gosioux76

Except it was probably closer to 600 lbs of humanity, maybe less.

I agree on matte being the superior look over the shiny early '2000s fabrics. I can't see those uniforms without thinking of the Fubu streetwear of the era. My issue with the Eagles isn't the fabric as much as the shade of green. While the matte fabric leads to a more uniform color, the particular shade can veer too closely into teal category. Meanwhile, the helmets, under certain lighting, can be difficult to distinguish between the green and black. I'm not sure I'd advocate for going full retro with the Eagles, but I'd be OK if the uniforms stayed largely the same but with a more vibrant shade of green.

This is an excellent point. I definitely agree that which generation you're from plays a big role in how you view this discussion, which is part of what makes it so interesting. I was a massive NBA fan starting in the late '80s, just as the Eastern Conference power structure was shifting from the Celtics to the Pistons and MJ's Bulls were still an underdog nipping at their heels. The way MJ carried those teams, as he did most of his later championship teams, was what made him so enjoyable to watch. You couldn't take your eyes off him. There might have been four other people wearing red uniforms when he dribbled past half court, but you still had the feeling that it was 1 on 5 and he was still going to destroy the other team. I'll never dismiss LeBron's talent, nor his impact on the game or the world at large. He's a phenomenal human being and an exceptional athlete. But other than the 2016 NBA Finals, I can't recall a time when I was awed by his game in the same way as I was with MJ. Some of it just comes down to style. LeBron is dominant, but not flashy. He'll score 50 and make it look easy. That's a different type of skill that deserve appreciation, but might not elicit as much excitement. The only current player who even comes close to generating the excitement I felt while watching MJ would be Ja Morant.

Uhh, is the Earth flat?

I can't imagine why. The armed services have spent, likely, billions on marketing campaigns over generations, a necessity of needing to market themselves to potential recruits. NASA doesn't have that same problem.

Yeah the pink really feels out of place on this. I can't tell, but does the crest have a matching purple background or is it black? Either way, it also looks awkward in this application. Another good reason why simplifying the crest just to the crown, at least on change kits, would make sense.

On the whole, I agree with you that Las Vegas seems like a risky choice, particularly with so many other potential promising markets. I also think that it's hard to dismiss the pull of football itself. Everything you said about competition from other sports, especially as a minor league entrant, is true. But the entire premise of the XFL and USFL is that American consumers maintain a healthy appetite for football year-round that has yet to be satiated. Plus, it's bound to be cheap, at least relative to the Raiders, and if there's one thing people in Vegas can appreciate it's cheap entertainment. Otherwise, yes, San Diego would've made a lot more sense. Can't argue that.

I agree. I think it's a smart and probably financially efficient transition into playing in "home" markets. The schedule on the USFL website also shows that they'll typically play in a given market for two consecutive weeks rather than just jumping around.

I've been saying this for more than a dozen years, ever since I first experienced sitting with the Timbers Army in Portland during the USL days. Soccer today remains the only platform in professional sports that allows its supporters to have an institutionalized voice that actually resonates and is visible on game day. Almost none of it is done without a degree of trust and oversight, some of it a little overzealous, but the net effect of it is MLS has become, arguably, the most progressive league in American sports. It seemed as if one in every three tifo displays in Portland was about a social cause, whether it be LGBTQ+ or trans rights, justice for hate crimes, etc. They show their love for the team, but also make clear that they want the team they love to stand for what they believe in. In a way, putting this in the hands of a highly visible supporters group could take some of the burden off the team itself when it comes to championing righteous social causes. Not that I think teams shouldn't promote these issues, but when a player turns out to be a bigot, it's much easier to turn this into a workforce dispute that makes the player a martyr for the extreme right. I'd argue there's more a stake for a player to take on a vocal part of the fanbase than there would be to speak out against their employer.

These are great points that continue to hammer home how these are not one-size-fits-all deals. As @aawagner011noted, sometimes the opportunity is regional with a brand looking to get a foothold in a new market. Other times, it's about broader exposure. I doubt Tik-Tok cares about boosting their market share in Wales; they paid to have their logo on Wrexham's jerseys because they knew it would bring international exposure.

I know it seems like this is a smoking-gun example of your point, but marketing deals vary greatly from sport to sport and country to country. T-Mobile (Deutsch Telekom, in this case) is one of three dominant mobile carriers in Germany. Bayern is that nation's biggest sports brand. Its Bayern sponsorship means that its logo is the largest and most visible thing on the most high-profile piece of sports apparel in that country. The leverage in that case belongs to the team, and T-Mobile gets the exposure it needs no matter the color of the logo. In the U.S., T-Mobile is one among a much more crowded field of competition. Its signature brand element, the one thing that helps it instantly stand out from its competitors, is its magenta color. The placement of its logo as a small patch on a shoulder isn't valuable enough for it to concede something so critical to its brand as its primary color. The return on investment wouldn't justify such a move. The leverage in this case belongs with the sponsor. To the bigger point, @jzn110is 100% right. If a brand wants its logo on a jersey badly enough, they could absolutely choose to do so in a way that matched the team's color scheme. But the companies likely to make that call are ones without the leverage in these scenarios. It would likely be a brand with a logo that's A) designed to be adaptable or B ) values the exposure so highly that it trumps any concerns about brand continuity. T-Mobile's probably not the best example in this case.

I don't know. It seems KD over the past 10 years or so has sought to plant himself in situations where he isn't the sole focal point. He loses Harden and Westbrook in OKC, so he jumps to a Warriors team with Steph and Klay. He jumps from there to Brooklyn, where he pairs with Kyrie and, for a stretch, Harden again. In this circumstance, the assumption is he'd be OK surrounding himself with complementary role players rather than other superstars who'd take some of the burden off his back. Maybe it's unfair, but it seems as of the biggest knock on the guy is that he hasn't shown a strong desire to lead.

Just imagine what he'd have done if Ken Anderson was his quarterback. Two sure-fire Hall of Famers!

Is it just me, or does this Cardinals logo share a vibe with the peeing Calvin &. Hobbs bumper stickers?

I've never understood this either. It seems like not only a waste of assets, but you're also handicapping a new manager with decisions he might have made differently. I know results are what keep a manager employed, but I really liked the culture Marsch seemed to be building at Leeds. He had good energy, I guess.

I think it also helps that their ownership of the club doesn't come off as a vanity play or as a plaything for the wealthy like so many other foreign takeovers. They appear as if they're doing this for the experience and take seriously their stewardship of a community asset. The documentary also gives the appearance that, despite their fame, these aren't guys with bottomless wealth that can spend their way into contention.

The most maddening thing about the NBA is how this trade, for both teams, wasn't as much about the players dealt as it is about whether it appeases each team's existing superstars enough to convince them to stick around. The Nets somehow seem even more unsettled after trading Kyrie. And now the rest of the league is salivating over the prospects of landing Durant, considering he's seemed to have one foot out the door ever since he arrived in Brooklyn. (And wherever he's been, for that matter.) If I'm a Brooklyn fan, I'd be easing myself into the idea that the team is on the verge of a complete rebuild. And it might be more fun to follow.

Jeff Fischer was immediately replaced by Mike Nolan. Here's the full coaching lineup for this year

It's pretty amazing how the whole thing is powered by one, giant Duracell battery on the top.

My main quibble with this is that the paint splatter makes it harder to distinguish the stars above the crest, which is the one thing that shouldn't be obscured.

I'm not one to over-analyze promotional tweets for clues, but here I go anyway: Lots of white in this tweet.

No pictures, but Sports Business Journal reports that Houston signed Oxy Energy and Cincinnati signed Kroger to shoulder patch deals. SOURCE: https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/SB-Blogs/Newsletter-Marketing/2023/02/01.aspx

Lots of potential here. But I agree with @-Akronite- and @vtgco that the shape of the basketball feels off. I like the idea of shaping it more like a basketball net. The use of the bridge morphing into a net below the rim would be really clever.

I wouldn't read into the shade of blue based on that picture. JJ might be sending signals, but it's not like he's a team executive. Not sure I'd even call this a leak. It's more suggestive of being a clue than proof of anything.

I'd like that, too. But think of it like an advertiser: would you pay more to have your logo on the field, where it might only appear on certain camera angles, or on a jersey where you're guaranteed to see it for pretty much the entire game. Decisions like this come down to what someone's willing to pay for rather than what might be more aesthetically pleasing, unfortunately. As for the maker's mark, I'm pretty sure its placement is probably written into Nike's contract with the league.