gosioux76

1 hour ago, guest23 said:

 

It's better but why the oval? If you want to evoke the jet imagery without a plane, the '78 logo is a perfect start as it really evokes  era of jet-set era airline logos.

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. 

1 minute ago, andrewharrington said:

Gotta go back to the original.

 

It was actually an oversized NW stripe with the TV number in the center. The bottom part of the design eventually got chopped away, and now it’s more like contrast sleeves with a UCLA stripe at the edge.

That's a lot of disparate elements that would seem too complicated to replicate on the modern cut uniforms without significant modifications. Not suggesting it isn't possible, of course. I don't dislike the idea of using the 60s set as a baseline but reimagined. In other words, what didn't happen when Nike took the reins. 

59 minutes ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

 

Point of order: these were pretty sweet:

True. Those were pretty cool. But that was less a sponsorship as much as it was a charitable contribution. 

15 hours ago, Walk-Off said:

 

The top answer can be shortened to three words: Portland is richer.

 

Specifically, Portland enjoys a lower unemployment rate and a higher rate of projected future job growth than does Sacramento.  More importantly, Portland's per capita, median household, and median family incomes are all above the US average.  Meanwhile, Sacramento is below the US average in all three of those income categories.  Finally, as best as I can tell, Portland has more businesses that can afford to pay for premium seats at and season tickets to a MLB team's games than does Sacramento.

 

Also, in a way, Portland may be helped by being geographically more isolated than Sacramento.  If nothing else, part of the desire for a Portland team in MLB and particularly in the American League is to create a geographically close rival to the Seattle Mariners, who are decidedly the most remote MLB club at the moment.

I lived in Portland for 10 years as a business journalist. I can't disagree with most of this analysis, but I have always had serious doubts about the veracity of the corporate support in the city. The biggest corporations there do very little in the way of local branding: Nike doesn't sponsor anything because they don't feel they need to. Their logo is all over the sport without having to send a nickel on marketing. Outside of local health care players, there isn't a deep well of companies waiting to place their brand on sports franchises. 

I can't speak toward an appetite for season tickets. I suppose there's enough law firms and banks and accounting firms and consulting firms of a certain size — all industries in which networking is key — to buy up a few luxury suites. But Portland isn't a city like Seattle, which is littered with billion-dollar companies. It's a mid-sized and small business town, with a few notable exceptions. 

9 hours ago, Walk-Off said:

 

The Portland area has two standing proposals now for a major-league-caliber baseball park.  A few weeks ago, the Portland Diamond Project's plan for an MLB venue at the Port of Portland's Terminal 2 gained a intra-metropolitan competitor in the form of a proposal for an MLB park within a hypothetical mixed-use development in Gresham, a suburb east of Portland.  Thus, the Athletics' owners could not only play the overall Portland metro area against any other possible relocation destination and/or Oakland, but could also pit the City of Portland proper against Gresham in the battle to give the A's the most attractive ballpark offer.

The Gresham project is the latest attempt in the 25-year odyssey of Lynn Lashbrook to bring MLB to Portland. I give him points for persistence, but this initiative -- much like his prior attempts -- is little more than pie-eyed optimism. There's a rendering, but nothing in the way of a legitimate plan. As that story lays out, this is just Lashbrook attempting to kickstart a community discussion around the idea of MLB in Gresham. 

As for the Portland Diamond Project, they've been spinning their wheels for years now. At this point, they're little more than an apparel brand. Russell Wilson's involvement appears to be cosmetic. They've been talking from the start about how they've got some big-money investors behind the scenes, but they've never shown their cards. The effort could turn out to be legitimate, but at this point it's mostly hype. 

2 hours ago, MJWalker45 said:

Is it possible this was mocked up last year and just now rolled out for the this year's draft? That would make more sense. And New England still had issues at the start of last year with players wearing the previous Color Rush jerseys mixed in with the new jerseys. 

This would also explain the old Bengals uniform on display. I wouldn't be surprised to know the NFL had all these displays already prepped before the pandemic hit last year, then just rolled them out as-is this year. The Bengals is the only significant change in that time, and we've already documented the issues the Patriots had in having some players wearing the old number style on new jerseys last year. 

17 hours ago, PERRIN said:

I'd be fine if the Cardinals changed to something similar to this redesign by Mark Omlor. The red helmet strays from tradition, but it looks great. It ties in the Arizona Flag, uses a traditional design with a slight modern flair, and the single color logo looks surprisingly good.

 

I also really like this, only with the current helmet intact.

One change I'd suggest: I'm a sucker for the old Cardinals road jerseys, with the thick red stripes on the sleeves outlined in black. Instead of gray stripes and stars on the white jersey, I'd like to see the stripes red and outlined in black or, perhaps simpler, just outline the star in black and leave the stripes red. It would be a nice homage to these old classics. 

1 hour ago, Quillz said:

Zero coverage in most traditional media. Like the original XFL, most coverage treated it more like a special or an event than a legitimate league. We also had much bigger issues in 2020. And despite its heavy marketing about how it would be simple and not the NFL, it pretty much was. The games in of themselves weren't bad but there was nothing I found really worth watching. It didn't do anything that the (failed) Alliance of American Football did. Both just felt like early season or preseason games.

For an upstart league, one with a history of failure, it got plenty of mainstream coverage. You can't reasonably expect that a spring league filled with wannabe NFLers would immediately get the same attention as a Big Four league. The pandemic killed this league before it got even halfway through its schedule, and there was almost zero indication that it wouldn't have made it to a year two.

So, basically, you didn't care. 

14 hours ago, Quillz said:

Ah, so this time around they aren't trying to cater to the "AMERICA!" crowd, I see. No press statement about how everyone will stand for the national anthem and no player will have a criminal record.

 

But hey, I'm sure it will finally succeed in 2022. No one cared in 2001 or 2020, but I'm sure this time will be different, somehow.

What makes you think nobody cared in 2020? 

2 hours ago, BBTV said:

Isn't it premature to be talking about a merger?  Isn't the XFL just some IP right now?  As of this minute, there's no TV exposure for the CFL to benefit from, no other technology for them to benefit from, and nothing to be gained through it.  Unless the CFL really wants to merge just so it can acquire the Battle Hawks IP, I'm not sure why it's even worth having that discussion now.

This is underselling it quite considerably.

Yes, in terms of tangible assets, the XFL is essentially a collection of brands. But it's also a collection of deep-pocketed investors who are willing to come to the table with an existing league that appears to be in financial distress and seeking a way out of it.

So maybe discussion of a merger is premature, but I don't think it's as premature as you think it is. And if nothing else, it's an intriguing thought exercise. 

Such as the question by @McCall about how two leagues with different rules could make a merger work? I would think that in a hypothetical scenario like this, where a storied existing league would merge with a startup, you can't assume either party's rules or structures are set in stone. They'd have to adapt -- give up some things, amend others. 

I mean, a merger like this for the CFL would sort of be like hitting the nuclear button -- and if you're willing to take such a drastic action, why would you let something like field size get in the way? 

On 4/16/2021 at 10:53 PM, TenaciousG said:

So here’s my problem with the Reign branding: Olympique Lyonnais is not a strongly recognized brand in the US. “OL” is asking people to take it a step further and recognize an acronym for a brand that isn’t strongly recognized. 

I get what you're saying about the brand not being region specific, which is a good point. I'm less bothered by the use of OL. I think soccer fans by now have grown accustomed to names affixed with some sort of initialed prefix or suffix, like AC, FC or SC, that this won't stand out much, nor be an inhibitor. Sure, the OL may require explanation, but it's not a terribly complicated thing to explain. And the smartest thing U.S. pro soccer leagues have done in the past decade is market themselves to soccer fans -- who are less likely to require an explanation -- than Americans they're trying to convert into soccer fans. 

2 minutes ago, JTernup said:

Like I said I have no idea what their motivations are, maybe they just want to find a well liked team name and maybe they're stacking the deck.

 

But... usually adding several similar options does exactly the opposite of what you're suggesting (if names are randomly assigned). You would be splitting the vote of WFT people by having WFT, WFC, DCFC, etc. If the lists aren't random, then you're probably right and they want those names to be selected so the best shot is to include a lot of them. Or, it could all be legit and they just wanted to include all possible names. Unfortunately, without knowing more about their process it's impossible to say. 

I see what you're saying, and that makes sense. It could also be something they use in the aggregate. A version of the name appears on every ballot, and they can say XX% of all voters chose some form of WFT, therefore making it the most logical choice. 

17 minutes ago, JTernup said:

 

 

Typically these kinds of surveys include x amount of names and each list is randomly generated for each respondent. In theory, with enough respondents you will get a sense of what options are the most favored out of the group and can assess how they are rated. Each name will be placed in a list with every other name and the cream will rise to the top by being repeatedly selected. That's part of the reason you would allow people to choose two names because you don't care that some random guy likes a disliked name. You care that the most liked names by the most people are found. 

 

You would only do this type of survey at this stage when you have too many names to just let people vote. Nobody is going to take a survey where they have to choose their 5 favorite out of 50 names but people will do this 5 times on lists of 10.

 

This is how this should be conducted... but this is Washington and Dan Scneider we're talking about so it could be a conspiracy to popularize their pre-selected favorites. 

 

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. 

2 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

I’m no information expert, but it seems like giving different people different lists would skew the data, no?

 

Or does each person go through all the lists? In that case, it does seem like they’re trying to capture data that reinforces their preferences.

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. 

21 minutes ago, ManillaToad said:

Am I the only who can't see this image? Can someone rehost or link to it

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

7 minutes ago, dont care said:

I don’t think it’s chrome or gradient, but instead pearlescent to look different colors depending on the light and angle

Well, OK, but I still hate it. haha

On 4/11/2021 at 8:32 AM, DNAsports said:

Saw this concept on Instagram. Interesting take on the Jaguars helmet

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. 

On 4/5/2021 at 5:23 PM, BBTV said:

 

You're not wrong - but players still have "primary" responsibilities, and I liked looking at an athletic-looking chap wearing 56 and just knowing that he was a LB, or a big white guy in the 80s and knowing he was a TE, or a guy wearing 12 and knowing he was a QB. 

 

Defense is totally a mess and there's tons of hybridity there, but on offense, while you have RBs spreading out, TEs (and sometimes WRs) occasionally in the backfield, and gimmicky crap, it's not that different a game from when the system was devised.

 

Seeing some giant beast sacking the QB while wearing an iconic QB number like 12 will take a lot of time to get used to.

 

 

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. 

1 hour ago, NeauXone said:

I feel like I'm the only one who would like to see the Vikings go with a white facemask.

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.

7 minutes ago, Cujo said:

Need somebody to explain to me how a grey facemask works with this uniform

 

That uniform doesn’t work with that uniform.

Keep the helmet, ditch the rest.

27 minutes ago, Brian in Boston said:

The Carolina Disco Turkeys aren't a minor pro team. They're a collegiate wood bat summer baseball team that's scheduled to play its home games at a minor pro ballpark - namely, Truist Stadium in Winston-Salem, NC.

Somehow, I'm a bit more forgiving of identities akin to Bacon, Bananas, Chatt-a-Hoots, Pippins, Sweets, and - yes - Disco Turkeys when they're adorning the uniforms and souvenir merchandise of amateur teams comprised of college students. I'm not saying that I'd actually slap a similar moniker on a summer collegiate squad that I owned/operated, but I'd certainly be more likely to consider such branding at said level of play.

As for minor league baseball branding, I'm a huge proponent of team identities that are distinct from that of parent clubs and - where possible - inspired by the culture, history, flora, or fauna of the host market. Might that lead to an eccentric name and logo from time to time? Certainly. That said, I feel the trend of minor league ball clubs adopting the most off-the-wall identities possible - often with exceedingly strained arguments for why they're purportedly locally relevant, and clearly in blatant attempts to garner press coverage - to have grown tiresome. In my opinion, the hits are far outweighed by the swings-and-misses.

This Disco Turkeys identity? As collegiate wood bat summer baseball brands, I'd take it over Booyah, Otterbots, Pickles, Tarp Skunks, etc.       

      

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. 

9 minutes ago, heavybass said:

Wrong, the Gladiators rebranded themselves as the Barcelona Dragons.... snassy new logo and everything.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CMzxt47Jc-M/

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/

16 minutes ago, jc... said:

Calling it "Football Team" is just a reminder of what the old name is. 

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." 

14 hours ago, WSU151 said:

 

For whatever reason, the swoosh is way down on the sleeve, away from the seam. Compare the swoosh placement of the Jags' jerseys vs the pics of the Vikings or Bucs.

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.