gosioux76

So if that's Wade's job, what is the hoped-for end result? To somehow make a franchise based in Utah a globally relevant brand? And that's not a knock on Utah. I don't see the Jazz as some universally disliked franchise. I just think they're living the existence of any small to mid-market NBA franchise without a recent championship. They're essentially the Portland Trail Blazers -- beloved locally but (outside of a single marketable superstar who holds their fate in his hands) easily forgettable by the rest of the sporting public. The way I see it, there are only two real ways to do this in the modern NBA. Win, which is why the Bucks -- another once-easily ignored franchise -- is having its day in the sun. Cultivate the next top-5 superstar and hope he's either unfailingly loyal or develops quickly enough that your team gets the best of him before he's lured away by a bigger market.

I've been reading through this entire debate, and I keep going back to this concept. I'm sure I'm in the minority about this, but I really like it. It takes a minute, because I think embracing it requires reimagining the AVs as a burgundy-first brand, which they've never been, but certainly could be. I'm really coming around to the idea. As @the admiral said, really fixing this issue would require blowing the whole thing up and starting over. I see this as meeting-halfway kind of response to that idea.

The next logical step here is to have the Jazz distribute Crayons and coloring pages featuring black-and-white uniforms and let fans create their own color palates, which Nike will then use as inspiration to make "Fan Edition" alts. You heard it here first.

I get the concern, but I'm kind of the mind that the proverbial ship has already sailed when it comes to NBA branding. The fact that the Jazz last year comfortably vacillated between the primary purple/yellow/green to red-rocks-rainbow to a kelly-green-yellow alt says it all when it comes to the lack of uniformity in NBA uniforms. Sure, I suppose it can get worse. But, and apologies for being a downer, I've now come to expect it.

I might be wrong, or my eyes are failing me, but I thought I saw one of the Fox broadcasts do this, too. It's a gimmick that's going to get old really quickly, if it hasn't already. It's like someone saw the popularity of Instagram filters and said, "let's do that for live TV!"

I've never cared for that Sea Devils logo, though I think it's the best choice here. The colors alone give would give it some synchronicity to the Mariners, which changed to similar colors during this general timeframe.

I absolutely love this. I wonder how it might look with a helmet inspired by the original Jaguars concept that used the wraparound Jaguar. You could keep the black helmet, but make use of the snake’s length to give it that wraparound style, similar to the USFL Jacksonville Bulls.

I really like the updated Stars word mark, but I’ve always hated that helmet treatment. The word “stars” on it has always seemed unnecessary. That it’s sideways is even worse. You’ve already straightened the alignment of the star in the word mark. I’d do the same in the helmet logo and drop the word “stars.” I’d also make the three stars bigger to cover more area and give the impression they’re fading toward the back of the helmet.

I see they’re pairing this with tan breezers. I don’t mind it, as far as olde-tyme hockey cosplay goes. Maybe they can require the crowd to show up in suits and overcoats and introduce all the players with their favorite ragtime tunes.

I really love the uniforms for the Breakers, especially the waves on the pants. That's a super inventive touch. I question a bit whether the wordmark and secondary logo below the jersey neckline was a thing in '94, but that's not a detail that bothers me much. On the color, it's gorgeous, but I tend to agree with the sentiment that it was an unnecessary change. It's a perfect choice for a new franchise, but only a sideways evolution for a team that was already blue. Also, I only just began paying attention to this thread today, and I'm loving it. Really incredible work. One earlier detail that others mentioned and I can't get out of my head, is on the Panthers helmet. I couldn't agree more with the people who suggested the Panthers helmet logo needs to be primarily burgundy. It loses some of its weight without it.

I disagree, based solely on personal preference. I can't stand the red-green combo for some reason. Having red relegated to a tertiary color has made it far more palatable.

I agree that red-on-red isn't a great look either. And I wouldn't even say it's better than this. To me, the Angels should always be a navy first, red secondary brand, despite the longevity and relative success they've had with the current look. To be honest, I think this era of uniform might have been more appealing had they avoided pinstripes and powder blue and added sleeves. Something simpler could've saved it.

You could put every Angels player in that uniform and it would qualify as the "wrong look."

As much as I like a good game of "jump to conclusions," I'm afraid I didn't make mention of being OK with Nike, nor did I find room in there to compare it to Barstool. As far as I'm concerned, MLB should make them both answer for their sins. Sorry if that takes some of the fun out of hopping onto the 'ole soapbox.

But it also shows how willing MLB is to turn a blind eye to an organization's predatory side just so it can get exposure to its audience.

If this keeps up, he'll be at Inter Miami by the end of the weekend.

I'll endorse this statement, especially if you're a fan of comfortable hats with unique, low-key designs. I'll buy a New Era if it's an on-field MLB or MiLB cap. But for anything else, I find their offerings to be either too basic or too gimmicky. I was looking for a Vikings cap recently. I wanted something unique, maybe a bit retro, but not overdone with excess striping or patches. Found this one and, being a fan of the old two-bar face mask, loved it. Super comfortable low-profile hat, too. (At the time, they were doing a buy-one, get-one deal online and snagged a powder-blue Twins hat with the classic Minnie & Paul shaking hands logo.) EDIT: I almost forgot this, too. A couple years ago, I lost my beloved Twins "M" cap. I wanted to buy a replacement immediately, but New Era at the time had taken them out of circulation. The '47 Brand, however, had a fitted one. It replaced the MLB logo on the back with the road "MINNESOTA" script from the team's World Series years. While it wasn't an on-field authentic, you'd never be able to tell from the quality. And no, I don't work for '47 Brand. I've just grown to be a fan of their products and prices.

I'm not as up to speed on hockey as other sports, so I have no recollection of Chara with anybody other than the Bruins. To educate myself, I looked him up, and was shocked to see he started his playing career in the late- to mid-90s. I know hockey players tend to have longer careers than athletes in other sports, but it still blows my mind to consider that someone playing today was also playing professionally while I was in college 25 years ago.

So if they wanted a retro look for their new, 2022 Winter Classic uniforms, they would just roll out something they wore a few years ago rather than coming up with a new idea?

Are you suggesting that they couldn't come up with something else reminiscent of an older look? Or is every team only allowed to do this once?

I'm with you. I grew up with the North Stars and badly miss having that logo in the league. But I find it mildly painful to see the Wild cash in on that nostalgia, knowing they'll never adopt those colors and that logo will remain in the archives for perpetuity. I think I'd appreciate it more creatively if the Wild designed a fauxback meant to look as if the team existed 40 years ago. That seems more in line with the spirit of this program anyway. If your hockey roots are too new, then imagine what it would look like if you'd been around since the dawn of the league.

I would guess, considering the relatively recent and quick rollout of their new look, that they're just using the uniforms they had planned to wear in 2020. Unless I'm missing something, there's nothing about these uniforms that's specifically "Elks" branded. I've assumed from the start that they're just using their prior equipment, but changed the helmet design.

Did they wear blank yellow helmets in 1953, too?

I don't think it's that absurd. I think there's a distinction be made between wearing performance apparel like running shorts with a small brand mark and casual wear in which the sole purpose is to display the brand, which is what I think @Chromaticis referring to here. It's like how Under Armour-branded hoodies were a thing for a while. Like him, I'd much rather wear something non-branded, or that has a small brand mark, then one that's so in-your-face about it. I don't care for the idea of willfully becoming a walking advertisement for a multi-billion-dollar corporation and paying $100+ for the right to do so. I also recognize that saying this makes me a hypocrite every time I wear apparel of my favorite sports teams. But I think it comes down to what you're comfortable endorsing and whether those brands are meant to say something about you personally.

I agree with many of you that Commanders is terrible and Redtails is nothing but a proxy to appease the stubborn blockheads among the fanbase. Washington Wolves is the easiest choice. It's classic enough to fit with a franchise with Washington's history. And as much as you'd like the new brand to excite and inspire, I can understand why a team might find comfort in something from the video game create-a-team options. Wolves at least sounds as if it could have existed in the '40s and is a name that shouldn't be difficult to build around visually. That said, I don't care for the wolf head logo shown among those concepts, though the W with the claws has some potential.