• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by yh

  1. Columbo called. He wants his font back.
  2. It's the Birmingham Bolts from the original XFL.
  3. I'm pretty sure St. Louis wouldn't turn out for an NFL game - even one with two teams that have a pulse. The wounds would still be fresh in San Diego, too. My completely impractical idea would be to have them barnstorm for a couple of years and include some fun (but in no way profitable) football venues like Boise and Fargo. Throw Birmingham, Mexico City, Vancouver, OKC (Norman), Montreal and Louisville into the mix and you've got a full 8 game "home" schedule.
  4. I assume their mascot will be a giant whoopee cushion. Oh, wait . . .
  5. If only there was a embarrassing and juvenile nickname that fans of the Fort's arch-rival could call them. If only there were fans . . . or another team, for that matter.
  6. Can't believe they didn't go with this.
  7. Maybe it's splitting hairs, but I don't see cream. I see more of a tan/khaki which would certainly make the Bucks' new look a distinctive one, if one doesn't want to take it as far as "unique." The oversized antlers seem a bit much, but who am I to complain about a large rack?
  8. Nope. Dated. Like these guys here Wrong waterfowl.
  9. The new orange is dark enough to stand out on a white jersey, especially if trimmed in brown. I wonder if that's one of the "bold" uniform changes.
  10. I, for one (and perhaps only one) am glad to see the Browns finally update their facemask to get with the times. And by the times, I mean the 1980s. But I like the 80s, so for me this is an upgrade.
  11. That can't be good for your kidneys.
  12. Nowadays for sure, but was merchandise as prevelent in the 60's, 70's and 80's as it was/is in the 90's to present? I can't see the flying V uniform being done to sell more uniforms, although I guess styles were much different back then.No, it wasn't. Didn't really take off until around 1993.But that's where the second one comes in. in the case of the Rams, when they changed colors they were one of the best teams in the NFL. the brand and interest in the team was huge. the change in colors made them appear modern and prestigious. you might argue they changed to navy because its a more desirable color (sell more items) but they didnt have to change the gold for that. and they didnt have to do it to for attention. it was the right time to reflect who they were. for the Colts, they shifted to a darker blue, put stripes on the socks, and added a gray face mask to the helmet. they were completing a vintage look in 2004 just as the NFL was starting to really notice the team. so thats a move where there was much more than a shift in color, but it was required to complete the reflection of the brand they wanted. it's easy to say "well they change colors to become trendy" but i don't believe thats the case most of the time because its so short sighted. you do an alternate jersey to be trendy but you dont change a primary color for that reason. vintage is easy to do because you're throwing back to what was, where becoming modern is harder because what modern is, is always in flux. BUT, its more than "trend". trend is something with a short life that appeals to a smaller group, but what we define as modern is something that appeals to the majority of your audience, will have a much longer shelf life, and is something your competitors are probably doing too. With the Rams I think you're overlooking the fact that the development process likely started as a result of the move to stl combined with nearly a decade of consecutive losing seasons. These two factors were likely the most significant and while there was initial the buzz/new team in town interest locally, interest in their brand in the late 90's on a national scale was next to nothing. The sb win and subsequent wins definitely increased their relevance and put them back on a national stage but the fact that the redesign happened at at the same time is a pure coincidence. The colts made some minor tweaks that it should barely even be mentioned even as a design tweak. Yes they had a press conference/unveiling but tweaking the shade slightly of the primary is pretty negligible, I doubt the vast majority of the fan base even noticed the color difference nor would anyone feel compelled to purchase a new jersey. The striped socks lasted only 2 seasons. The gray mask was a trendy add on that a handful of teams incorporated. These tweaks were so minor and did not translate to any major visual differences (no new jersey design, no new logo to put on merch, no alt to sell) that I doubt there was any tangible effect of the changes. the Rams moved in 1995 and won that SB in 2000 (1999 season) i think, the year they also changed the colors and started using their current logos. no way they took 5+ years to change the colors and add 3 logos. if they didnt change to reflect their winning brand, then i would say they were changing due to the turn of the century, and it was the right time to do something new, which happened to be the time they were the Greatest Show on Turf. but i think we have a good year there where the changes could have been developed and better reflected the new Rams. either way, it worked out for them. the colors and logos definitely became a visual representation of that team Yes the change in the Colts blue was slight, but it answers the OP's question and is a great example of when a team made a change that could no way be to only move product. it may have been a more consistent color across manufacturers, but it completed the concept of throwing back to the Baltimore look. yea throwback alternates were big and growing at that time, but in 2004, gray masks were not yet a trend. the Giants were the first and changed in 2000 and the Browns 1 year after Indy in 2005 (maybe 2006?). its a shame the socks only lasted a couple of seasons, but these were all details that happened at the same time. they were small that not many fans noticed all of them, so if they were not done to drive merch sales of an already successful team, then WHY? . . it was done to make their identity truer to their vintage roots. these were changes that this board especially should love because it was done with the goal of reflecting who they wanted to be as a brand, not as a cash grab, and improving the uniform without going all Nike on it. Your timeline is off. The changes were already set for 2000 when Kurt Warner came out of nowhere to lead the 1999 Rams to the Super Bowl win. There was no "winning brand" when the decision was made. No one expected it. Even ESPN magazine made a "joke" cover about the Rams being champs after Trent Green went down. This wasn't a move intended to coincide with expected "good years." Like the Oilers in Tennessee, it was likely just a late attempt to give the new city some "ownership."EDIT: Because I was curious... Allow me to settle this, friends. The Rams first started work on their uniform redesign in late 1997. I worked very closely with a Rams season ticket holder who participated in a focus group the Rams empaneled to provide input on proposed redesigns. That group met in the spring of 98. A few years after he felt it was safe to breach the non-disclosure agreement he had to sign, he did share a few details about what he and his cohorts got to see. Interestingly , the consensus among the people he talked with was for a color scheme that retained the "athletic gold" (he called it Ticonderoga Pencil yellow) in use at the time and darkened all of the fabric blues to match the blue used for the helmet of the time. The only proposed change to the helmet that was offered up was a white "pinstripe" border around the horns, I'm assuming to give the illusion of depth against a dark shell. I can only assume that glitter and sequin loving Georgia Frontiere wanted a shinier gold.The focus group concluded some time in the summer of 98, so that would have given the team about a year to come up with the final designs that went into use in 2000.
  13. I'm not sure that's an authentic SLU helmet. The school stopped playing football as a varsity sport in 1949. There was a club football team at SLU for a while, but I believe it lasted only until 72 or 73. I'd be interested to know where this picture was taken.
  14. I'd go with the Punch Bowl. The logo would have to work a silhouette of Woody Hayes in there somewhere.
  15. I'm surprised this hasn't come up yet. It was bad enough for the 49ers to have worn the ugly throwbacks, but it was made worse by the fact that the Chargers did not wear theirs. Granted, the Chargers didn't even exist when SF originally wore these uniforms (and I'm pretty sure the helmet was different, too) but I've always been bothered when one team throws back and the other doesn't.
  16. So did the previously mentioned Las Vegas Coyotes, whose logo is was what Wile. E. Coyote looked like when he was strung out on meth (he said as someone who worked for the franchise when it was based in Oklahoma City)... ...as the mascot, if memory serves.
  17. It needs a beefy arm and some consummate v's.
  18. Kudos to the Air Force Academy for a very progressive effort here. I applaud their commitment to the environment by recycling 1970s era conversion vans into football helmets. I can only presume the sweet blue shag carpeting that once covered every square inch of these vans' interiors has been repurposed as the end zone surfaces.
  19. Ironic that the money quote in that article is "you can see the movement."