Boston Bees players with batting gloves:

    Just a quick glance through baseball reference player photos from the Bees, here is my best guess at the ID’s of the two glove-wearing players:

    https://scontent-lga1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/11695746_10155773287085655_799286923198095051_n.jpg?oh=caa82153cba6721265c32688450f895c&oe=560F39F3
    I think is Chet Ross.
    http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/rossch01.shtml

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CLCrhqbXAAAruQu.jpg:large
    I think is Tony Cuccinello.
    http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/cuccito01.shtml

    Those players at least look similar to the players in the corresponding photos. Again, this is purely a guess on my part.

    • Clarybird | July 29, 2015 at 1:12 pm |

      I’m pretty sure those batting gloves were driving gloves.

      • Paul Lukas | July 29, 2015 at 1:41 pm |

        Well, yeah. But they’re being used as batting gloves.

        • Clarybird | July 29, 2015 at 3:15 pm |

          Well, yeah, I wasn’t implying they weren’t being used as batting gloves – just pointing out that they were driving gloves being repurposed. Who knows, maybe those players did double-duty and also drove the team bus.

          Picking a nit: In the Grab Bag section, the word “columnist” is missing the “m”.

        • Paul Lukas | July 29, 2015 at 4:56 pm |

          Pointing out a typo isn’t nitpicking. Typos are mistakes, and mistakes should be fixed (and this one now has been), so thank you.

  • Tony C. | July 29, 2015 at 8:42 am |

    doubled up on the W’s in “The 49ers wwill wear a “79” memorial decal this season for Bob St. Clair (from Josh Hill)”

  • The Jeff | July 29, 2015 at 8:51 am |

    So the NFL is finally listening to me. YES!

    • Dumb Guy | July 29, 2015 at 10:10 am |

      Can’t wait for the day the NFL issues a “The” memorial decal.

      ;^)

  • Pesky | July 29, 2015 at 9:06 am |

    Does the opening game, Pats v. Steelers not count as a Thursday night game, despite being played on a Thursday? Hard to envision this match up in mono-color.

    • Lance Smith | July 29, 2015 at 9:18 am |

      I think not. It’s a different network (NBC) than the other Thursday night games (CBS and the NFL network). It doesn’t appear on the NFL’s Thursday Night Football page. Must be its own thing.

    • Paul Lukas | July 29, 2015 at 9:28 am |

      No, that’s not considered part of the TNF program. The TNF games are broadcast by CBS and the NFL Network. Those games are listed here: http://www.nfl.com/tnf

    • Anthony Verna | July 29, 2015 at 9:56 am |

      Nope.

      It’s officially a “Sunday Night Football” game (notice the quotations for the television show title) that will probably be called “Sunday Night NFL Kickoff” or something like that.

  • Kibab1979 | July 29, 2015 at 9:07 am |

    I have a hard time believing Ravens/Steelers would go color-on-color with purple vs. black. And, at the very least, there is no way the Ravens could go mono black in the game.

    • The Jeff | July 29, 2015 at 9:24 am |

      Purple vs Bumblebee is doable, if horribly ugly.

      • Phil Hecken | July 29, 2015 at 9:28 am |

        No.

      • marc | July 29, 2015 at 9:51 am |

        I know it won’t happen since Thursday games are inter-division, but imagine a game between the Steelers in the bumblebees against a throwback Broncos squad in vertical stripe socks. The pileups would look plaid.

    • jedi54 | July 29, 2015 at 11:45 am |

      That would be awesome!!!!

  • Hank-SJ | July 29, 2015 at 9:09 am |

    Wouldn’t those seat/section covers at FedEx Field cause tons of obstructed views?

    • ChrisH | July 29, 2015 at 12:59 pm |

      If the virtual view of FedEx Field is accurate, the sides of those seat covers/boxes aren’t solid and the entire field is still visible:

      http://redskins.io-media.com/web/index.html#

    • The Jeff | July 29, 2015 at 1:16 pm |

      Given the state of the Redskins, that’s probably a feature, not a bug.

    • terriblehuman | July 29, 2015 at 1:42 pm |

      Looks like they won’t be able to see the goalposts for sure, and possibly the end zone as well.

  • walter | July 29, 2015 at 9:10 am |

    Simply declaring a color-on-color game does not make much sense, certainly without regard to similarity of opponents’ uniforms. Would you want to watch the Steelers play the Raiders, dark on dark? The 49ers and the Redskins? On the other hand, Chiefs(red) vs. Broncos(blue) seems like a sweet pairing, providing one of the teams remembers the white pants.

    • The Jeff | July 29, 2015 at 9:23 am |

      A few teams need some work, obviously. The Steelers get a yellow alt, Oakland silver, etc. The NFL will figure that out by next season… or they’ll change their minds about the whole thing after everyone whines about the red/orange KC/Denver game.

    • Paul Lukas | July 29, 2015 at 9:28 am |

      It’s interesting how many people forget that the Broncos’ primary color is now orange, not blue.

      • walter | July 29, 2015 at 9:48 am |

        I know, I’m trying to mentally block out the new Broncos’ orange jersey; a singularly unattractive shirt, IMHO.

        • Dumb Guy | July 29, 2015 at 10:11 am |

          Agreed.

        • Phil Hecken | July 29, 2015 at 10:31 am |

          you misspelled “awesome”*

          *The color, that is, not the jersey — that’s been a trainwreck since it was first intro’ed in the 90s.

          But the Broncos belong in orange, not navy (or royal, though royal is preferable to navy).

      • Vee63 | July 29, 2015 at 11:41 am |

        I love the orange look but still find it surprising as I would think the blue jersey would be a better seller and I guess this would be a big factor in the choice. Was there ever an explanation for the switch?

    • walter | July 29, 2015 at 11:47 am |

      The kernel of the issue, it appears, is that just because you can do something doesn’t necessarily mean you ought to do it.

      • Paul Lukas | July 29, 2015 at 11:54 am |

        Which is pretty much the state of the uni-verse in a nutshell.

    • terriblehuman | July 29, 2015 at 1:50 pm |

      Thursday night games (not including season openers and Thanksgiving Day) are *usually* divisional games so that’ll prevent most of the possible clashes. Here are the most obvious cases:
      Bills vs Patriots
      The whole frickin AFC North, really
      Titans vs Colts vs Texans
      Chargers vs Raiders
      Broncos vs Chiefs
      Cowboys vs Giants
      Falcons vs Bucs
      Panthers vs Saints
      Bears vs Vikings
      Bears vs Lions
      Rams vs Seahawks
      49ers vs Cardinals

      • The Jeff | July 29, 2015 at 2:19 pm |

        Like I said above, a few teams need some work.

        Looking at your list…

        Bills vs Patriots – blue vs silver or blue vs red(throwback)
        The whole frickin AFC North, really – black/brown/purple vs orange, add a yellow alt for Pittsburgh
        Titans vs Colts vs Texans – Texans wear red, Titans wear mono-powder
        Chargers vs Raiders – powder blue vs black or navy vs silver
        Broncos vs Chiefs – navy vs red
        Cowboys vs Giants – Giants wear red
        Falcons vs Bucs – black vs red or Bucs in creamsicles
        Panthers vs Saints – light blue vs black or black vs gold
        Bears vs Vikings – Bears in orange
        Bears vs Lions – Lions in silver, or Bears in orange
        Rams vs Seahawks – Seahawks in gray or a neon green alt, or the Rams need a gold alt
        49ers vs Cardinals – black vs red, or add a gold 49ers alt

        The NFL needs to drop the one-helmet crap to allow for proper throwback options and a few teams need new alternate jerseys, but most conceivable matchups in the league could be done if they wanted to.

  • CAB | July 29, 2015 at 9:13 am |

    Paul, just a formatting thing. On my phone, ALL the team names are in italics. On the laptop I can see some in italics and some not. I’m sure that’s a formatting issue for the mobile site. Don’t know if you can fix that or if you even want to, just an FYI.

  • Jason M (DC) | July 29, 2015 at 9:14 am |

    I don’t understand why the color-vs-color rule has to be mandatory. What about the Cowboys, who we know prefer their white jersey as their primary jersey? Does that mean their white jersey counts as their “color” jersey? I doubt it.

    I like that they’re allowing color-vs-color. I just think that they’re over-legislating by making it mandatory. Let the teams decide. They should just follow the soccer rules. From what I understand, the soccer teams use their primary jerseys. In the case where the two are similar, the away team uses the alternate “kit.” (Correct me if I’m wrong.) In this case, the away team would wear white or their alternate jersey.

    • The Jeff | July 29, 2015 at 9:37 am |

      Yeah, that’s how it should be, but the NFL can’t do anything without screwing it up in some way. It’s what they do.

  • marc | July 29, 2015 at 9:38 am |

    Hey Paul… quick question. You mention the lack of a “headspoon” on John Smoltz’s plaque. Honestly, that’s the first time I’ve ever seen that word. I checked the UW glossary (no luck), but then thought “Hey… it’s GOTTA be because the jersey piping forms a spoon-shape around the wearer’s head!” I went back and checked the plaque photo again and it kinda looks like there might be piping there (albeit VERY faint). If there is piping and my guess is wrong, then what the heck is a “headspoon?”

    • Paul Lukas | July 29, 2015 at 9:44 am |

      Yes, that’s what it means/is. Thought it was in the glossary — I’ll add it.

      • marc | July 29, 2015 at 10:02 am |

        Thanks!

  • Sean Robbns | July 29, 2015 at 9:50 am |

    Oh, that would be sweet if the Chargers would wear the powder blues against the Raiders! That would be a beautiful looking game!

    • marc | July 29, 2015 at 9:52 am |

      Chargers in powder blue vs Raiders in white with silver numbers would look great too.

  • Jerry | July 29, 2015 at 9:57 am |

    Is it a pipe dream, that the Nationals will dress as the Expos for their ’80’s night? One can hope, right?

  • JimWa | July 29, 2015 at 10:06 am |

    I would hope that any color v. color mandate would also allow for softening of the alternate uniform usage rule (2 times max per season). I don’t see it fair to tell teams they can only use an alternate 2 times per season … then mention, by the way … in week X when you’re playing team Y, you’d probably be best off wearing uniform Z.”

    • tbone | July 29, 2015 at 10:34 am |

      Agreed. They will almost have to do that, or they will have to schedule Thursday Night games specifically with uniform combinations in mind. You’re just going to have too many ugly no-option games otherwise.

  • Colonel Will | July 29, 2015 at 10:49 am |

    Not only is that Orioles/Braves Markakis Frankenjersey stupid & ugly, but at least the Orioles half is a bootleg.

    • duker | July 29, 2015 at 12:43 pm |

      Well you wouldn’t want to cut up a non-bootleg Orioles jersey.

  • Tim | July 29, 2015 at 11:05 am |

    Stirrups with Stripes
    http://static.seattletimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/07282015-MsDBacks_17-1560×1377.jpg

    Full color sox, no stripes
    http://static.seattletimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/07282015-MsDBacks_14-1560×1702.jpg

    Zunino’s high cuff is a slumpbuster tactic, IMHO. He’s been high cuffed the last few games, coinciding with his 8 game hitting streak and pushing his average up by some 23 points.

  • Joe | July 29, 2015 at 11:10 am |

    Does anyone know what “DirecTV Extension” was referring to in the chart on Thursday Night Football?

    • jedi54 | July 29, 2015 at 11:51 am |

      Direct TV had to finalize a new “Sunday Ticket” contract with the NFL. With that done, it helped the purchase of Direct TV by AT&T. AT&T wanted that done before it would assume control of Direct TV.

  • Eric Romain | July 29, 2015 at 11:41 am |

    Those license plate concepts have been posted before because I recall loving a lot of those designs. I think I talk about plate aesthetics as much as uniforms, though sports uni design isn’t in as dire straits as license plates.

    Nothing beats a stamped, legible, 2 color, iconic plate with a simple state slogan.

    • SoCalDrew | July 29, 2015 at 5:52 pm |

      The design for Massachusetts is certainly way better than what we currently have!

  • Winter | July 29, 2015 at 11:49 am |

    In reference to the mono color thing– (if they decide to mandat mono, rather than just color)

    A) Packers ever worn green pants? Or yellow jerseys?

    B) does white jerseys/white pants count as mono? If so, I think the Colts in all white should qualify, as that’s the best “one color” look in the league.

    • The Jeff | July 29, 2015 at 12:16 pm |

      The Packers have done both, including mono-green and mono-yellow… in the 50’s. In the modern era, no.

  • McSean | July 29, 2015 at 11:57 am |

    Apostrophe Catastrophe on the Mass plate.

  • Neil C. | July 29, 2015 at 12:11 pm |

    The missing headspoon on Smoltz’ HOF plaque could be taken from a photo of him in the Braves road alt.

    • TIm | July 29, 2015 at 12:50 pm |

      I hate the Dolphins, but those unis are nice. Much better than the crap they wear currently.

    • yosef777 | July 29, 2015 at 2:31 pm |

      Love the Dolphins throwbacks (btw, I don’t hate the new ones) wish they were still rocking those full time . Grey masks! Are you listening Green Bay?

    • Tony C. | July 29, 2015 at 4:08 pm |

      @yosef777

      grey facemask are the devil

      • yosef777 | July 29, 2015 at 6:53 pm |

        Maybe for the packers throwback as they didn’t wear face masks at all but they could at least go with a navy. Dolphins grey mask is accurate and I love it : )

  • Kurt | July 29, 2015 at 12:28 pm |

    Broncos will not go mono-blue on possibly steamy September night in Kansas City. Probably Denver orange v. Chiefs mono-red. Warning everyone now.

  • jedi54 | July 29, 2015 at 12:48 pm |

    Can’t wait to see same color hats, shirts and britches in the League.

  • Rich | July 29, 2015 at 1:33 pm |

    I’m a Saints season-ticket holder who got his tickets two days ago, and those tickets have the Saints’ jersey color on the ticket. The Saints are wearing white jerseys for their Oct. 15 home game against the Falcons.

    According to the tickets, the Saints are wearing white jerseys for their two preseason home games and first three regular-season home games. They are wearing black for the last five regular-season home games.

  • Dan T. | July 29, 2015 at 1:46 pm |

    I know I’m in the minority here, but IMO, with the rare exception (USC vs. UCLA for example) color vs. color games are almost always eyesores.

    UCLA vs. USC works because the powder blue is close to white and in very sharp contrast to USC’s maroon. But two dark colors, like red vs. royal blue, doesn’t look good. Having one team in white is just easier on the eyes.

    Plus it can’t be a good situation for colorblind fans and players.

    • Ryan M | July 29, 2015 at 4:49 pm |

      You must hate high definition, what with all the bright colors and what not…

      • Dan T. | July 29, 2015 at 7:53 pm |

        Yes, when colors clash against each other it does look worse in high-def.

  • Ski U Mah Gopher | July 29, 2015 at 2:22 pm |

    I always thought the Vikings should introduce a gold alternative uniform. It would be a great color uniform to wear in Washington early in the season and in Tampa any time. Then a color vs color match-up with the Cardinals would be a little more tolerable.

  • Rich | July 29, 2015 at 3:19 pm |

    It would be really simple to adopt the same rules from soccer. Each team has a signature look they will wear the majority of the time, but if needed, the away team can wear an alternate to create more contrast from the home team. If not, enjoy a beautiful color vs. color game! Problem solved.

    • Paul Lukas | July 29, 2015 at 4:57 pm |

      Except then every team would need to have an alternate. And most of them would suck.

      There’s already an easy way to avoid a clash — the way we already have: If you’re faced with blue vs. blue (or whatever), one team wears white.

    • Ryan M | July 29, 2015 at 5:05 pm |

      I agree with this idea. Unfortunately, the way NFL unis are currently designed, I foresee a potential problem:

      If the Colts were to play the Bills (unlikely on a Thursday given the predilection for intra-division match-ups), both team would be wearing white helmets, royal blue jerseys, and white pants. The only other options to break up the virtually identical looks is for the visiting team to go full-stormtrooper (which would be the regular match-up, anyway), or for the Bills to break out their blue pants, resulting in white-blue-white vs white-white-blue–also, not exactly the most visually-appealing game.

      The solution, then, is for the league to go all-in, as Rich suggested: first choice uni in the team’s colors, and one or two alternate options, such that any combination created therewith would sufficiently contrast that of the home team.

      All that being said, I’m not a fan of the mono look, either. I’ve found, in soccer, I definitely prefer the look of a club with contrasting socks, shorts, and shirt.

    • Rich | August 1, 2015 at 2:58 am |

      Requiring every team to have a white uniform seems like a bland way to create differentiation, but I suppose it might be necessary. I always wondered the same thing for basketball… why does the home team usually wear white? Seems like it should be the opposite or at least the home team’s choice.

  • KT | July 29, 2015 at 4:33 pm |

    This made me laugh.

    Guy paid $3k for a supposed Herschel Walker game-worn New Jersey Generals jersey. It wouldn’t even pass muster as a Herschel Walker game-worn Georgia Bulldogs jersey.

    And now it can be yours for maybe $54.

  • Rydell | July 29, 2015 at 9:27 pm |

    Looking forward to seeing color vs color NFL games.
    Over the years the NFL is one of the main reasons why I upgrade to all the HD television, as well watching a great movie.
    N F L spells entertainment in our television industry and I am sold, probably 85% of North America is.
    If you are not on board do not watch the NFL to complain about the release of color vs color.
    Try an HD cable with an HD television with proper lighting and good food…priceless.
    Although HD television does bring out the horrible uni’s that much more ie. Bengals Cardinals Broncos

    • Paul Lukas | July 29, 2015 at 9:41 pm |

      If you are not on board do not watch the NFL to complain about the release of color vs color.

      I’m not sure what that even means. But I think what you’re basically saying is “If you don’t like it, STFU.” Not a very effective argument.

      To be clear, I like color-on-color. But there are better ways to advocate for it than the way you just engaged in. Let’s please aim for a higher level of discussion. Thanks.

  • Dan T. | July 30, 2015 at 12:35 am |

    Even though I don’t like color vs. color, I thought it might be interesting to look at the NFL schedule and see how many games could be pulled off that way.

    Don’t want to do the whole season, but I thought I’d try week 1. I rated all games as Good (Color vs. color would work and be appealing), Bad (Color vs. Color would be a bad idea because the jerseys would be too similar) and Ugly (Color vs. Color would work as far as being able to tell the teams apart but would be an eyesore. (For the purposes of this exercise, I am assuming all teams wearing their main colored jersey, no throwbacks or alternates)

    So here goes for Week 1:

    Steelers vs. Pats – Bad (Navy and Black too similar)

    Packers vs. Bears – Ugly (Green and Navy too dark to look good, plus orange and gold clash)

    Chief vs. Texans – Good (Red vs. Blue)

    Browns vs. Jets – Ugly (Very ugly)

    Colts vs. Bills – Bad (Blue vs. Blue, plus two white helmets)

    Dolphins vs. Redskins – Ugly (Teal and Burgendy, with orange and gold thrown in? Awful)

    Panthers vs. Jags – Bad (Black vs. Black, although this one that would be Good if Panthers went with alternate blues)

    Saints vs. Cards – Good (Black vs. Red looks nice)

    Seahawks vs. Rams – Bad (Blue vs. Blue)

    Lions vs. Chargers – Bad (Although maybe the lighter blue of Detroit might be okay against SD’s Navy)

    Titans vs. Bucs – Good (Navy vs. Red)

    Bengals vs. Radiers – Bad (Black vs. Black, although if Bengals went orange could work)

    Ravens vs. Broncos – Ugly (Purple and Orange? Only works if it’s Clemson, and even then…)

    Giants vs. Cowboys – Bad (Blue vs. Blue)

    Eagles vs. Falcons – Bad (The most common colorblindness is the inability to distinguish red and green, so this would be a real issue for a lot of fans and some players)

    Vikes vs. 49ers – Ugly (Do Purple and Red mix…at all)?

    Granted, this is a subjective opinion but by my count week one would feature 3 Goods, 8 Bads, and 5 Uglies.

  • BroadwayJoeFYVM | July 31, 2015 at 5:19 am |

    Triple-digit jerseys are actually fairly common in Mexican soccer, worn by reserve and youth players in friendlies. And that trend is likely to come to the US, because I’ve noted that the USL clubs that are direct affiliates of MLS clubs (Sounders 2, Timbers 2, etc.) have their players wearing jersey numbers that don’t conflict with jersey numbers of the parent club – lots of 80’s and 90’s right now, so triple-digits are probably only a matter of time.

  • Mance | July 31, 2015 at 10:28 am |

    Some mono uniforms like the Seahawks look great. I wish more teams would experiment with wearing a colored jersey with different colored pants. Like the Texans wearing battle red jerseys with their navy pants, or like the Ravens (currently) wearing black pants with purple jerseys.

    All I really want as a Cowboys fan is to wake up one day and read a Uni Watch article with the headline “Hell has Frozen Over! Cowboys fix Green Pants and Mismatched Blues! And brought back the double star jersey as the alternate!”

    If you’re going to wear the same uniform 95% of the season at least make it look sharp and not heinously mismatched.