How can a simple stripe (with stain glass effects) cause some much angst? Because it has no ties to our past, looks like another team, and finally just looks ugly.
When Tom Coughlin added the lone maroon stripe, there was similar head scratching. BC had always worn solid gold. Why change? I liked the first stripe. It was simple. Elegant. It also incorporated our two colors. Instead of complimenting the gold, the new three bar stripe distracts.
My second problem is how much the helmet looks like the 49ers. While that might seem hypocritical coming from someone who was advocating an Eagles-style helmet earlier this summer, there is a difference. My eagle wings idea was for a one-off occasion. This white stripe is permanent. And if we wore wings, we would still look different from the Eagles or Rice because of our color scheme. But our maroon looks enough like the 49ers red, that from a distance it will look very 49erish.
Finally, I just think it looks ugly. If you are going to take up that much space in the center of the helmet, I think you need a logo on the side. As it is, it looks like something is missing.
The Under Armour relationship has been great. I like the new uniforms and appreciate the willingness to give BC a distinct look. But this helmet is the first misstep. And based on how long it took to get rid of the italics numbers, I think we are stuck with the white stripe for at least a decade.