Gothamite

Members
  • Content count

    28,080
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    67

Everything posted by Gothamite

  1. I have no opinion on that. Just pointing out that in a world where so many seem to be okay with logo theft, those two colleges have a formal agreement with the Packers to use their famous "G". And that the "G" logo unquestionably belongs to the Packers.
  2. You might want to do a search - we had a lengthy thread about this last year.
  3. True enough, although real hoops on the socks will make those hoopish stripes on their shirts look worse.
  4. I actually like the gold better than white.
  5. I can't speak from experience, but I have had professional equipment managers tell me it's a bigger deal than you're saying. So I can only guess your summary is missing something.
  6. Yeah, I'm not exactly impressed with Under Armour either. They've had their share of duds. When they stick to classic, they do it as well as anybody. But when they step out of that, they stumble badly. We're not that far out of their "sports bra" phase. At this point, I'm hoping Adidas keeps the MLS contract.
  7. I don't know that they pay, but they definitely license it from the Packers. As does Grambling.
  8. I don't doubt at all that there is indeed some technological advancement. But I do not believe that Nike's ever-present templating is required by that technology. I don't believe that Nike is giving everybody the exact same template because that's required by their technology. I do not believe that Nike's template has those softly-contrasting raglan sleeves (in what we used to call "corrupted colors") because that's required by their technology. Yes, Nike works to improve the tech in their kits. But the kits they give clubs all look alike because Nike wants them to all look alike. Nike could apply their technology to any number of different templates, but they don't. And there's a very good reason why.
  9. I'd tend to agree. I just got done arguing that all the oh-so distinctive football helmet designs were created more for marketability than safety, and I think that's exactly what happened here. Nike's teams look like Nike teams first and foremost because Nike wants them to look like Nike teams first and foremost. I do not believe that this is a technological problem.
  10. For a long time, Nike made the best kits in the sport. They're on a very bad run now, but there's hope they'll regain their form.
  11. I'm not so convinced that the brand cues aren't driving the bus. Of course, I don't think there's going to be a technological solution at all until somebody finds a way to put a helmet under the players' skulls, so I'm pretty skeptical of all the claims they make.
  12. Very cool - thanks for the clarification!
  13. I don't think there's any evidence to support that. The designs are crazy because distinctive designs are both trademark-friendly and marketable.
  14. Thats exactly what it is. Liverpool FC and Everton FC play in their own stadiums, very close to one another. It's like when the New York Yankees and Giants had ballparks on opposite sides of the Harlem River, but those were actually in different leagues. Liverpool and Everton are both in 100+ year old stadiums, and both have recently been talking about replacing them (Everton looks to have just secured a site down the road). A shared stadium was floated, but the fans (and clubs) hated the idea. I don't think I've seen this "shared spine" concept before, but it seems to be a way to mollify the clubs and still share a footprint. Don't think it ever got very far.
  15. That looks awfully green on my phone, I really hope the gold leans more toward the warmer tones. I like what they did with the cap and chest logo, replacing the white outline with gold. I don't like the gold numbers; crosses a line between awesome and awful.
  16. Well, I personally think the NCAA is in very dangerous territory. They've been allowed to largely coast above the fray, even though they appear to be doing the same amount of damage to their players as the pros are. I'm not entirely sure why they've been let off the hook so far, but I expect that they'll be hit with lawsuits soon enough, especially if one of the suits against the NFL results in a clear loss for the league. (FWIW, I think that might be the death knell for college football, since unlike the NFL most schools are losing money on it anyway.) As for theoretical competing studies, I'm not sure that there's any evidence either way. So both organizations seem free to respond in any way they think best. I just can't think of a reason for the NFL to take this approach, an approach that is quite literally costing them money, except out of some sort of conviction.
  17. If those studies existed, then that would be one thing. But I've heard nothing to indicate that they do, so it's pretty irrelevant to this conversation. If someone wants to prove the NFL wrong, they're welcome to try. And yes, I've spoken with NFL equipment staffers who say it is a huge job to maintain a whole second set of helmets. Not that the teams couldn't hire more people if they thought the helmets were worth it. They obviously don't. The NFL could be cashing in on more jersey sales if they allowed full-blown throwbacks. That they don't, and are therefore leaving money on the table, indicates to me that this decision wasn't made on a mere whim.
  18. That's not really what anybody has said, though. It's about not forcing equipment staff to break in and maintain two sets of helmets. And universities get away with this because nobody's holding them accountable for the brain damage suffered while playing college football. Yet.
  19. Well, your second sentence is kind of invalidated by beginning of the first. It does make sense that different organizations would have different rules. Especially when you consider that the NFL has to deal with long-term consequences of head injury, while college teams do not. So far. But hopefully that will change soon.
  20. Well, Color Rush is only a bylaw in that the bylaws require color v. white. Here are those two sections in the 2006 Revision of the Constitution and Bylaws, which is the most recent version posted on the NFL's public site: And from Section 19.9: So I guess we can presume that these have since been modified to account for the fact that certain games may be designated as exempt from the "color v. white", regulations, and Washington is proposing an additional modification giving teams the right to opt out of those games so designated.
  21. That's because it's an early rendering for what they built, after the White Sox had shot down the Camden Yards-style park. Armour Field was just a fan proposal, albeit a fan who happened to be a professor of architecture.
  22. That Nike template is just brutal.
  23. The "unrealized stadium designs" thread reminded me that it's not just logo designers who re-purpose unsold designs. In the mid-1980s, the architecture firm HOK were hired to design a new stadium for the White Sox, who were looking to replace the aging Comiskey Park. HOK came in with a beautiful design for an intimate, brick-shrouded, retro ballpark, but the White Sox wanted something bigger and more contemporary. HOK gave their clients what they wanted, but filed away the throwback-park design and ended up selling it to their next client. Seems the Baltimore Orioles had a bit more foresight, and Camden Yards was instantly considered a modern classic. So, should the White Sox have owned the design of Camden Yards even though they turned it down at the time? Did the Orioles get cheated by buying a "recycled" design? Seems pretty straightforward that an architect retains any unused designs, why not a graphic designer?
  24. It's pretty common to re-purpose designs that didn't sell. Camden Yards is just a modified form of the retro ballpark that the White Sox turned down to build New Comiskey.
  25. "This is obviously an idol representing a primitive fertility god."