guest23

Other than shortsighted awarding of a franchise to jax, I am having a hard time pinpointing any bad financial moves that the ownership collective has made. Since tagliabue they have been hellbent on growing tv revenue which they have excelled at. Now since goodell took over they have had multiple pr failures and scandals which has generated bad press but any of their recent viewership issues are more a byproduct of the secular decline of broadcast tv. The biggest long term financial risk that they have taken in my opinion is saturating the calendar with so many non-Sunday game because that has really diluted the product in my opinion. I would like to hear about some of these other decisions that I am probably overlooking though.

The nfl is a cartel of 32 franchise owners and the league office was created to execute their collective will and act in the best interests of ownership. If the ownership agrees to award a new franchise to an ownership group that wants to set up a franchise in jax and their bid is deemed worthy and the check clears for the franchise fee then they vote to add that franchise. Additionally with regard to relocation, given that the clubs are franchises the league office only has so much influence in the relocation. As long as the relo is within bylaws (always subject to change) and the owners approve of the relocation fee amount, the allure of cash up front for doing nothing is strong. The claim that the league "dropped" la and hou is not accurate, while they lost local teams the media markets absolutely did not go dark and in fact the LA market was able to broadcast the best 3 available games (albeit with the raiders getting some preference) for two decades with no decline in viewership.

Worked before...

I think the blue helmet is an improvement.

How about an exclusive reddit rumor thread?

I agree that they have a cluttered or lacking identity but unfortunately no matter what work you do via a brand standardization or reinvention you will inevitably have the nostalgia quickly pull them back to their awful decades old look because of tradition. Also they made attemps in the mid 90's to clean up the uniforms by switching the shells to navy and adding navy & red trim to numbers and stripes to create a more uniform look between their various jerseys but ultimately they went back to the old look.

The unc throwback is completely overrated compared to their current set. It was also short lived and not unique as nike took over a bunch of school contracts at the time from the legacy suppliers (champion, russell etc.) and gave a bunch of schools that drop shadow font (uga, kan, mia etc.) all at the same time. The current block font and argyle is distinctly unc and all they need is to get some more consistency with the argyle application on the helmet stripes and other elements when they are of the same color.

Calling it an institution is much too generous.

I want to hate it but if fsu was a mid 90's nfl expansion team I would say this is an interesting alternate look.

Blame the damn tree squatting hippies and their anti-jock and sportsball hating biases for disavowing themselves from the athletic department. Anecdotally from what various alumni I have met through friends/family have told me is that the athletes are not held in very high regard at the school due to significant relaxation of admission standards. I know this occurs at most schools but it seems more pronounced at cal-berkeley.

I think the comments initially veered as to why jordan would be branded with schools like ucla and michigan, considering jordan looks to pair with elite programs and both examples have had relatively mediocre athletic success over the last two decades. You could easily make the argument that there are more deserving programs that have a domestic better athletic brand. A counterpoint would be that if you did a holistic brand valuation that included academics, alumni reach, international sales potential etc. both examples see a large rise in brand value in terms of monetization. I think what separates these two from say stanford or northwestern is that they are very large public institutions, hence a larger alumni base to sell to.

While it may not translate well on the other side of the pacific rim, I do love me some college rivalry jokes between the original land grant institutions and their satellite agriculture campus siblings that grew up to be big universities looking for some damn respect. Or in extreme cases, I once heard a trucking school in idaho became a full accredited college by some stroke of luck.

Well technically it is the los angeles branch of the university of california system so that is a very accurate translation. Brand recognition is highly subjective and my ucla centric anecdote was likely publicized from the school themselves via the latimes or some other online source where they paid for their own research/ranking and obtained a favorable ranking.

Wins and losses are only part of the equation. While the wolverines have wallowed in mediocrity for quite some time they are still extremely popular and may very well sell more merch than tosu. It's hard to tell without hard data. I do agree in terms of pure football and sports related press it's not even a close discussion.

It depends on how you measure and how you define the scope of the brand. If we keep it to athletics and domestic recognition then I would agree with you. If you include the entire university and global name recognition you will get a very different outcome. I can't remember where I read/heard it but ucla is ranked as one of the top collegiate brands globally and their recognition in asia is huge. So while alumni base and athletic success are top factors stateside, marketers are always searching for that incremental revenue where jordan/ucla branded merch may be an international sales bonanza.

What's wilder is that since the shoe companies started getting into the uniform business, the bruins will have worn rbk, adi, ua, and now jb. The vols are a program that comes to mind as another big adi school that went to the swoosh but there are not many.

I could not have said it better. florida does not need to do this and should have left blue shells to boise.

Can't wait for all of the other pac-12 and mtn west schools to jump on the ohana bandwagon since just about every school west of the rockies has a significant history or constant matriculation of Polynesian players over the last 50 years.

Assuming that nike actually sent the school a physical prototype and not a digital mockup. Also it requires approvers know or care enough about accuracy to get the proportions correct.

Soooooo close but they really missed on the narrow sleeve stripes and not fully committing to the champion font...that 7 should have a curve on the diagonal portion. Could nike not bring themselves to fully replicate another supplier's aesthetics to make an accurate throwback?

looks like the champion font by the looks of the 5...fun fact that purdue from that era was basically a recolor of wyoming (excluding the helmet) where tiller coached prior.

That was the best maryland. I do prefer the M flag logo over the terps wordmark though. Black helmets were also a fine alt look for them.

I would split the baby and remove the wordmark from the dark jersey and leave it on the white. There is no other school that looks like texas at home so the color combo is more than enough of an identifier.

Yes, it feels like colleges have become especially prone as of late to find tributes just so they have an excuse to market a special uniform.