gosioux76

Right, that all makes sense, but it doesn't explain why some form of Washington Football Club -- whether it be Washington DC Football Club, just Football Club or some other iteration -- seems to appear on every ballot. To me, that suggests that they're stacking the deck.

From what I can tell, each of these lists has one thing in common: They all include some form of Washington Football Team. I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but if that trends hold, it certainly seems like WFT would have the highest chance of getting the most votes if it's the only one that appears on every ballot.

They made the helmet like one of those old Magic Eye posters. You have to cross your eyes in order to see it.

Well, OK, but I still hate it. haha

I like the idea of the full-length jaguar, and the gold stripe, bit I HATE the chrome finish and the gradient. It's tacky, too much of a novelty.

I agree with this sentiment. I always thought of the number changes from college to pros as a rite of passage. I used to like the idea of envisioning a college player I liked in his pro number, and guessing what it might be. I'm all for expanding the use of low numbers for skill-position players. But I like the tradition of having LBs in the 50s and interior linemen in the 60s-70s. If I had it my way, and I surely won't, I'd narrow it further: FBs in the 40s, RBs in the 20s-30s, QBs 7-19, WRs 80-89, kickers 1-6, LBs limited to the 50s. Don't ask me to explain the logic there; there isn't any. It's just the way my mind wants to organize those positions by number.

The Vikings wore white masks briefly in the early ‘80s. I thought they were too much of a distraction, and looked especially bad with the white uniforms. Switching to purple masks was a big upgrade.

That uniform doesn’t work with that uniform. Keep the helmet, ditch the rest.

This is a really good analysis of the situation, Brian. I love it that these amateur wood bat leagues are adopting these charming, cartoonish brands to go with what is likely a more family friendly, carnival-like atmosphere. Going to these games is less about the baseball than it is the experience. Might as well build a brand that's memorable and part of the fun. And to another point, I don't mind when affiliated minor league franchises have somewhat whimsical brands, but there needs to be a limit. Teams like the Montgomery Biscuits or Albuquerque Isotopes or Hillsboro Hops, I believe, do a good job of straddling that line.

That's incredible. I might be in the market for a Disco Turkeys t-shirt. That's fun.

Interesting. This must have just happened today. Their instagram feed shows what looks like a press conference with the old WLAF/NFL Europe helmet on a table across from another one with the new logo. (It almost looks Photoshopped onto that picture, which would be weird.) Apologies, I'm terrible at embedding social media posts on here. https://www.instagram.com/p/CMzTcNOpu-L/

I agree with this. Change is hard, and it'll take whole generations before the franchise can fully embrace a new identity. I was watching North Dakota hockey on TV the other night and the Fighting Sioux gear in the stands still vastly outnumbered the amount of Fighting Hawks gear, and it will for years to come. But there was still Hawks gear there, and that will likely continue to increase as time passes, and the Sioux name will become part of history rather than the phantom present. I have doubts whether a name that reads like, and was intended as, a placeholder can serve that same purpose. The cynic in me thinks, "of course people have warmed to the WFT name. Because it's like tacit approval to just keep calling them by their former name."

The placement of the swoosh doesn't make a difference. You can place it an inch higher, but you're still asking that Swoosh to share a space three inches high with, what, a three-inch-wide patch? The jaguar might as well be wearing the swoosh as a hat. You're still squeezing two competing visual elements into a space barely big enough for one. If the idea is to look good, then forcing a bunch of things into a super small space is the wrong way to do it.

I certainly think it would work better than other logos because it's more narrow and horizontal, but I still don't think it would look good. It's still forcing something into too small of a space. These linemen barely have room for the swoosh, which would have to share space with that jaguar. Removing the black cuff wouldn't make a difference. Frankly, these jerseys are better off unadorned.

Adding the logos to the Jaguars set certainly adds more character, but I think we're asking these tiny sleeves to do way too much. It's unreasonable to force a full-bodied jaguar -- much like the full-bodied tiger patch of the Bengals -- onto a piece of the jersey with the smallest amount of area, and then have it share the space with a manufacturer's logo. I'd argue it's unreasonable anymore to force ANY logo into that space. That includes the Bucs, Panthers, Eagles ... the list goes on. Teams like the Vikings, Jets (albeit imperfectly) and Chargers have done a much better job of at least attempting to make appropriate use of that shoulder space.

You're right, and I think it's too bad it has that connection, because it's a really nice design. Probably marks the start of the simplification trend with some NBA uniforms (Toronto, Atlanta, Minnesota to a lesser extent.)

If you click further on that link, it shows the Frankfurt and Hamburg teams are joining a league that already includes these teams: Wroclaw Panthers, Barcelona Gladiators, Stuttgart Scorpions, German Knights 1367 Niedersachsen and Ingolstadt Praetorians. I presume this means this league won't be resurrecting the Barcelona Dragons, which was one of my favorite NFL Europe brands.

I've always liked the idea of logos like this -- perhaps too detailed for apparel, but still attractive -- being reserved for formal uses, like on letterhead. I'm sure such things are somewhat anachronistic, but so am I, so I like the idea of having letterhead-specific logos.

I agree. I'd never considered this before, but I feel like the black-and-white lines on the original logo (essentially on the jaguar's cheek) could be incorporated as a design element elsewhere on the uniform, perhaps as sleeve stripes.

Yes, two things can be true. But the patches in these examples are only there because they add some value to the product at retail, not because they add value to the aesthetics. Jersey patches aren't something that generally bother me. But the question at hand was to whether the patches in these examples are necessary, and I'm suggesting they aren't. In the case of the Steelers, the patch does nothing but add clutter to a jersey that doesn't need it. It looks better without the patch. And I think the Steelers are well known enough to not generate confusion with the Iowa Hawkeyes anytime soon. Their look can stand on its own without adding knick-knacks. As for the Jaguars, I can understand why someone might be bothered by the lack of gold in the jersey. But a patch, seemingly placed at random, shouldn't be the answer to a design flaw. Again, its only function is to make the jersey recognizable on its own. It's not there because it looks good.

I'm willing to be wrong on this, but I really doubt the reason the Steelers added the logo to the jersey was to fill a logo gap left by having one blank side of the helmet. And I also doubt the logic behind the Jaguars patch has anything to do with the jerseys being too plain. It's more likely about making the jerseys retail friendly. It's the same reason we see teams repeat helmet logos on jersey sleeves. On the whole, it looks redundant, but for streetwear, the logo becomes an identifier and an opportunity for brand exposure. But even then, despite it having a function, I'd still argue that it's unnecessary and the Steelers and Jaguars could — and should — lose the patches.

This is a fair way to look at it. I'm not an expert on textiles or apparel construction, but if there are two givens with publicly traded sportswear brands like Nike and Adidas, it's that they answer to shareholders and they are masters at product marketing. That means it's within their core priorities and skill sets to both make things cheaper (therefore higher profit margins) and sell them by using language that helps to obscure that fact. But I'm also not an athlete, and I'm willing to believe that it's possible the evolution of uniforms has led to a better-performing product for the people wearing them. Perhaps somewhere in the middle of those two schools of thought lies the truth.

The way the Indianapolis Star reported it, Wentz asked whether Pittman was willing to give up the number. Pittman said he wanted to keep it, Wentz basically said "OK, cool." Pittman then called Wentz a "great dude" for being respectful and asking. Not exactly sure how this translates into Wentz being a liar and a baby. SOURCE: Indianapolis Star

This is certainly fun, and that french fry/bat secondary is inspired. And the wordmark looks like it's meant to evoke a neon sign. Really, really charming. But that "S" logo, with the burger guy shoehorned into the bottom of the S and the baseball forced into the top, is a big miss.