gosioux76

I love this. I've never been a fan of the late '90s/'00s Timberwolves logo the way most people are, but I think there's a lot of potential to use it as a baseline for modernization. For one, I'd brighten the colors, maybe using the original royal and bright green from the inaugural sets. I just think those uniforms were too drab. I also never liked the use of the whole word "Timberwolves," but I think is would look fantastic if that same typeface was used with just "Wolves."

I absolutely love immersive, wraparound helmet styles, so I applaud the effort. I think from an isolated side view like this, it's really intriguing. But in real life, when you see it from various angles, I have a feeling it would look as if this was a really long two-headed horse with no rear end. Previous efforts at helmets like this avoided this in various ways. The Seahawks is focused only on the head, and not the rest of the body. The USFL's Jacksonville Bulls focused on the entire bull, but used motion lines to obscure most of the body, avoiding this two-headed creature effect. If anything, I'd maybe consider the Michigan Panthers style, in which the bucking Bronco is coming from the bottom of the helmet, as if on its hind legs.

Needs clear side panels.

That's all true, but it doesn't account for the variances from one team to another. Teams may be willing to spend more, but it doesn't necessarily mean that that money is coming from increased revenue. A team owned by a multi-millionaire is still in competition with a team owned by a billionaire who might have no issue continuing to dump more of their personal wealth into a team to make it competitive. On the point of losing money, I wouldn't be so quick to assume that all teams are raking in the dough. Forbes's annual ranking of franchise valuations includes data on each team's operating income, and one-third of baseball's teams in 2021 posted an operating loss — meaning the cost of business operations surpassed the revenue they were bringing in. And while these franchises are high-profile institutions with valuations in the billions, as operating entities they're nothing more than mid-sized regional businesses generating annual revenue in the roughly $320 million range. Those Forbes revenue and income figures exclude things like real estate investments or ownership stakes in regional sports networks, but even then, those categories are evidence that mid-sized businesses need to diversify their revenue streams to maintain growth. But you don't have to be losing money to justify additional revenue streams. Running a business, of any type or size, is about the pursuit of growth, which means maintaining or growing profit margins. And like most American businesses, the cost of doing business is increasing. Some might call this greed — and in many cases, it very well may be — but it's also the nature of capitalism. Don't take this as some endorsement for advertising patches. As a uniform purist like most of you, I find them distasteful and I wish they didn't exist. But the knee-jerk assumption that they're some symbol of corporate greed seems a bit hyperbolic to me.

Ok, I'm willing to be convinced. Explain it.

This is a fair take. It's possible to dislike the ads and wish they weren't there while also acknowledging that there could be real economic reasons for which moves like this have become necessary. But at the same time, the finances of professional sports aren't transparent enough for us to really understand whether there's a need for this revenue or if it's just another opportunistic cash grab. From an armchair view, it would seem plausible that the continued ballooning of player contracts would suggest this revenue would become a competitive necessity for some clubs, particularly those that find themselves unable to pursue big-name free agents because they can't afford to outbid deep-pocketed clubs. But even then, I'm not sure the revenue from an ad patch would be enough to put, say, the Pirates in the running for Aaron Judge. If anything, it might help to retain current profit margins, which isn't nothing.

It could just be the angle of the photos, but these pictures suggest that, at some point in their history, the Seahawks either shrunk the size of the bird head or pulled it further back on the helmet. The Jim Zorn / Steve Largent photo has the beak edging right up to the facemask, while the later image shows a few inches gap.

I also wonder whether playing in a low-stature league like this won't eventually become a sore point for someone with an ego like Ronaldo's. He'll be treated like a god in Saudi Arabia, but it seems to me as if big stars eventually vanish to the rest of the world once they move to more obscure leagues.

The Knights uniforms are gorgeous. I especially love the detail on the pants and the unique striping patterns on the sleeves and necklines. My one quibble is with the helmet logo. It feels off to have the sword essentially pointing backward, as if it's leading with the handle. I would either flip it, or angle it more horizontally across the helmet, so the sword essentially stretches from back to front, almost like the Seahawks.

I don't like ads either, but suggesting someone stop watching the league because of a patch on the sleeve is the definition of overreaction.

I'm not a big fan of the Waldo look for the U.S. It isn't that it's a bad look, but it worry that it would obscure the crest, which is fantastic and should be showcased to its fullest. I'd almost rather we go the route of England, with simple kits that use navy and red in small doses, whether it be trim or subdued striping.

I'm confused. I thought the Bucks' inclusion of blue had to do with some homage to the city's proximity to a large body of water, as ridiculous as that may be.

That's perfection. Well done.

I think using that patch, you'd end up with the same white vs. cream conflict that would make it unappealing.

This is a brilliant alternative to what the Twins unveiled for a cream jersey. Well done.

As much as I liked the new Mexico crest when it came out, I don't necessarily like how it looks on the jersey. Their kits on the whole look fantastic, but the shape of the crest stands out to me as awkward. It could be just that I haven't gotten used to it.

I kind of agree with you. The Twins did this in the early 2000s when there was a clamoring for a return of the TC after a decade with only the original "M" hat. At that time, it sort of worked to have the TC at home and the "M" on the road, where they still wore the "Minnesota" road jerseys. But this new "M" hat feels really jarring to me. It could be just that it's new and hasn't been around long enough to feel like it belongs with the Twins, but at the moment I'd prefer it be relegated to a secondary mark, worn on the sleeves or on a BP hat. (All that said: I'll still buy one, like I buy almost every new Twins cap.)

I've always felt that gradient-heavy Colonials set is overly busy and the mark itself is too detailed to work effectively on the side of the helmet. My two cents, which you can feel free to discard: You've got an opportunity to do an Eagles-like winged helmet here with that logo (minus the roundel adornments.) What that has to do with "Colonials" I don't know, but it would seem to be a more engaging way to use this logo than what you have here. Short of that, I voted for Cannons, because I feel it fits Boston by the others. If purely on aesthetics, I'd pick Commanders. I just like the Boston Cannons name better.

I'm a big fan of simplicity, but the single-layer treatment here is making me think a lot about what Nike has done with some NBA designs, notably the Jazz and Cavs. There's a sort-of oversimplification trend in play that seems to take it just a step or two too far. In fact, these uniforms look fine on the players, but much cheaper when displayed for sale online. By contrast, the cleaner, simpler brand marks make for much more stylish casual apparel. I'm sure this is part of the strategy. The unveiling wasn't just about the uniforms, but they also showcased examples of the full apparel line on regular people. There's a top-line revenue growth plan at play here.

One thing about the "M" hats: While I like them, I'm also getting strong reminders of the old Miami Marlins hats.

Based on the previews we'd seen, I didn't think I'd like these. But seeing them together as a collection, I'm pleasantly surprised. I also like the "M" hat a lot more than I thought I would. I'm not as strong on the cream uniform, but that element of the branding makes for some pretty nice casual apparel, especially that homage to Minnie and Paul with the flags.

That is an under appreciated uniform and mix of colors.

It’s not that complicated. It’s borne from the city’s flag.

Also, all MLS jerseys this year will have an Apple TV logo in different colors.

I could see them removing Minnie & Paul from the uniform, but not from their overall graphic package, considering how prominent that logo is behind center field at Target Field. Speaking of that, I'm curious as to whether they'll be updating the giant stadium signage with this brand update. The Minnie & Paul sign uses the old baseball logo, and the prior wordmark is pretty ginormous above the left-center scoreboard.