Should NFL teams be allowed wear their alternate for the Super Bowl?

[WavePunter]

2 hours ago, Cosmic said:

I generally agree that teams should be content with their home or road look, but I did think of two different approaches/levels to alts in the Super Bowl...

 

- The most restrictive or special case would be if a team has already decided that it's going to switch full-time to a set based on their current alt for the next season. In a way, the alt might be more appropriate in that special context.

 

- If you were going to allow alts other than in the situation above, I would only allow alts that are palate-swapped versions of the regular home/road uniform. The Broncos could wear either their navy or orange version of their current uniforms (I don't know if the navy is still officially an alt, but you get the idea), but the Bills couldn't wear their throwback unis. No helmet changes. No BFBS.

That's the only allowable situation I would support.. If your alt is a palette-swapped jersey in your team's secondary color, I have no problem with it.. With teams like the Titans and Panthers, they can wear their light blue alts twice as an alternate and once as a color rush, which is 1 game shy of 50% of their home games.. I think teams such as the Titans and Broncos, which previously wore their alt as their primary, it can still feel like a team's primary look to some fans.. So, while I don't think teams should be allowed in principle, there are a few teams I'd be perfectly ok with.. There are some others I'd actually prefer (Saints and Raiders color rush, among others).. 

I think it's ok to allow it, but only if they meet certain criteria, like the palette swap of standard home/away (Or possibly even historic super bowl look or former rivalry - like Redskins vs throwback Dolphins)

[C-Squared]

10 hours ago, WavePunter said:

 (Or possibly even historic super bowl look or former rivalry - like Redskins vs throwback Dolphins)

 

I came in to post this same thought - if the teams lined up right, I wouldn't put it past the league to do something like this for the 100th season in 2019.

[BrandMooreArt]

edits

[oldschoolvikings]

45 minutes ago, BrandMooreArt said:

 

i'd love to see that too, but that wont happen. the NFL doesn't want to look old and isn't too thrilled about "going backwards" in any aspect. their branding/marketing is all about going forward. the messages and design around the 100th season wont be about the past 100 years, but about the next. does that make sense? well, its not exactly what i would suggest, but i believe thats where they're headed

 

So then, the NFL equivalent of baseball's "turn ahead the clock"?

 

 

Lord, help us.

 

[Sport]

Quick answer: ABSOLUTELY NOT.

 

Long answer: The Super Bowl will be the most eyeballs these teams will ever have on them and the footage will be around forever. It's an opportunity to firmly establish your brand in the mind of the public. That effort is weakened if you wear something different from your normal look. You should dress in your best and dress the way you want everyone to know you. If an alternate is your best, well then why's it your alternate? And, no, we shouldn't leave it up to the teams' discretion. There needs to be a rule otherwise you get the Cavs wearing short sleeved black jerseys in Game 7. 

[WSU151]

1 hour ago, BrandMooreArt said:

 

i'd love to see that too, but that wont happen. the NFL doesn't want to look old and isn't too thrilled about "going backwards" in any aspect. their branding/marketing is all about going forward. the messages and design around the 100th season wont be about the past 100 years, but about the next. does that make sense? well, its not exactly what i would suggest, but i believe thats where they're headed

 

So there will be a concussion lawsuit and judgment on the field before every game?

 

If the NFL doesn't acknowledge anything about the past 100 years, and only focuses on the next 100 years, then it'll be a complete failure by the league. At some point in 2019 they will have to acknowledge living legends and legendary teams.

[CrimsonBull9584]

It would be nice to have the Jags were teal rather than black or white if they make it. I did kinda like the teal jerseys with black pants, but thats only because they have black numbers on the teal uniforms for some idiotic reason. If those teal jerseys had white numbers, it would be a great alt look for Jacksonville.

[CrimsonBull9584]

1 hour ago, BrandMooreArt said:

 

i'd love to see that too, but that wont happen. the NFL doesn't want to look old and isn't too thrilled about "going backwards" in any aspect. their branding/marketing is all about going forward. the messages and design around the 100th season wont be about the past 100 years, but about the next. does that make sense? well, its not exactly what i would suggest, but i believe thats where they're headed

I hope they do some sort of "Legacy" uniforms for the 100th season. Something more like what they did with the AFL in 2009. 

[-Akronite-]

18 hours ago, flyersfan said:

I think the super bowl no. But in baseball basketball and hockey where they are playing up to 7 games it’s nice to see something different than just the basics every night they play. The games start to blend together if it’s a specific uni matchup 4 times and another one (usually same uniforms but inverted colors) 3 times. It can be a little tough. I like the idea of that they are allowed to wear alts as long as they are in original team colors, no new logos, as in like let the warriors wear yellow for a game, but none of the fancy gimmick stuff with “the town” or Chinese New Year stuff. And I think there needs to be a rule that if the series could end, it has to be home and away because in future years, those are the games we remember the most, and seeing gimmick unis doesn’t sound good with that. Nobody in general remembers game 2s of the World Series, but you bet we remember game 7s.

But for football where it’s one and done, I say they should not be allowed Alts, simply because some teams may go too far. I’m thinking about like 49ers black, Seahawks green, but it can be a beautiful thing too, with chargers light blue, jags teal, ravens color rush. Just remember these are some iconic colors and for a game we will watch in many years down the line. I said it above that if the game has the ability to eliminate a team, it should be home vs away because those are the games we remember. Nobody wants to look back and see the black 49ers, or the neon green Seahawks. We know those teams for their identities they have used for decades, not the fun uniform the team wore for 5 games. Although I’d love to see my jags in teal, the owners decided we were a black jersey team a while ago, and were stuck to that.

 

But unfortunately we've seen this go too far in the other direction, where a team picks their alt and plays in it for 7 games. The Indians basically just wore navy in their WS run that included multiple blue v blue matchups.

[BrandMooreArt]

On 1/18/2018 at 10:25 AM, oldschoolvikings said:

 

So then, the NFL equivalent of baseball's "turn ahead the clock"?

 

Lord, help us.

 

 

from what i can say based on what i know, its nothing so "loud" as that direction. i think we can expect the "modernness" of the Super Bowl aesthetic. 

 

[shstpt1]

For the purpose of this thread, for NFL team, alternates should not be worn when playing in the Super Bowl. Not throwbacks, not color swaps, just your standard primary look. The Super Bowl is what so many dream of playing in for their entire lives, and the pictures are synonymous with that game, and the teams playing in it. When people look back at games 30-40 years down the road, they should be able to identify the teams through the pictures within a few seconds, and not have to wonder why Blake Bortles is wearing a jersey that his team only wore 3 times in 5 years for their biggest game in the franchise history. Or why or why the Eagles are wearing their Black alternates that get used a few times a season. Or why the Vikings are wearing head to toe purple with no white on their uniforms except for their helmets. And definitely not color on color. A Team color primary jersey vs. a white primary jersey. 

 

The owners make the decisions on how they want their team to look, and if they thought that the alternate was the superior look, then they would change it to the primary. Denver did this with the Orange, Tennessee did this with the Light blue the first time, then went back to the navy, Jacksonville decided they would wear Black primarily.

 

[WSU151]

28 minutes ago, BrandMooreArt said:

 

from what i can say based on what i know, its nothing so "loud" as that direction. i think we can expect the "modernness" of the Super Bowl aesthetic. 

 

 

i dont know, maybe. but the point is to "not look old." its a sport that has failed to capture the attention of Americas youth; the average NFL fan is near 50. any marketing initiative they do will be more in the spirit of moving forward, rather than looking back

 

What is the definition of an average NFL fan?

 

And it's true that fewer kids are playing football...but that's due to the safety of the game, not the aesthetics of it.

[BrandMooreArt]

edits

[WSU151]

21 minutes ago, BrandMooreArt said:

 

the average age of the NFL fan. im not exactly sure how thats calculated, but my guess is it comes from ticket sales, social media engagement, and viewership. there are multiple things that have lead to an older audience, but the point is anything the NFL does from a marketing and branding strategy is going to put themselves in the light of "having a bright future", not looking backwards. besides team initiatives of throwback uniforms and anniversaries, when was the last time the league did anything that was any different from that strategy? off the top of my head, it was the AFL's 50th anniversary. they're just not about going backwards

 

After some research, it sounds like they took the "average age of 50" straight from this SportBusinessDaily report. Note these are the ages of TV viewers, not necessarily a representation of all fans or money spent on the sport. I don't think social media engagement is even factored in, as it's both extraordinarily difficult to obtain the age of a Twitter/Facebook/IG/whatever user and I'm assuming an average NFL game is far more popular (with far more journalists) on Twitter than your average NBA game.

 

When I look at that report, the NFL is doing far better than the NHL even though the NHL has a younger average viewer.  According to the report, the NHL has essentially the exact same people watching the sport in 2016 as it did in 2000, as the average age increased by 16 years over 16 years.

 

Soccer and the NBA will always have younger audiences.  Cheaper, no hats or helmets, more globally popular.

 

It just seems like the Leagues are using these awfully simplistic studies to come to some dubious conclusions.

 

[IceCap]

14 minutes ago, BrandMooreArt said:

 

the average age of the NFL fan. im not exactly sure how thats calculated...

59% of viewers who watched NFL games all the way through to the fourth quarter were in the 45-54 age range. 

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/289942/age-distribution-of-nfl-regular-season-viewers/

 

It’s also worth noting that the NFL is hardly alone...

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/guid/212CD540-5DB5-11E7-96E1-15232CBB5ADD

 

No league has an “average fan” age of under 40 as of 2016. 

 

Now all of this would lead one to think that kids just aren’t following pro sports.

As someone who works with teenagers on a daily basis? I can tell you that’s just not true. 

 

Which leads me to believe that the data stating that the NFL’s average fan is 50 is skewed. All of these numbers are calculated through tv viewership. 

Teens and young adults still follow these leagues, have favourite teams, and buy merchandise. It’s just that tv isn’t the only, or even primary, way they follow the league. Most watch condensed clips, or even full games, online. 

 

So while I believe the average NFL television viewer who watches full games is 50? I don’t, for a second, believe that the average age of all fans who follow the league is 50.

[mjd77]

I can just imagine the meltdown this board would have if JAX makes it and wore the gold color rush unis in the SB.

[goforbroke]

1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

59% of viewers who watched NFL games all the way through to the fourth quarter were in the 45-54 age range. 

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/289942/age-distribution-of-nfl-regular-season-viewers/

 

It’s also worth noting that the NFL is hardly alone...

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/guid/212CD540-5DB5-11E7-96E1-15232CBB5ADD

 

No league has an “average fan” age of under 40 as of 2016. 

 

Now all of this would lead one to think that kids just aren’t following pro sports.

As someone who works with teenagers on a daily basis? I can tell you that’s just not true. 

 

Which leads me to believe that the data stating that the NFL’s average fan is 50 is skewed. All of these numbers are calculated through tv viewership. 

Teens and young adults still follow these leagues, have favourite teams, and buy merchandise. It’s just that tv isn’t the only, or even primary, way they follow the league. Most watch condensed clips, or even full games, online. 

 

So while I believe the average NFL television viewer who watches full games is 50? I don’t, for a second, believe that the average age of all fans who follow the league is 50.

 

More times than not when you read audience data (or any other stat for that matter) you have to understand the point of the stat.   Those types of numbers are specifically calculated FOR tv.  In other words, a company is looking to advertise on an NFL telecast, or if FOX is trying to figure out how much to bid to renew its TV rights, those are the numbers they want to know.  It doesn't matter to them how many teenagers saw a one-handed catch on twitter. 

When you talk about ticket sales and merchandise... lets be honest who's actually paying for that? 50 year old or 15 year old.   

So yes of course its misleading to say the average NFL fan is 50 --especially when you lump all fans together. Ive seen reports the define it as anyone who has been to or watched 1 NFL game in the past year.  That is a definition of a fan.  Or you have reports asking what your favorite sport to watch is (this definition means if you are a huge sports fan with the NBA as your second favorite sport, then you are not a fan. BUT if you are a super casual sports fan that doesn't really have any rooting interest at all, but prefers NBA to anything else the you ARE a fan)    So you have to consider how and why they are compiling these stats.

[BrandMooreArt]

edits

[WavePunter]

7 hours ago, WSU151 said:

 

What is the definition of an average NFL fan?

 

And it's true that fewer kids are playing football...but that's due to the safety of the game, not the aesthetics of it.

I don't think safety has much to do with it.. Maybe some, but I don't think that's the primary reason..

I also think a lot of it is the new generation.. Think of the movie 21 Jump Street.. When they go back to high school, the traditional roles were flipped.. The jocks were no longer the cool kids.. The "nerds" were popular, etc.. I think this is actually a fairly accurate representation.. Kids are addicted to video games and social media, and they don't have to be on the football team to be popular anymore.. More parents are working more hours with more commuting, so there's less time to cart kids to and from practice, etc.. I think there are several reasons why the NFL isn't as popular with today's youth..

[BBTV]

Sounds like the times have changed, the way people watch games and follow sports (or any tv show for that matter) have changed, but the methods used to generate metrics around that haven't, so we're left with decisions being made based on potentially inaccurate data.

 

They should absolutely bring back the throwback program like they did for the 75th season (I CANNOT believe that was almost 25 years ago!) but the helmet rule would need to be changed by then, and there's no reason to think that is happening.  

 

I don't get celebrating the "next 100 years", because the point of these anniversary celebrations is to look back and remember the great parts of the past n years.  A TATC game would be silly, because all they could do is come out with new jerseys based on existing templates / materials, since they're not going to experiment with something during a live game, and it's difficult to predict what the game will look like in future iterations.  Hell, if they're still playing the sport in 20 years, they'll probably be wearing basketball style jerseys with little tiny pads, bicycle shorts, and helmets the size of beach balls with full face shield like a motorcycle helmet... but BIGGER.