gosioux76

The Rams have us in this unusual position to where this is such a huge improvement over the monstrosities they revealed a year ago that I almost don't want to critique these. That said, I'm going to anyway. I'm relieved the numbers don't have a gradient like the blue ones, but I still really hate the numbers. I get that they're trying to evoke the shape of the ram horns inside the numbers, but it would look considerably better without the shiny lines of fabric. The same goes for the shoulder treatment. The glazy fabric is garish. One other nitpick: I don't care for the yellow trim going under the shoulders. I'm sure it has something to do with the blue on the shoulders not connecting to the end of the sleeve. But that little extra bit of yellow is a distraction.

I think you maybe contradicted yourself here. Because if you were a "Vegas guy," you'd enjoy going there whether it was February or August. FWIW, I'm not a "Vegas guy" either, so if I'm going there, it's specifically to see my team (and probably because the flights are cheap), so I wouldn't particularly care what time of year it was. But here's the thing I don't get about this topic: Vegas gets brought up as being too hot for baseball, yet Phoenix -- where the average summertime temps are nearly identical -- seems to get a pass in this regard. And the D-Backs have a retractable roof, rather than a fully domed stadium, so there's a willingness to embrace the elements. I don't really see why Vegas should be any different.

I get what you're saying, but there's a big distinction between two major universities that chose their colors decades ago and professional sports franchises that seem to make consequential branding changes every few years, and appear to do so with less and less consideration for uniqueness. The T-Wolves, for example, could easily have re-embraced royal blue and green with their most recent redesign, which would have made them unique in the league, but instead opted for a pair of darker shades of blue that, as the picture shows, isn't that dissimilar from what the Mavericks wear. It looks to me that they cared less about creating a brand that stood out within the league and more about creating product they thought had a better chance at selling, likely using focus group and market research data. And that's fine. These teams are a business, of which retail sales are a big part. So I get it. But as others have pointed out, they just end up looking a bit more like the Mavericks than I'd like. As an aside, I'm still flummoxed by the T-Wolves' decision to incorporate a neon green accent in such a subtle way that it's barely noticeable. The garish green alts aside, I don't see how adding a slight touch of green inside the fold of the shorts adds anything other than frustration that the rest of it looks so ridiculously bland.

I've never spent much time looking at that logo. It's really sort of ridiculous. That aside, it also appears as if it's too tall to adequately fit on a modern helmet. In order to avoid the air holes at the top, the logo had to be pushed more toward the back of the helmet. I wonder if you can even see the logo when looking at the helmet from the front.

This NBA Finals has really reignited my love for the NBA. As a result, I've started checking out some YouTube clips of old NBA broadcasts. I've got to say, as much as I like the current Bucks set over prior iterations, and I appreciate the attempt to pay homage to their '80s Irish rainbows, I can't imagine why they went with such a bland wordmark when what they wore in the '80s was so perfect.

Agreed. I love the idea, but the elk horn just feels too insubstantial to command the space it's trying to occupy. Making it worse are the ends of the chinstrap that partially cover up the helmet logo.

It's a crime that the Lighting totally ripped off their look from the old St. Louis Eagles. More should be said about this.

Of course it is. "Scraping the bottom of the barrel" doesn't have to mean you're picking from the worst, just that you're picking from limited options. There is so little left in the barrel that they're scraping bottom. So in this case, teams that either don't have a deep well of retro looks to pull from, or are already limited to just two colors, may already be nearing their limit of options under the RR concept. It implies nothing about whether those options are good or bad.

I don't think it takes too much effort to understand what he was saying. It wasn't a suggestion that the RR program isn't popular, but that the formula -- a throwback-inspired look in which the colors are flipped -- can only be done a limited number of ways for some teams. That, to me, is a perfectly logical take. In general, I applaud the RR program -- compared to what Nike has done with the NBA, the Adidas concept manages bring something new to the table while displaying some restraint. But I could also easily see how the concept could either run its course or run the risk of turning into a Nike-esque series of clown costumes . I think @Ridleylash's idea of paying homage to prior franchises isn't a bad idea. Depending on who owned the IP, it would be cool to bring some old WHA identities back for a spin. Personally, I'd prefer just a straight-forward throwback program minus the "reverse" part of it.

I get what you're saying, but adding that white line under his armpit, while perhaps satisfying a completist's urge, would make the logo considerably worse. Personally, I'm not missing it -- I think the logo manages to convey a continuation of that line even without that extra detail. If anything, I'd rather they had left a little space between that horizontal line and the Jerry West silhouette like they did on either side of the "75." That might have made the absence of the line under the armpit less noticeable.

Dammit, you're right. And I also left out the '84 Niners when crediting Bill Walsh.

I agree. And no discredit to them, but my mind likes to separate the '94 Niners of George Seifert and Steve Young from the '81-88-89 Niners of Bill Walsh and Joe Montana. Having different uniforms is likely a big part of that.

I'm just learning about the San Diego expansion. How exciting. The NWSL is really shaping up to be a fantastic looking league. Taking a look at all their badges, I'd say only the Washington Spirit is in need of an upgrade. I also really love that KC logo, even though I know it's a placeholder. I'm not sure what the plan is for creating a name for the franchise, but I hope they consider keeping that logo.

That's incredible. Really, really well done.

I actually find this all quite interesting. Most of us, I presume, weren't around to watch Los Angeles' rapid growth in the early 20th century. Most of the sentiment around the Dodgers seems rooted in Brooklyn's loss. But I wonder whether there wasn't also this sort of "Los Angeles doesn't deserve pro sports" attitude back then, too? It's easy to still envision Las Vegas as some sort of backwater novelty, particularly if you're only paying attention at surface level. But @spartacat_12's right: Vegas' rapid population growth, combined with the enormous amount of wealth that floods into that city, has given it a more than sufficient foundation to host multiple professional teams. And its MSA is already larger than Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Cleveland, Nashville, Milwaukee and several other markets that already host more than one pro top-level team.

I'm not sure I remember this the same way you do. The Seahawks, if my memory is accurate, never intended to wear two helmets. They released both the navy and silver versions with their uniform unveiling, saying fans would get to pick which one they went with full time. It even says as much in that ESPN link:

This certainly looks nice, no doubt. But -- and maybe this is just me -- I've come to think of Navy as too drab lately. I prefer it for my own casual attire, but it's just not a color that adds a lot of dimension to a look. I mean, if you want to be a franchise that just hangs out in the background, sure. But royal seems to have a lot more dimension. Again, this is probably just a personal preference of mine. I just always felt that the Oilers in navy represented more of a downshift for the brand rather than a modernization.

This is an incredibly helpful and thorough response. I really appreciate it.

Help me understand this: Is this Oakland being Oakland or is this Oakland taking a principled stand against doling out taxpayer money to billionaire owners. I can't say I've been paying close enough attention over the years to know whether to view this situation as Oakland just fumbling another opportunity or whether Oakland should be the standard bearer for holding the line on giveaways.

Curious about this, I began noodling around the USPTO trademark database to see what The Spring League's been up to. Between Jan. 14 and Jan. 21 it filed applications for trademarks for several pre-existing USFL brands (Oakland, Michigan, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Denver, Memphis, L.A., Chicago, Houston, Tampa Bay, New Jersey, Pittsburgh, New Orleans) and two that weren't part of the original league: the St. Louis Invaders and Dallas Stallions. It filed two more applications for old USFL brands — Oklahoma Outlaws and Arizona Wranglers -- on March 3. In each case, it's identified as "applicant" rather than "registrant." I'm not a trademark lawyer by any means, but I'd guess this means they don't yet own the rights to the names -- they're merely applying for the trademarks at this point. (By contrast, a separate filing from 2015 indicates they are the registered trademark owner of United States Football League LLC, and not just an applicant. ) Regardless, this at least gives us a sense of what markets they could be targeting, particularly with the inclusion of Dallas and St. Louis. It also might give us a sense of where they aren't looking. For example, while they filed applications for the Stars in both Philadelphia and Baltimore, they only filed applications for the Breakers in New Orleans — and not Portland or Boston. The also have not filed trademark applications for the Washington Federals, Orlando Renegades, San Antonio Gunslingers or Jacksonville Bulls.

Yes! Thanks for this. This would make for a fantastic Jets secondary.

I think the Jets are in an enviable position. The Jets name has such versatility and visual potential, especially when compared with the Giants, a term that's difficult to covey without resorting to cartoonish cliches. The Jets, though, could really have the best of both worlds here. There's no reason why they couldn't build a brand that evokes "jets" while also including a NY logo into its collection. I, and others, have suggested earlier in this thread that the '80s Jets logo — or some modernized variant of it — could be modified by placing the Jet silhouette atop an NY. I think that would work as a perfect secondary to a JETS primary. The Giants don't really have that option. All they have is the NY and the underlined GIANTS mark.

I'd like to see a Miami fan show up to one of the games with a sign that says "Nike, please stop" using letters from Miami's various uniforms -- like a ransom note.

What a nightmare and, simultaneously, a perfect metaphor for the current state of NBA aesthetics. Not only will we make your team schizophrenic, we'll now combine all of its personalities onto one uniform! Good lord.

I've always loved this mark. It's the rare example that works as both logo and wordmark. I could see the same jet treatment applied above a similarly styled "NY" to be used either as a secondary mark or -- for those of you who believe they should showcase the gravitas of New York — on the helmet. The other thing I really like about this: it accomplishes the difficult (in my mind) task of showcasing a jet without being tripped up by the need to angle it to show the wings on each side, like the awkwardly shaped 1963 logo.