• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by gosioux76

  1. I wasn't speaking at all about sports conferences. The post I quoted made note of teams that "almost were" champions. So they changed uniforms then came just short of a title. It was a play on words. I referred to them being in the "almost were division" of teams that changed uniforms ahead of a major achievement.
  2. But here's the thing: Do you think owners would change uniforms so often if doing so didn't actually succeed in generating new business? Owners don't look at uniforms the way we do. There's nothing sacred in the name of commerce. The second Tom Brady retires and the Buccaneers return to their status as a moribund franchise, owners will once again tinker with the uniform as a way to drum up excitement for the brand. (I could be wrong, and maybe the Bucs will join the likes of the Raiders, Packers, Bears, Canadiens and Yankees in the ranks of the mostly untouchables. But I doubt it.) It's true that, especially lately, fan reaction may have some influence on these decisions. The return to BiG for the Brewers and brown to the Padres, plus the return to classic looks for the Bucs and Browns, could be considered evidence of that. But I'd be hesitant to assume these looks are here to stay. The Rams' new unis, which is heavily influenced by current fashion trends, seem as if they were released with a short shelf life.
  3. I was referring to the "almost was" category that @mmajeski06 referenced in the prior post. I didn't mean the actual AFC division. I should've been more clear.
  4. Competing in the same division, Tennessee lost in the final seconds of the Super Bowl in its first year as the Titans.
  5. Someone mentioned it earlier, but the fact that the yellow stripes on the shoulders carry a passing resemblance to St. Louis' Gateway Arch is hilarious to me. I can't NOT see it.
  6. What is that lightning/star logo on the neckline? I've never seen that before. I kinda love it.
  7. The Twins won the 1987 World Series in their first year in the "M" caps and pinstripes. I remember wondering to myself as a kid whether the uniform change made a difference. Uni-Watch touched on this back in 2011.
  8. Fixed that first line for you. You're spot on, though. It's hard to think that a design this simplified can still be over-designed, but it is. I've said it before, that in the afterglow of the LA Rams reveal, my dislike for these has tempered somewhat. But these are still a huge missed opportunity. More than anything, I'm left with a feeling of genuine disappointment. The Falcons have such a fantastic uniform history on which to draw that it's frustrating to see them take this path. I think I'm learning this about myself: When it comes to football uniforms, I much prefer modernizations of classic designs that adapt to today's fabric choices and uniform cuts, while allowing small touches of design innovation. The Vikings uniforms are a great example of this. It's also a big reason why I love what the Chargers have done, but was also underwhelmed by the Browns and Buccaneers. They each look much better by adopting previous designs, but they also lack ambition.
  9. So they're just one of those magic eye posters, essentially.
  10. This is interesting. Found this story from 2011 on the Wild's website about how the organization selected the name and logos. I think we're all familiar with how Wild was among six finalist names submitted by fans: Freeze, Northern Lights, Blue Ox, White Bears, Voyageurs and Wild. In the passage below, Matt Majka -- now the team's president -- outlines what came next, including the initial introduction of a wordmark followed by a logo design process. I've highlighted a few passages I think offer some insight to what we've been discussing.
  11. Not sure these are the greatest examples. There's really nothing vague about "Stars." There's absolutely zero chance of misunderstanding what a star is, and the branding is clearly reflective of its name. The "Wild" could be anything, but because the organization hasn't clearly defined its brand, we're left with something with either no discernible meaning or multiple ones.
  12. I'd argue that these are essentially the same thing.
  13. I'm not sure you want leeway when developing a brand. I think certainty is a far more valuable. You either know who you are or you don't.
  14. This is really interesting. I never really thought about it much over the years, but you could argue that the Minnesota Wild organization hasn't adequately defined the word "Wild" for itself. I agree with your description of the primary logo as a serene setting inside a bear silhouette. That implies "Wild" as an abbreviation of "wilderness." But the original team wordmark -- with its scraggly typography -- seems to evoke "Wild" as an adjective for unrestrained or violent. They've shifted away from this in recent years, of course, but the term "Wild" is still not clearly defined.
  15. I think the simple answer to this is, because people will still buy it. It may not sell all that well, relative to teams with an actual brand, but it'll still sell, because people will buy anything. I could see some people seeing a Washington Football Team t-shirt as representing the spoils of war, a token of victory. Others just might appreciate the novelty of this brief period in history. Before long, it'll become kitsch.
  16. That's true. I can't argue that point. But I also think it's wise for the team, in this weird interim period, to avoid having any sort of identity. This organization is in the early stages of a wholecloth rebranding — soup to nuts, as they say. Why make the effort to build some Brand X identity? What they're doing is the smartest thing they could do (which is saying a lot, considering who we're talking about.) Keep the foundation of the uniforms but drop all traces of the name and logo. Nothing more. We're wired to want some sort of logo to associate with a professional sports team, but this is an unusual circumstance where avoiding any and all imagery is the best way to go.
  17. MLS4THELOU has been using variations on red, yellow and blue since they launched their expansion effort in the fall of 2019. And the stadium renderings show people dressed in red jerseys which, admittedly, isn't always a clue. But I could see how the shade of red they're using here is more pink-ish than what they've been using to this point. I'd be surprised if that's what they went with. It's almost magenta. It would be different for the league, certainly.
  18. I'm sure all the people living in the Kansas half of that metro area would love it.
  19. Sure, if that guy had an arch nemesis in the building.
  20. That's right. And it could change. It's the prey for the first two periods, then gets angry and goes after it in the third. A neat little sub-narrative. It would be a cool novelty, plus it gives the team two characters to market.
  21. OK, here's a dumb idea. What if they had TWO characters: some sort of fisherman caricature, the other an unseen set of eyeballs (maybe a hint of tentacle) that appears in hidden corners of the arena, but is never caught. Every time the eyeballs show up, the fisherman either scatters or runs toward it to catch it. It's like a live-action cartoon playing out in every game.
  22. Also, @Brian in Boston, your analysis tracks with some of the anecdotes I've heard locally in St. Louis. It's all second or third hand, but the one thing I've heard is that Stars wasn't anybody's first choice, but it was a lot of people's second choices. It's now clear to me that this probably comes directly from these focus groups.
  23. That's interesting analysis, Brian. Thanks for sharing. Interestingly, a prominent figure in the St. Louis soccer scene, Bill McDermott, trademarked the name Legacy St. Louis back in January. Best I can tell, he's not affiliated with team ownership. Here's the logo he trademarked. Based on this, I'd rule out Legacy.
  24. If you remove the half-moon crescent, you've got a helluva nice helmet for a team named the Mountain Goats.