guest23

8 hours ago, BBTV said:

My assumption with the custom font thing is that (and I'm just speculating) anyone can make and sell  a brown jersey with white block numbers and it's probably legal.  They could probably even throw some orange and white stripes on it.  But maybe the number style is trademarked or copyrighted or however that works, so if they copy the font, then they're infringing on trademarks and can be considered counterfeit.  Maybe?  Maybe team can even trademark certain striping patterns or other aspects of their uniforms, but that might be tough since there's a finite number of ways to do stripes.

 

Like how some fonts are freeware and some require licenses, and if you have a business and do your print ads in a licensed font that you're not paying for, the owner could come after  you.  Maybe NFL fonts are the same way, and they tweak standard block just enough to make it a custom font for which only they hold the license for.

Another point to add about the anti-counterfeit angle is that the historically most popular franchises (eagles, raiders, cowboys, packers etc.) typically have the easiest to replicate jerseys and use traditional block fonts. Yes there are exceptions like seattle and certain superstars that wear custom fonts but if I'm nfl properties and I want to protect the shield from knockoffs wouldn't I try to do more to protect my most valuable brands?

2 hours ago, MJWalker45 said:

I've seen Poshmark knockoffs of NFL Alternate Edition jerseys that someone did on the boards a few years back. These guys are getting better, even if they're copying Jesse Alkire's non-official NFL jerseys to get out into the market. That's why making those little tweaks are important to these teams. 

Except for the cowboys nfl properties handles all of the merch sales and revenue sharing. For the counterfeit angle to be a rationale behind the proliferation of ugly team specific fonts it would have to come from the top down but given nike's role in custom font proliferation at the college level, I'm thinking thwarting counterfeiting is really not a driving the decision making process.

59 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

You write a post stating that you don't like propietery block fonts, I ask if you have examples, and you ask of what?

 

 

 

Okay.

Allow me to clarify for what I thought was quite obvious:

BAD team specific block: az cards, farve era vikes, browns current etc.

GOOD supplier block: sand knit, wilson, russsell athletic, champion, mcaullife, whoever did unc bb during the jordan era etc.

1 hour ago, MJWalker45 said:

I'm pointing out that teams are going with team specific fonts because they don't want to pick a random font out of the catalog. Teams wore block fonts because that was what was most available, not because they liked the way it looked. It's the same reason soccer uniforms in England had the same number style until the 1980's when teams started screen pressing numbers, availability. 

 

Block numerals are functional and aesthetically pleasing. Non-block has come in and out of favour aesthetically since sports started using numbers but block continues to endure. Your reasoning does not align with history as there are enough examples that illustrate the availability of non-block. If there was demand, teams (especially pro) had the option to do so.

2 hours ago, MJWalker45 said:

I'd disagree. Having a team specific font isn't a bad idea, it just needs to be a good font at the end of the day. Atlanta has failed this go around, and Tampa Bay's previous font was horrendous. Teams now tend to want something that is solely there's and that's what we get from Nike, adidas and Puma. Manufacturers each have their own bespoke fonts, but if all of the Nike schools only had the option to pick from what's offered in the teamwear section we'd be complaining that too many teams look alike, but only if they weren't using the standard block font. 

 

Please reread my quote. I am referring to team specific/proprietary block (eg az cards, last gen vikes, browns etc) and you are choosing to discuss all custom fonts. There's a reason why so many teams wore/wear and continue to go back to block fonts as the default for US based sports for so long. It's easy on the eye, legible and looks good with just about every uniform design.

On 4/2/2022 at 9:04 AM, oldschoolvikings said:

 

Examples?

 of what?:

nothing worse than team proprietary block for the sake of proprietary block...supplier specific is cool because it was organic nike fonts are sooooo forced.

3 hours ago, Volt said:

 

I work in the apparel manufacturing industry.   Sourcing material is not only much more difficult right now, but also very expensive; cotton is way up, and polyester is even higher.   Labor and transportation costs are making things even worse.  And we're not going back.

[MOD EDIT: No politics.]

[MOD EDIT: No politics.]

9 minutes ago, BBTV said:

 

Others have already answered, but I'll chime in.  When they lifted the 1-helmet rule, the league opened a short window for teams to "declare" they would have a 2nd helmet for 2022.  HOWEVER, the deadline for declaring a new jersey for 2022 had already passed, so unless a team already had throwbacks in the style guide (and theoretically ready to go for both retail and on-field use) they'd have to hurry up and declare for 2023. 

 

Any excuses about fabric matching or supply chains is simply not accurate, because it was stated by factual sources (the league itself!) that 2023 would be the earliest for most throwback jerseys.  Some teams - possibly Patriots? - may have kept their throwbacks in their catalog just in case, so assuming they met the deadline to declare a 2nd helmet for 2022, they'd be able to do the throwbacks this year.

 

To add on, it sounds like having retail throwbacks ready for the season was a league or nike requirement. Getting throwback uniforms on the field would likely be doable as there are more than enough capable facilities that could produce on field uniforms and slap a swoosh on within the timeframe.

2 hours ago, Kiltman said:

Hey he’s one of the main reasons we are getting throwbacks back anyway, can be too hated by this community haha.

By my math the owner of the team had the last 20 years to go back to the old uniforms. Lobbying a decade for multiple helmets to bring back uniforms was a terrible tactic for him to get what he wanted when he had the power to change any time he wanted.

3 hours ago, Kiltman said:

In the full interview Lurie discusses that part of the delay is Nike doesn’t have the color for the materials used for this on hand, need to make it. Should be fairly straightforward, not nearly the task that was recreating midnight green was. And when they do come it’ll be as close to the Cunningham/ Buddy Ryan look – Kelly green helmet and jersey, Silver pants, and double bands of Kelly on a white sock.

 

He also stated that the Black might be a one year thing, official word that it is a 2 shell rule essentially now. But that he’s going to push the league to go to 3 so they can keep it in 2023 and beyond.

 

If the league says no the Eagles would probably go back to midnight green helmets for the all-blacks for that year. But potentially could see them redesigning it to the throwback template.

If you lived through the eagles kelly green era of the 80's and 90's you would know this reasoning does not hold water. Their kelly green was basically an off the rack russell athletic stock green that matches extremely closely with current jets green, alternatively nobody if nike's stock green was used and it was not 100% accurate, nobody would be able to tell. You could easily do a cunningham era or other simpler throwback by ordering some stock green jersey and throw some numbers on them. If you wanted to get crazy you could even screen some  birds carrying football on them.

22 minutes ago, Cujo said:

Would make for a solid Eagles black lid

 

that's a great north texas concept

13 minutes ago, 4_tattoos said:

I'm not surprised Nike designed those uniforms, but I am surprised the NFL approved them.

nfl properties has basically abdicated its oversight of the nfl uniform aesthetic to its supplier(s) ...all about designing for retail and following the college trends now.

13 hours ago, NH4 said:

USC TROJANS

 

 

 

DESIGN

• A team with a bunch of offseason changes does not see any changes to their uniforms

HELMET

• No change
• I thought about putting the newer Trojan logo on the helmet but there was just too much red in the logo and blended in with the helmet

JERSEY

• No change

PANTS

• No change

SOCKS

• White socks with cardinal accents

fyi they did wear the tommy trojan logo with the colors inverted for 1 season and went back to the traditional stock trojan/spartan/warrior the following season.

42 minutes ago, Sykotyk said:

There's a rule in place that the road team has to agree to switch jerseys. LSU does it because they play only at night and that convinces road teams to agree. 

I think that was the workaround rule implemented in the 90's but I thought most conferences codified it at least a decade ago where the home team is able to choose.

29 minutes ago, dont care said:

No one died, but it’s about comfort and performance. Is it as big of a deal as some people make it? Probably not, but the comfort is probably the bigger factor, and being more comfortable probably does make them play better. 

As other posters have said, the comfort is likely psychological because lay-people over the course of generations, have made a broad and over-reaching conclusion based something that's technically true (darker colors absorb light, thus retain heat) but not conclusive enough to be statistically significant to the point where it would truly impact performance.

25 minutes ago, Carolingian Steamroller said:

 

I don't care for this argument. Primary because I don't think a team having one particular helmet for a long time means that its reached an evolutionary end point. Especially when it comes to helmets because the single helmet aesthetic really only came into being in 1950's and 1960's. The Cardinals used a white helmet for home and red helmets on the road as recently as 1957. We accept different helmets for home and away in hockey without even thinking about it. 

 

So here's my list of teams that could benefit from an alternate (non-throwback) helmet design:

 

Eagles: White helmets with green wings with the all white uniform

Commanders: Gold helmets with burgundy "W"

Carolina: Black helmets with the blue over black uniform

Falcons: Red helmets for division games

Rams: Same shell but bring the white horns/facemask back with a plain royal/white uniform

Cardinals: Red helmet for road games (also powder blue or sand road uniforms)

Seattle: Grey paired with grey pants

Bills: Red for division games

Jaguars: Gold

Texans: White helmet with solid white uniform

Steelers: Gold helmet when wearing the color rush

Ravens: Purple for games against the Steelers

Raiders: Black helmet one day a year

 

A few things stick out to me about this list. Almost all of these teams have changed their uniforms at some point or another in the last 50 years. They aren't that many "iconic" NFL looks left. A lot of this is in keeping with the current aesthetic or similar to past designs. My conclusion is that there's a lot of wiggle room when we look at alternate helmets.

 

 

Change for the sake of change. There are a few teams like the falcons or jets whose identity is not really settled as to what their best helmet color is but the vast majority of franchises don't need to mix and match or do home/away, div/non div.  

25 minutes ago, AFirestormToPurify said:

Why are you the only one in this thread who can admit that lol. One of the very few reasonable statements I've seen about 2nd helmets yet

It's perfectly okay to prefer things the way they are and not want to mess with a proven, time tested look but to pretend that a white Bears helmet (Raiders in black, Jaguars in teal, Packers in green/white etc you get the point) would look "stupid" or objectively/technically bad is such a close minded and boring way of thinking

The flaw with your argument is that every example except for jags teal is a worse option  than what they wear. You are reinforcing the point that the iconic franchises have selected their best option and alternatives worsen their look.

2 hours ago, AFirestormToPurify said:

Not at all. I've spent all day arguing with people, safe to say I'm not assuming anything lol. It just confirmed what I already knew. It's always the same old tired reasons. They don't like the idea of a black Raiders helmet, not because black wouldn't work, but because they've worn silver since the dawn of time. Which is to say, new=bad. Cause there's nothing objectively wrong with a black helmet. All anyone can come up with is, "b-but they've never worn black". Basically, don't fix it if ain't broken + no fun allowed

 

Anyway, once again sorry everyone for derailing the thread. I thought the discussion was entertaining at first but now that I'm just repeating things I've already said because not everyone bothered to read the whole thing (which is perfectly understandable lol), it's no longer fun and it feels like a chore. I'm gonna go at the rink instead!

 

I think you're still missing the point. What makes great brands great brands is oftentimes what they choose not to do with their visual identity.  They know what they have and it works for them, and when you look at the most admired, longest lasting, most valuable brands they often are the most consistent with their visual presentation and rarely steer from that.

8 minutes ago, AFirestormToPurify said:

Not really. It's just an oversimplification but I still feel it's rather accurate. It's about as annoying as being told Sol is a "stupid" colour. Plenty of people on here are waaaaay more disrespectful than I could ever be, and don't even make any effort whatsoever in explaining their point of view further than, it's uncommon or new, therefore it's stupid

I still haven't heard any other reason in favour of not having 2nd shell other than being scared that teams will come up with the most garish and distasteful designs possible. Like this is the only option:

And the Raiders POSSIBLY (like what are the odds one in a million?) having a black helmet is just as bad as that monstrosity. Why? Because "we'll they've been wearing X colour for 50 years so any other option in their palette is horrific"

The basis of the argument against 2nd shells so far is "change is scary and bad". I'm not making this up, look at the replies I got

I'm not a hypocrite either, I've had knee jerk reactions before like when my Habs unveiled a blue jersey, so I know one when I see one. It's just tiring to read about how stupid or dumb a certain pants or helmet colour would look just because some people prefer traditional uniforms, and I find it ironic that I'm the one being disrespectful and belittling for pointing it out without resorting to calling anyone stupid or dumb

Your characterization is off a bit. The raiders org like others know that they have build a massive brand and mystique around silver/black/silver and despite carolina's overstepping, they own that look and choose to stick with it. Sure they could muddy the waters with a cool looking black/silver/black alt uniform but they see no reason to. 

3 hours ago, ltjets21 said:

I think the supply chain issues have to deal more with producing fan jerseys and merchandise. 

Probably but the on field uniforms themselves typically have long lead times as well. Last year everything was impacted because you had bottlenecks everywhere on the logistics and labor side of things. Upstream suppliers had to ramp so even if you had manufacturing capacity things took quite a while. Sports uniforms and apparel in general have traditionally operated with very long lead times of 9-12 months and moving so much production overseas has reduced responsiveness and flexibility. Things are slowly moving toward automation and manufacture on demand which is favorable for bringing back apparel domestically but there is a long way to go. There are others here who have more insider knowledge on the subject but this is a rough state of things.

16 hours ago, tBBP said:

 

Wow--guess Ohio State wasn't the only team with TV numbers visible from Mars...

That was the standard size for champion during that period. The jets had the nfl version.

2 hours ago, Gary said:

Further from the truth, when Michael Bidwell took over he didn’t take his fathers mantra of penny pinching every dollar. We’ve had more success over the years with him then in the past. He has gone on the air a couple times saying it is on the radar but it’ll be a couple years away. Hopefully better than what the Commanders have done. 

He's an entitled failson and if you want to smooth over that go for it but I'm going to hold firm on my joke. 

2 hours ago, LA Fakers+ LA Snippers said:

Translation: not this year, maybe next year

Alternate translation: Wealthy old owner who inherited his father's franchise and reputation for stinginess does not prioritize team's on field look because there might be an out of pocket expense for a uniform overhaul and he's worn the same damn clothes for the last 35 years.

26 minutes ago, Moseph said:

Here is a better look at how stupid the decals look on the side of the helmet. If they can't figure out a way to rid of the glossy burgundy portions of the decal then they should've stuck with the metallic helmet where you wouldn't even notice.

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/commanderkait/status/1495845919438295050/photo/2

They absolutely could with die cut vinyl...sure it would take longer to apply but it would actually not look cheap. This helmet could also be a candidate for a painted on logo if they went with a yellow shell and painted on the cabernet