MLB 2016 Changes

[Gothamite]

I think that's more an urban legend than a real rule. But the NBA is opaque about its uniform rules, so rumors and misperceptions abound.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

I think that's more an urban legend than a real rule. But the NBA is opaque about its uniform rules, so rumors and misperceptions abound.

Didn't someone with the Charlotte Hornets explicitly state that they could not have used the old logo under league rules?

[Gothamite]

Maybe. I remember a lot of vague reports saying they couldn't, but don't recall anyone actually saying it. Or why.

[Bmac]

I cannot believe they're not allowed to go back full-time. That just doesn't make much sense.

Yeah. It's kind of idiotic both ways. On the MLB side, the baseball in the logo is so small on the cap that it doesn't even look like a baseball. On the Brewers side, just drop the baseball line and make it a yellow or white circle.

If that was really the issue, dropping the gold line wouldn't make any difference. Even a white circle could be confused for a baseball under that logic.

But that's beside the point, because it's not really an issue.

Was it the NHL or MLB that said no old school logo can be brought back exactly as it was? I thought one of the leagues had that rule to promote new merchandise or something. I think it was the NHL, but from a business standpoint I could see MLB taking that stance as well.

The NBA definitely has a rule where all throwback logos are sent to to the Hardwood Classics vault, and new logos cannot be a direct copy of any HWC logo.

I've heard this forever, but any idea how old this rule is? When the Sixers changed from the Iverson set to their fauxbacks in '10 or '11, they brought back the ball logo directly from the vault (though it was placed inside a square for the primary logo, it was used unaltered for the secondary.)

That's exactly how they got around it, and the only reason for that dumb rectangle.

[damnyoutuesday]

I once heard the Brewers were kind of stuck trying to move forward because MLB won't let them use the BiG logo straight up as a primary logo, because there's that rule about not having a baseball in the cap logos. Same reason Toronto's current logo doesn't feature a baseball on the cap. Seattle is the only team that gets away with it currently (excluding BP and throwbacks).

Does MLB think it's players are stupid enough to mistake a 1 cm ball on a hat for the ball in the inches wide ball in their hand

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

The NBA definitely has a rule where all throwback logos are sent to to the Hardwood Classics vault, and new logos cannot be a direct copy of any HWC logo.

I've heard this forever, but any idea how old this rule is? When the Sixers changed from the Iverson set to their fauxbacks in '10 or '11, they brought back the ball logo directly from the vault (though it was placed inside a square for the primary logo, it was used unaltered for the secondary.)

I think that's more an urban legend than a real rule. But the NBA is opaque about its uniform rules, so rumors and misperceptions abound.

Didn't someone with the Charlotte Hornets explicitly state that they could not have used the old logo under league rules?

Maybe. I remember a lot of vague reports saying they couldn't, but don't recall anyone actually saying it. Or why.

I found this on the Hornets' website, in their uniform FAQ, dated June 19, 2014:

Why not just bring back the original Hornets jerseys?

Like with the logos, NBA regulations do not allow us to simply use the original uniforms. We had to make changes and updates.

[OnWis97]

I once heard the Brewers were kind of stuck trying to move forward because MLB won't let them use the BiG logo straight up as a primary logo, because there's that rule about not having a baseball in the cap logos. Same reason Toronto's current logo doesn't feature a baseball on the cap. Seattle is the only team that gets away with it currently (excluding BP and throwbacks).

Does MLB think it's players are stupid enough to mistake a 1 cm ball on a hat for the ball in the inches wide ball in their hand

I could argue that it is a tough line to draw so they shold not draw one. But I cannot buy it if they are allowing it for throwbacks.

[Gothamite]

I cannot believe they're not allowed to go back full-time. That just doesn't make much sense.

Yeah. It's kind of idiotic both ways. On the MLB side, the baseball in the logo is so small on the cap that it doesn't even look like a baseball. On the Brewers side, just drop the baseball line and make it a yellow or white circle.

If that was really the issue, dropping the gold line wouldn't make any difference. Even a white circle could be confused for a baseball under that logic.

But that's beside the point, because it's not really an issue.

Was it the NHL or MLB that said no old school logo can be brought back exactly as it was? I thought one of the leagues had that rule to promote new merchandise or something. I think it was the NHL, but from a business standpoint I could see MLB taking that stance as well.

The NBA definitely has a rule where all throwback logos are sent to to the Hardwood Classics vault, and new logos cannot be a direct copy of any HWC logo.

I've heard this forever, but any idea how old this rule is? When the Sixers changed from the Iverson set to their fauxbacks in '10 or '11, they brought back the ball logo directly from the vault (though it was placed inside a square for the primary logo, it was used unaltered for the secondary.)

That's exactly how they got around it, and the only reason for that dumb rectangle.

I thought the rectangle was because they needed to put the city name on it.

[BBTV]

I cannot believe they're not allowed to go back full-time. That just doesn't make much sense.

Yeah. It's kind of idiotic both ways. On the MLB side, the baseball in the logo is so small on the cap that it doesn't even look like a baseball. On the Brewers side, just drop the baseball line and make it a yellow or white circle.

If that was really the issue, dropping the gold line wouldn't make any difference. Even a white circle could be confused for a baseball under that logic.

But that's beside the point, because it's not really an issue.

Was it the NHL or MLB that said no old school logo can be brought back exactly as it was? I thought one of the leagues had that rule to promote new merchandise or something. I think it was the NHL, but from a business standpoint I could see MLB taking that stance as well.

The NBA definitely has a rule where all throwback logos are sent to to the Hardwood Classics vault, and new logos cannot be a direct copy of any HWC logo.

I've heard this forever, but any idea how old this rule is? When the Sixers changed from the Iverson set to their fauxbacks in '10 or '11, they brought back the ball logo directly from the vault (though it was placed inside a square for the primary logo, it was used unaltered for the secondary.)

That's exactly how they got around it, and the only reason for that dumb rectangle.

I thought the rectangle was because they needed to put the city name on it.

yeah and that still doesnt explain how they could use the old one as secondary and defacto primary.

[WSU151]

I cannot believe they're not allowed to go back full-time. That just doesn't make much sense.

Yeah. It's kind of idiotic both ways. On the MLB side, the baseball in the logo is so small on the cap that it doesn't even look like a baseball. On the Brewers side, just drop the baseball line and make it a yellow or white circle.

If that was really the issue, dropping the gold line wouldn't make any difference. Even a white circle could be confused for a baseball under that logic.

But that's beside the point, because it's not really an issue.

Was it the NHL or MLB that said no old school logo can be brought back exactly as it was? I thought one of the leagues had that rule to promote new merchandise or something. I think it was the NHL, but from a business standpoint I could see MLB taking that stance as well.

The NBA definitely has a rule where all throwback logos are sent to to the Hardwood Classics vault, and new logos cannot be a direct copy of any HWC logo.

I've heard this forever, but any idea how old this rule is? When the Sixers changed from the Iverson set to their fauxbacks in '10 or '11, they brought back the ball logo directly from the vault (though it was placed inside a square for the primary logo, it was used unaltered for the secondary.)

That's exactly how they got around it, and the only reason for that dumb rectangle.

I thought the rectangle was because they needed to put the city name on it.

yeah and that still doesnt explain how they could use the old one as secondary and defacto primary.

Perhaps the old Sixers' logo was not ever registered with the HWC collection, and therefore could be brought back? I really have no idea. That is the one logo that seems to be the exception. The Jazz logo is close, but enough changes were made.

[Gothamite]

There are plenty of teams with de facto primaries, to get around another one of those poorly-understood and secrecy-shrouded NBA rules.

But if teams were unable to reclaim old logos, how did the 76ers do it?

[Anubis2051]

The NBA definitely has a rule where all throwback logos are sent to to the Hardwood Classics vault, and new logos cannot be a direct copy of any HWC logo.

I've heard this forever, but any idea how old this rule is? When the Sixers changed from the Iverson set to their fauxbacks in '10 or '11, they brought back the ball logo directly from the vault (though it was placed inside a square for the primary logo, it was used unaltered for the secondary.)

I think that's more an urban legend than a real rule. But the NBA is opaque about its uniform rules, so rumors and misperceptions abound.

Didn't someone with the Charlotte Hornets explicitly state that they could not have used the old logo under league rules?

Maybe. I remember a lot of vague reports saying they couldn't, but don't recall anyone actually saying it. Or why.

I found this on the Hornets' website, in their uniform FAQ, dated June 19, 2014:

Why not just bring back the original Hornets jerseys?

Like with the logos, NBA regulations do not allow us to simply use the original uniforms. We had to make changes and updates.

Is it possible that had more to do with the New Orleans franchise still maintaining some of the rights to the older logos?

[justin23iu]

The NBA definitely has a rule where all throwback logos are sent to to the Hardwood Classics vault, and new logos cannot be a direct copy of any HWC logo.

I've heard this forever, but any idea how old this rule is? When the Sixers changed from the Iverson set to their fauxbacks in '10 or '11, they brought back the ball logo directly from the vault (though it was placed inside a square for the primary logo, it was used unaltered for the secondary.)

I think that's more an urban legend than a real rule. But the NBA is opaque about its uniform rules, so rumors and misperceptions abound.

Didn't someone with the Charlotte Hornets explicitly state that they could not have used the old logo under league rules?

Maybe. I remember a lot of vague reports saying they couldn't, but don't recall anyone actually saying it. Or why.

I found this on the Hornets' website, in their uniform FAQ, dated June 19, 2014:

Why not just bring back the original Hornets jerseys?

Like with the logos, NBA regulations do not allow us to simply use the original uniforms. We had to make changes and updates.

Is it possible that had more to do with the New Orleans franchise still maintaining some of the rights to the older logos?

I work in the Hornets front office. The answer is no.

[OnWis97]

I cannot believe they're not allowed to go back full-time. That just doesn't make much sense.

Yeah. It's kind of idiotic both ways. On the MLB side, the baseball in the logo is so small on the cap that it doesn't even look like a baseball. On the Brewers side, just drop the baseball line and make it a yellow or white circle.

If that was really the issue, dropping the gold line wouldn't make any difference. Even a white circle could be confused for a baseball under that logic.

But that's beside the point, because it's not really an issue.

Was it the NHL or MLB that said no old school logo can be brought back exactly as it was? I thought one of the leagues had that rule to promote new merchandise or something. I think it was the NHL, but from a business standpoint I could see MLB taking that stance as well.

The NBA definitely has a rule where all throwback logos are sent to to the Hardwood Classics vault, and new logos cannot be a direct copy of any HWC logo.

I've heard this forever, but any idea how old this rule is? When the Sixers changed from the Iverson set to their fauxbacks in '10 or '11, they brought back the ball logo directly from the vault (though it was placed inside a square for the primary logo, it was used unaltered for the secondary.)

That's exactly how they got around it, and the only reason for that dumb rectangle.

I thought the rectangle was because they needed to put the city name on it.

Two lame-ass birds with one lame-ass stone.

[SilverBullet1929]

Yeah now I'm thinking if the DBacks had used the snake skin on only one alternate jersey (maybe two plus the BP jersey) and left the home and roads "un-subliminated" then maybe this would get a better reception. It's hard to actually call the snakeskin ugly on it's own so maybe if it wasn't such overkill it would work. I also hate how it reminds me of the cape over the shoulders look that the BP jerseys had a few years back (the WBC jerseys too).

[Gothamite]

Is it possible that had more to do with the New Orleans franchise still maintaining some of the rights to the older logos?

I work in the Hornets front office. The answer is no.

Excellent. Thank you.

Then you are in a position to tell us: what exactly does the rule say?

[VikWings]

I cannot believe they're not allowed to go back full-time. That just doesn't make much sense.

Yeah. It's kind of idiotic both ways. On the MLB side, the baseball in the logo is so small on the cap that it doesn't even look like a baseball. On the Brewers side, just drop the baseball line and make it a yellow or white circle.

If that was really the issue, dropping the gold line wouldn't make any difference. Even a white circle could be confused for a baseball under that logic.

But that's beside the point, because it's not really an issue.

Was it the NHL or MLB that said no old school logo can be brought back exactly as it was? I thought one of the leagues had that rule to promote new merchandise or something. I think it was the NHL, but from a business standpoint I could see MLB taking that stance as well.

^ That's the NBA. One of there many stupid logo rules including the primary logo having to included the city and team name and at least one of the logos in the set having a basketball.

[VikWings]

There are plenty of teams with de facto primaries, to get around another one of those poorly-understood and secrecy-shrouded NBA rules.

But if teams were unable to reclaim old logos, how did the 76ers do it?

I think the Sixers got away with it because it was designated "a partial" logo and not a secondary. So it was just a piece of the primary.

[Gothamite]

Then other teams could do that as well.

That's why I'm hoping Justin can tell us exactly what the rule says.

[BigRed618]

Is anyone talking about the D-Backs' new uniforms still? I just learned about it today, and personally, I'm glad to hear that an MLB team is experimenting with new styles in their uniforms. Only a team like Arizona could get away with something like this.