Jump to content

TheOldRoman

Members
  • Posts

    12,401
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    20

Everything posted by TheOldRoman

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Agreed on both points. For some reason, both beltway teams have issues with their scripts and angles. The Baltimore road script had this same problem the first year, then the Orioles just tilted it clockwise, putting the letters on an awkward angle. A random message board slob working on a freeware photo editor can fix both of these teams' script issues in about 20 minutes, yet two major league franchises can't fix this. Insane.
  4. Yes, and while we're at it, let's bring back the vertical arch to the names. The road hat and terrible alternate jerseys have diluted the Braves, but the NOB change is still a huge downgrade. Especially since the font they use now looks to be half the size of what they used previously. The current homes and roads almost look like knock-offs of the dynasty set from behind. That's how big of a change it was, at least to me.
  5. Better yet, the Redskins should just go entirely back to how they looked in the '90s, except wearing red at home. The yellow pants are inferior with both sets. Red over white and white over red. The Bears wore white pants for Cutler's first game with the Bears, in Lambeau. Not sure how many times they were worn that year, but they haven't worn them since 2009. I personally love the blue pants on the road. Dark helmets matching pants color and white striped jerseys matching white striped socks is an incredible look, both for the Bears and Chiefs. The Vikings should get some striped white socks to join in on the fun.
  6. It's very easy to overstate it because this new font is actually pretty bad. To the naked eye, it looks like the LA Kings font, but there's no way they'd use that exact font in this age of contrived customs.
  7. They're taking money, but it's on a micro level. We assume there will be teams in big markets like Chicago, LA and New York. And those cities are big enough that it should be no issue at all to draw 35,000+ five times a year if the product is respectable. There are enough people in those cities that it shouldn't be a problem of discretionary income being split too many ways. The other places they'll put teams are cities which don't have pro franchises, and I would guess most of those aren't already supporting top level college teams. The ticket prices will obviously be a fraction of NFL prices, and they won't have the issue teams like the Jaguars have of needing corporate sponsorship in the form of shelling out over $100,000 a year for luxury boxes, because nobody's paying that to the XFL for a really long time. Most of us don't go to NFL games, and the only money we give to the NFL is through advertising revenue generated by us watching. Ratings will obviously be a fraction of what the NFL pulls, but so will payroll, so the threshold is much lower. If they can get a decent TV contract, they have a puncher's chance of surviving. Like I said, I believe a lot of this hinges on ESPN. There's a good chance they will be dropping their NFL package in 2020, along with possibly NCAA football and NBA eventually. They don't have the subscriber base anymore to pay these astronomical deals to top leagues. So maybe they pick up the XFL dirt cheap to fill time in the spring and give it another pro league to justify it being the "worldwide leader." Put on the XFL and hype it up with even a quarter of the blowjobbing they give to the NFL, If that happens, I think ESPN is plenty powerful enough to get people to care about the product. The XFL is already decently high profile based on the notoriety and infamy which comes with McMahon. Everybody knew about the previous XFL and its failure. I'd guess fewer than 5% of NFL fans have even heard of the UFL. I wouldn't have if one of my high school teammates wasn't playing in it. So obviously, ESPN's interest in buying in/building up a league like that would have been much lower. It's a lot easier for them to make headway with a league like that than the UFL. Also, if Vince is this driven to atone for his past failures, maybe he can draw in ESPN as an investor and give them part of the league. But of course, they have to take the league seriously this time around and put out a decent product.
  8. But the difference here is, they don't have to steal a percent of the market away from NFL (or NCAA) teams. They can theoretically have 100% overlap in fanbases for big market teams. There are certainly fans who stopped following the NFL who may enthusiastically view the XFL as a replacement, but in order to succeed, the league has to pull primarily from people who still follow the NFL. Also, the XFL would be operating at a much lower budget than the NFL with a much lower bar for being profitable. I personally wouldn't invest any money in this league or bet on its success, but if they know their role and treat it like a sport instead of wrestling, I believe it could succeed.
  9. I think the XFL has a slight opening here, for issues mentioned previously. NFL viewership is down significantly. And cord-cutting isn't to blame, because only MNF and a few weeks of TNF are on cable. The NFL is still a juggernaut which far outpaces anything else in ratings, but it has lost (I believe) 10-15% of its viewers over the last two years. People are sick of the Patriots cheating and winning. People are sick of the arbitrary rules and blown calls. That's not to say that they'll never come back to the NFL, but right now, they are fed up. So that's a slight opening for the XFL. Offer a football alternative which fixes the issues people have problem with, and maybe they'll give it a chance. If the product is decent and it gets good exposure, maybe other football or casual sports fans will buy in. And this brings me to the biggest deciding factor - the TV deal. Last time around, they had a Saturday night spot on NBC (great!), but the other games were on crap channels. Who would take them now? NBC-CBS-Fox have the NFL, and ABC doesn't want it anymore. Sunday afternoons are not big for TV outside of NFL football, and those networks would probably rather show reruns or movies than paying decent money for a new football product in the Spring. Which brings me to the dark horse - ESPN. As it's widely reported, ESPN is in a world of trouble now due to massive revenue losses from cord cutting, along with insane contracts it gave out to sports leagues (not anticipating the subscribers falling heavily). So there's a really good chance ESPN will let go of the NFL when the MNF contract expires in 2021. Even with revenues and subscribers falling rapidly, it's still an institution with a lot of power in the sports world. So maybe in anticipation of letting major sports leagues go (and to justify their existence if they lose the NFL and maybe NBA and NCAA football), maybe they take on the XFL on a deal that reimburses Vince based heavily on viewership. That could be huge. ESPN has basically been a 24/7/365 NFL infomercial the last 20 years, and that's a huge part of making the NFL what it has become. The XFL isn't going to be anything close to the NFL in terms of talent or social impact, but if ESPN hypes the hell out of it, talks about it on every SportsCenter, and tells people they should care about it, they might make the league succeed.
  10. Here's my line of thinking - the XFL was a joke. It became a punchline. It's up there with New Coke as an "insert awful failed product" that people still recall several years later. I think having the XFL exist as a profitable league, even if it's explicitly a minor league, washes that away. I mean, would it be less impressive if his obit were to read "in addition to the WWE, he owned a regional chain of fast foot restaurants and 25 dry cleaners?" Would people say he failed because his fast food chain didn't take on McDonald's? Would he have failed at the dry cleaning business because he only had 25 locations and didn't take it nationally? No. I think those would just be additional feathers in his cap. I understand what you're saying about Vince, and you're not wrong about his personality. But he's built an entertainment juggernaut almost entirely on his own. Outside of becoming president or being outed as another Harvey Weinstein, nothing he does will overshadow that as his legacy. He knows that. He's a wrestling guy. But if he can be a wrestling tycoon who started a mildly successful football league, that would replace him being a wrestling tycoon who started a bombastic failure of a football league.
  11. Him taking on the territories is totally different than him taking on the NFL. The territories were... territories, and he was the first company to establish a national footprint. Him taking on the NFL would be more like 5 or so year ago when TNA decided it was going to take on WWE, which lasted all of a few months. Also, the NFL is the most powerful sports league in America and the most powerful entertainment company outside of Disney. That's way different than taking on mom-and-pop wrestling companies. Furthermore, I don't remember necessarily that the XFL "took on" the NFL last time. They played in the Spring. They had a lot of bluster about being a different brand, tougher than the NFL, more fun, etc. But there was no reason Bears fans couldn't have been fans of the Enforcers. I was in high school at the time, and most of my friends didn't follow wrestling. We were all excited for the league and watched at the start of the season. The problem was the league was not run as a legitimate league, but as a combination of WWF and the NFL Blitz video games. They had kayfabe heel announcers! Nobody other than wrestling fans could take it seriously, so nearly everybody tuned out shortly thereafter. I think their problem last time was buying too much into the Attitude Era of wrestling and not that they tried to take on the NFL. Had the league been a wild success, maybe Vince would have moved the games to the fall five or so years later, but we'll never know. Like I said, if it takes a decade to go toe-to-toe with the NFL, Vince would be 85 at that time. I don't think he needs to beat the NFL here to prove that he's a success. I think he just needs to prove that he can form his own league and have it make money. If his goal is to take on the NFL, he's going to fail within his own lifetime. But if he "settles" for a league which makes a profit without being the top dog, he can be fine. Plus, unlike Lamar Hunt and the pioneers of the AFL, he would own all the teams. I think it would be a huge notch on his belt if he could pull it off. Will he? I wouldn't bet on it, but it's not out of the realm of possibility if he treats it like a legitimate league and doesn't make the same mistakes as last time.
  12. I don't know about that. It would take at least 2-3 years for the XFL to get a solid footing. By the friendliest estimates, it would probably be a decade before the league would be in any position to compete with the NFL, and even then it would take a huge amount of good fortune and NFL blunders. Vince is going to be 73 soon. He may be crazy at times, but he's not dumb. As you know, four years ago when the WWE network started, it was considered a failure and Vince supposedly lost half his net worth. People thought he was a senile and had lost it. Within a year, WWEN was in Canada and Europe, and he may have doubled his original wealth. He built the company, then the network. He's done what people said couldn't be done. I believe that the failure of the XFL has eaten away at him since 2001. That's why he's restarting it. He has nothing left to prove outside of succeeding at football. Topping the NFL is a pipedream, but if he can start a Spring league that takes footing and establishes itself as a minor league, eventually getting bought out by the NFL (and getting him back his investment many times over), I think it would be considered a success. Having a successful mid-level pro football league will rewrite the line in his obituary about swinging for the fences and striking out the first time around.
  13. I'm not saying they should try to steal fans from college football. Their seasons won't overlap, so they don't have to steal fans from college or the NFL. If they get loyalty from CFB fans who don't really care about the NFL, get a casual following among football fans who would watch anything, and distinguish the league as pro talent (obviously lesser) with a different kind of game, they could make it work.
  14. Possibly, but 1) tNCAA fandom is still a huge market they could make a lot of money on; and 2) it looks like they're going to play in the Spring, so they wouldn't even need to steal the fans away from college football. The fans could follow both at different times of the year. Also, I think there's a sizeable group of people who don't watch college sports because it's not pro talent. If they do things right (which remains to be seen), they can gain a following among people who are fed up with the NFL, get viewership from NFL/NCAA fans who desire even more football/gambling, and maybe establish themselves as a minor league for the NFL a few years down the road. I have to imagine that's their endgame, because they aren't coming close to competing with the NFL for at least a decade barring some kind of catastrophe from Goodell and co.
  15. I agree. I don't particularly like the Tigers' home uniforms (or the Yankees' homes). But both are perfect for them and shouldn't have ever been changed. Since the Tigers' home set isn't sacred anymore, then they might as well make it about 1000x better by adding orange outlines to everything.
  16. The players weren't expressing their constitutional rights. The NFL granted them the right to demonstrate on national TV while wearing their emblem, but the league would be entirely within their rights to fine or fire the players for doing so (as determined by the CBA). As for the rest of your post, the safety is the biggest thing. People might want to see "hard nosed football," but there's not really a way to do that without risking concussions at a much higher rate than the NFL. They can't have scrums for possessions and they can't glorify safeties destroying receivers in this day and age. Some fans would dislike it and the media would rightfully destroy them for it. There's a lot of room to clean up the crap of not knowing what a catch is, not knowing what holding is, replays taking 5 minutes, replays reversing calls when there's no evidence to justify it, and so forth. The officiating is getting worse, and there are more and more games each year that leave you infuriated because they end on some arbitrary rule or a blown call. And we can only watch the Patriots benefit from pro-wrestling style officiating so many times. There's a market for "different than the NFL" which has nothing to do with politics. But I don't know how they could make it safer outside of going with padded leather helmets. Maybe they could focus on offense in an arena-type game. No kick-offs, teams get the ball at the 30, maybe replace the punt and come up with something penalizing teams for not going for it on 4th down (not saying it's a good idea). Come up with something different than anything that's done in high school/NCAA/NFL and brand it as "not your daddy's football." Vince has had 17 years to think this over. I have to imagine things are going to be much more thought-out than the last time around. I don't think it's going to be a live action NFL Blitz.
  17. Yes. They need to change. The black needs to go from the uniforms, and at very least, they need to lose the black-brimmed cap (which is only seen in the bottom half of innings on the road). Their number/name font is awful and too "olde tyme baseball" like some crappy independent minor league team calling itself the Mudville Nine would wear. They should bring back the 70s-90s font, which is unique despite being a block font.
  18. ^Obviously, both of those Bengals looks were good and far superior to the current crap. They need to bring back some combo of the '80s/90s. Numbers on the sleeves. Block numbers with an outline. No leaping tiger, tiger head or awful B logo - you're using freaking tiger stripes all over. Nobody is going to confuse you for the Ravens. I think the striping pattern was better on the '90s set. Undecided if the orange or black socks would work better.
  19. Just dropping I to say that the 80's Bengals jerseys were better than the '90s ones. Simpler is better with numbers on the sleeves. The helmets have tiger stripes. The shoulders and pants have tiger stripes. They made the jerseys worse putting a tiger on the sleeves. It's like the old crappy kids' Halloween costumes that had a picture of the character on the chest.
  20. Hopefully the team facing the Patriots isn't worn out by the 4th quarter again, too.
  21. Guys, stop. The B football is one of the worst logos in pro sports. It looks like a half-assed logo Nike designed 15 years ago for Nike-exclusive hats, using parts of the team's identity in a unique but uninspiring way. Like the NE logo with the logo stripes coming off it. Among the reasons it's terrible: It's a B, and it their logo should be a C; The stripes don't extend behind the B (as seen in the loops), but they fill in the triangle on the right side; The football lines curve slightly from the corners, where as the striped lines are a sharp angle. This is inexcusable with these being so close to one another. The stripes should truncate at the same angle as the football. It always drove me nuts; There is much more white space between the football and stripe corners than there is outlining the B. The spacing of white should be the same in both spots; The stripes are of no significance to the Browns. Yes, the current awful uniforms use brown-orange-brown stripes on the pants, and they wore those stripes when they originally messed up the uniforms circa 2003. But that's not the Browns. Their stripes should always be orange-brown-orange. Alternatively, an orange football with B-W-B stripes would have made sense; Seriously, stripes inside a football? It's terrible. A "B" looked bad inside a football surrounded by dead white space, so they crudely threw in the stripes. They're saying "we have to put something in this spot to make this logo interesting. The other oval logos in football fill up the space with letters. But they just had a B, so they had to throw in random crap. A single letter can't fill up a football. It's just bad design. A dog, an elf, or an entirely new logo that isn't a bad attempt at an olde tyme-y football logo would be fine. Just not leave it off the helmets.
  22. Yellow touching white, even-numbered piping, city name at home for a team that isn't the Yankees or Tigers I don't have a problem with yellow touching white, but the rest of it applies. Also: Not brown and yellow; Introduced yet another color scheme for a schizophrenic franchise; Copied a DEEPLY UNPOPULAR color scheme from the local football team which symbolized the indifference that team's ownership had for the fans (and that team has since moved). This would be like if the Cleveland Cavaliers switched to purple and black. No swinging Friar patch; Cap logos on jerseys are largely lazy and awful. The Yankees and Tigers are grandfathered (even though both use different logos from the caps). White Sox, too. The cap is a small space that requires 1-2 letters to effectively use the space. The chest, however, is a much larger space that allows the team to expand its identity, especially including the team name. There's no excuse for introducing a reductionist home jersey 50 years after the franchise started and when the team doesn't have an awful name that looks bad spelled out (like Diamondbacks).
  23. I agree that this jersey is worlds better than the current awful home set. This is a great look, though the wordmark could stand to be a slight bit bolder, IMO. However, it still uses the same awful number font. The font worked (but wasn't great) with the bevels, but it looks so terrible in two-color form. It's especially awful when the home jersey has a very thin logo on one side being completely overshadowed by the thick, almost square numbers on the opposite side.
  24. I don't hold the Tigers (or Yankees) set in high regard. I think both homes are classics that I would never touch if I got the title of uniform czar. However, both are just "meh" in my opinion (especially the Tigers). I really like the Tigers' script jersey they wore for one year in the '50s. Throw an orange outline around the navy and that is a great jersey; much superior to their current homes. But like I said, I'd never change them at this point. However, I do really like both teams' road sets. I agree that the Tigers' roads would look better without the white outline. However, they still look good with the white. Also, I love the white outlines on the Yankees roads. Since they've been wearing it for close to 50 years (and 7 titles), I think it's passed the point of being inappropriate for a storied franchise, and also passed the point of being dated with the 70's cuffs. Also, I feel the white outlines and stripes add a tiny bit of life to an otherwise boring look with no names on the back. Also, no, the Yankees shouldn't add names to their jerseys (but the Red Sox should add names at home).
  25. Are you in your early 20's? I rarely ever saw the Cardinals on national TV growing up (because they were terrible), but I seem to remember them wearing white a lot at home in the '90s. Regardless, I'm glad that the franchise left that nonsense in the past. It's stupid in general, but particularly egregious for teams which don't have a long history of doing it (Texans) and play in climate-controlled domes to negate the dark color boogieman (also Texans).
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.