Bill0813 Posted April 16, 2018 Share Posted April 16, 2018 Quote Major League Baseball's transition to Under Armour uniforms, which had been slated to take place next season, has been pushed back to 2020, multiple sources have confirmed to ESPN.com. Majestic, which currently makes MLB uniforms, will remain as the on-field uniform outfitter in 2019. http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/23202868/under-armour-deal-make-mlb-uniforms-pushed-2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Wizza Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 First time I heard the switch was to appeal tp younger fans then again I barely paid attention beyond MLB-UA switch in 2019. UA is certainly ahead of Majestic when it come to youth appeal but they trail behind Nike and Adidas so I think will this will have an negligible impact. I guess this is better than ditching traditional baseball aesthetic senses for full on wild minor league styled uniforms to get the youngins'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 5 minutes ago, Wizza said: First time I heard the switch was to appeal tp younger fans then again I barely paid attention beyond MLB-UA switch in 2019. UA is certainly ahead of Majestic when it come to youth appeal but they trail behind Nike and Adidas so I think will this will have an negligible impact. I guess this is better than ditching traditional baseball aesthetic senses for full on wild minor league styled uniforms to get the youngins'. You contradicted yourself. "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Wizza Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 26 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said: You contradicted yourself. I did? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Wizza Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 34 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said: You contradicted yourself. I meant UA will only be a slight upgrade in terms of youth appeal and that it's better to have a shirt logo than to radically alter uniforms for youth appeal if it wasn't clear. Compared to others, what ever UA's name rakes in is small change compared to others Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadSeed84 Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 I wish MLB would renegotiate the contract so their logo would be on the sleeve like majestic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaydre1019 Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 58 minutes ago, Wizza said: First time I heard the switch was to appeal tp younger fans then again I barely paid attention beyond MLB-UA switch in 2019. UA is certainly ahead of Majestic when it come to youth appeal but they trail behind Nike and Adidas so I think will this will have an negligible impact. I guess this is better than ditching traditional baseball aesthetic senses for full on wild minor league styled uniforms to get the youngins'. Same here, but kids love under armour. I see so many kids (and i mean kids as in younger than like 12) wearing neon under armour clothes from head to toe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GriffinM6 Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 I'm not a huge fan of the logo being on the chest like others have said, but yeah, the youth appeal will definitely be there, especially now that baseball will start growing again since less and less people will be playing football in the present and near future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOldRoman Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 MLB has already degraded it uniforms so much. We already have teams who wear alts for 90% of road games, and now we routinely have alt vs alt matchups. We have special use jerseys and caps for every holiday during the season, in which teams are forced to wear colors that aren't their own. UnderArmour is going to make some atrocious uniforms and plenty of garish alternates, but it won't really do much more damage than what MLB has done to itself. That being said, they need to change their minds about the UA chest logos. That :censored: completely is unacceptable. We're in the second season of the NE logo appearing on the caps, and it doesn't look any less awful or out of place. A chest logo would be worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LMU Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 The question is... will teams targeting the 2019 changeover still be obligated to make their changes for 2019 or will any changes be shelved a year? It may end up being a Ducks-like situation with the change going through then adapted shortly thereafter for the Edge template except I don't see UA drastically changing the uniform fit and cut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joekono Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 I really like the uniforms overall in MLB. I can honestly say the Brewers unis just suck, Padres (I'm on the brown bandwagon), Reds ((BFBS) and the Arizona mess are the only unis I would change. Compared to other leagues, 26 out of 30 isn't bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOldRoman Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 MLB choosing UnderArmour to appeal to the kids is the ultimate "How do you do, fellow kids?" Totally clueless. Kids wear UA stuff. They'll keep wearing UA stuff, but unless they come out with some MLB-exclusive designs which get big in pop culture And, baseball won't get a huge boost from this. Even if they do sell a lot of compression shirts or whatever, that's not likely to push kids to follow baseball if they don't already. This is a decision made by a bunch of old people clueless about marketing thinking UnderArmour will hypnotize the youngins'. Hopefully the delay is because the deal is falling apart, but it's not likely. It worries me that this deal is delayed because it will be more of a "league wide unveiling" with UA changing everybody's uniform just because they're allowed to. The NHL-Reebok Edge debacle forced all teams to change their uniform collars and hems. The NHL Adidas set made things far worse. The NBA-Nike deal was terrible and destroyed the league's aesthetic even before accounting for the jersey adds. I'm worried UA will be given full control by the league to change/ruin aspects of all uniforms the way the NHL did twice with the collars and hems and the NBA did with the shorts and shoulder trim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJimmy Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 28 minutes ago, TheOldRoman said: We already have teams who wear alts for 90% of road games, and now we routinely have alt vs alt matchups. wait, is that supposed to be a bad thing or something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOldRoman Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 4 minutes ago, Jimmy Lethal said: wait, is that supposed to be a bad thing or something Yeah, it's supposed to look like a meaningful major league game. Not spring training or beer league softball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmac Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 Colored jerseys have been worn in MLB for 55 years. 46 if you don't want to count colored jerseys worn with matching colored pants. And before that colored uniforms were common until 1917. So unless you watched baseball during the 1918-1962 period, you should be used to them by now. (If that's the case, so be it, but I imagine the majority of the members of this community are too young for that to be the case.) I completely understand preferring the traditional white and gray setup to colored jerseys, but acting like they "don't belong in MLB" is a bit silly at this point. Since 1900, colored uniforms have been in use for a longer period than they haven't. https://www.behance.net/bmatukewic8043 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chromatic Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 1 hour ago, TheOldRoman said: Yeah, it's supposed to look like a meaningful major league game. Not spring training or beer league softball. It's pretty hard to have most of those games be meaningful when there are 162 of them. I'm all for tradition and uniform consistency but with the sheer volume of games MLB has, they have a lot more room to play fast and loose with the looks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 5 hours ago, TheOldRoman said: That being said, they need to change their minds about the UA chest logos. That completely is unacceptable. We're in the second season of the NE logo appearing on the caps, and it doesn't look any less awful or out of place. A chest logo would be worse. I miss Bud Selig. He wouldn’t have sold out to these manufacturers. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Lankford Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 Most baseball uniforms are boring. Bring it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eszcz21 Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 9 hours ago, Wizza said: First time I heard the switch was to appeal tp younger fans then again I barely paid attention beyond MLB-UA switch in 2019. UA is certainly ahead of Majestic when it come to youth appeal but they trail behind Nike and Adidas so I think will this will have an negligible impact. I guess this is better than ditching traditional baseball aesthetic senses for full on wild minor league styled uniforms to get the youngins'. If I'm not mistaken, I thought UA passed Adidas in sales in the US in 2015. Plus, I'm sure a lot of that has to do with the youth factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheo25 Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 3 hours ago, Gothamite said: I miss Bud Selig. He wouldn’t have sold out to these manufacturers. I don't, and I'm not so sure he would not have sold out to the manufacturers. He assigned World Series home-field advantage stakes to an exhibition game because the ratings were down. He turned a blind eye to steroids because it was good for business, then somehow found religion once Congress got involved. Selig green-lighted interleague play because it was good for business. Selig also played a part (to be fair, he was not the sole culprit in this) in the cancellation of a World Series because business was bad for owners and he and his owernship buddies/cronies wanted a more favorable economic system. And he moved a franchise kicking and screaming against the will of new ownership and its fanbase to the American League after 56 seasons in the National League because he could. Let's not act like Selig is some altruistic and traditional purist who was a great steward of baseball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.