OnWis97

4 minutes ago, PurpleHayes said:

 

I think it's OK in the NBA or other leagues since they play so many games...but not the NFL, where there are only 17 (soon to be 18) games.

I agree with others that the NBA has blurred identities way more than the NFL has and in this respect it's worse. Turning on a game and seeing the Magic in orange and the Lakers in black is what we're talking about. In the early days of alts, I'd buy this argument; give me like 5-10 games of the Pistons in red alts or the Bulls in Black...but the alts held to the identity. Now they really don't.

In 1996, some teams had nice  uniforms and some teams didn't. But they all had clear identities.

21 minutes ago, infrared41 said:

 

How about this? We've reached the point where even logo geeks like us can tune in an NBA game and have no idea who's playing because the teams have so many uniforms. It's like if Coca-Cola had 20 different "can combos" for Coke Classic and most of them had an alternate logo and colors. That's how it dilutes the brand.

Good analogy. If I love Coca Cola and then I go into the store and all the packaging is yellow out of the blue because of a "Yellow at Walgreens" promo, I'm less likely to notice and purchase it. Sure, if I really want to, I'll seek it out. And if I'm a huge cola addict, I'll probably be generally aware of all the packaging options and find it. But brands like this thrive on familiarity. Coca Cola would be crazy to not have its products be clear to the customers.

Sports are a bit different, I suppose. The impact of spending a couple of seconds of thinking Celtics/Heat is Kings/Clippers because of off-brand uniforms (before noting the score bug) might not be as big of a financial and customer retention concern. But money is also not what we're concerned with here; we're concerned with our own takes on uniforms and it makes sense that some of us don't like the watering down of identities, along with the flat out confusion of who's who.

4 minutes ago, YelichGraphics said:

I'd argue that the Texans very much spelled out which helmet they will wear. Nothing about their release gave me the impression they were planning on mix and matching the helmet, and I don't think there has been another instance in the NFL, maybe other than the Broncos release, where that was and or is the case. I could be wrong though.

I was referring to the fact that they will wear multiple helmets, thereby watering down that identity. Most fans won't understand the helmet/jersey combos and won't know in advance what's being worn. They'll just know that the Texans wear three different helmets. That they've indicated their plans doesn't really solve the watering down problem.

Just now, YelichGraphics said:

I've simply never understood this take. What makes having more options less professional? What makes having combinations and the ability to put show your brand in an another way that it contrasts the competitors brand on the same playing field. Hey if it looks good it looks good. By no means am I happy with all of the Texans choices but I don't think choices makes a team any less professional. In fact it gives this forum another thing to argue about on a week to week basis when it comes to pants and socks choice.

To me it waters down the identity.  Universities are not as tied to football and football helmets for their identity, as they have bigger athletic departments and more.  While Michigan bringing out an "M" helmet and a cartoon mascot helmet to go along with their famous helmet would raise eyebrows, at most schools, it's all an expansion of a broader identity.

I'm well into my 40s and so maybe this isn't the same for younger people but the the helmet was a defacto alternate (or occasional primary) for all teams when I was younger. T-shirts, jackets, hats, stickers, etc. displayed the helmets. I still remember my Vikings pajamas with the helmet taking up most of the front.  While this has diminished some, the helmet has remained a part of the identity...now you have no idea which helmet the Texans will wear. This holds true to several other teams. The helmet, outside of maybe Dallas and a couple of other teams, is going away as a key team identifier.

This went better than I anticipated. I think the red, white, and blue primaries (I suppose the red isn't "primary") are upgrades...even with the horn missing from one for no reason. I really anticipated disliking this.

H-Town is awful. 

My ranking:

1. Lions. Short of perfection on the primaries but an enormous improvement. A-. (Would be easy A if no unnecessary black uniform and then add stripes to the pants and it's an A+).
2. Jets: B+. Huge improvement. That logo just works, the Namath look was tired and the previous look was blech.
3. Broncos: C+. Improvement overall but missed the boat on what would have made people happy and it's a bit gimmicky. Like the Namath jerseys, the previous look was aging poorly.
4. Texans: C. Improved primary jerseys but too many identities with the original, the horns, and the H. H-Town is brutal and of these four teams, they were the one in least need of a change. I never loved their look but it was sturdy and generally classic for a newer team. Upgrading to these jerseys (sans H-Town)  would have made sense but all the other stuff makes it a bit of a mess.

I think it's kinda like the Buffaslug...it's not terrible in its own right but it's not what the people wanted; it's a letdown.

To me, it's a slight improvement. As much as the little shoulder design isn't that exciting, neither is 25 years of side panels tapering into the armpits. I think the update is an upgrade My personal tastes lead me to calling the number font an improvement (though I still hate the 4). The overall helmet situation is a bit of a downgrade as the "summit" (lol) white one is not very good and the new stripe thingy up the middle stinks (that said, I didn't like the tapered stripes either).

Overall, not terrible. But with the dark shades and the less-than-exciting design (and for some that it's not a throwback), I see why people are disappointed...kinda like when the Sabres went to blue and yellow and then pulled the rug out with a logo that totally missed the boat.

OBSERVATION: This thread is moving fast so I'm not sure if anyone else has suggested this...Denver was ahead of the "sleeves are going away" game with their late-1990s design. It feels like they could be starting another trend here: stripes don't go all the way around anymore, so just arc color(s) across the shoulder.

I'm with you on  the Dolphins.

LOL.

The NFL schedules a game in  a stadium that bans the color green. And they schedule...the Eagles and the Packers.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/could-eagles-packers-face-jersey-ban-in-brazil-soccer-rivalry-may-prevent-both-from-donning-green/

I don't mind small wordmarks, but I don't like how the blue jersey has none while the other two have them. But that's a small thing.

The prevalence of white makes the color balance so much better. The previous set, while getting away from black, also didn't buffer the blue from the silver well enough.

Pros: Block numbers, great blue/white/silver balance, unique but pleasing stripes, absence of black on the primaries, removal of sleeve text.

Cons: The black jersey and some very minor things (pinholes and inconsistent use of wordmarks).

Barring a huge pants and/or helmet screw up, this is a very big upgrade.

Like others have said, I don't love the perforated numbers. I don't think the black alt is needed. But otherwise, the blue and white jerseys are improvements. The color balance is much better and the letters in the sleeves are thankfully gone.
 

Do we know for sure they're keeping the silhouette on the helmet or is there a chance they'll be going to some Jags/Panthers-like "ferocious" cat head?

I've always loved that Jets logo and I'm glad it's back. I don't need the black alternates but they already had those with the last uniform, anyway.  I like what they've done.

We’re going to get a Cleveland Deal combined with a Hornets/Pelicans/Bobcats/Hornets deal, aren’t we?

Cleveland Deal for Phoenix; Charlotte Deal for Winnipeg; Defunct Thrashers. On-hold Coyotes.  It all makes me wish they’d just moved back to Winning in 2010 or whatever.

I don’t really understand holding the name (and, I assume, history) for Phoenix given the franchise’s history.

If this happens does Phoenix join Atlanta on the "More Likely than Quebec City" list?

So I just saw speculation that the Broncos might have three helmets.

When I was a kid in the 1980s and 1990s, helmets were kind of a de facto secondary logo (and at times a primary logo for teams beyond Cleveland, like the Rams and Bengals). When college teams started bringing in multiple helmets, it made some sense because the schools are not just football teams and the branding wasn't as helmet-heavy (perhaps with Michigan and a few others as exceptions). I feel like NFL t-shirts, sweatshirts, jackets, and even hats showed football helmets a lot more back then than they do now...but maybe I'm misperceiving? 

But it now seems like the helmet is not as big a part of the NFL branding as it was a generation ago. Paired with the death of the one-helmet rule it seems like a bit of a chicken-and-egg thing. Are alternate helmets shifting branding away from a focus on helmets or does the shift away from helmets in branding enable alternate helmets?

Also, while alternate jerseys make sense in the NFL (along with other sports and alternate MLB caps), are alternate helmets a big money maker? Is anyone going to go buy all three Broncos helmets (even in mini variety)? Or is it more of an indirect "marketing of the sport?" To me it feels a bit like watering down the image that the helmets create (or, at least that would be true of the helmets were stll a big part of marketing).

Based on your description, I'd say I have a smaller collection of jerseys. I am a few years older than you (no kids) and stopped wearing them anywhere aside from the occasional game a long time ago.  Yet I still hold on to most, as I either think they're great-looking garments or they have some other sentimental value.

So I have gotten rid of some, including, coincidently, a handful to a younger cousin. (I do kinda wish I'd not given him the KG Wolves swingman, but so be it..). I really don't need these jerseys and don't see most of them in a typical month...but I like having them and I'm not just into the aesthetics of games I watch, I'm into the up-close of the stitching/materials (which is still a thing with my handful of authentics that were created pre-Fanatics).  

I think all four options you provide are viable.

She blew her legacy in high school when she wasn’t as good as Paige Bueckers.

I hate everything about the way this A's situation is going, starting with the fact that they're going anywhere. Moving north (i.e., away from Vegas) into a 14,000-seat stadium to play in a city of people that will probably be Giants fans after this shakes out is bad enough. But for three years?  Will anyone even remember this franchise when they get to Vegas?

If I lived in Sacramento, I'd definitely go to some games. The A's may be the A's but they'll have opponents worth watching. But it would not endear me to the team. It would just be a temporary thing to do for three summers. All of this is a bad look, including the fact that they can't play in a temporary setting in their new city because their new city is too hot to play outdoor baseball in.

I think this kinda works on the white jersey.

The dark jersey would need to pick a color (orange, I would say) for the torso...then it may work with the sleeves.

2000 White Vikings Jeff George. Was looking for bigger names of the era on ebay, etc. but they were just so expensive. So I got the George one and I think it's a beautiful garment.

Seahawks slate blue Shawn Springs. LOVE that jersey. Went to Ebay and found a cheap one.

White Blues jersey I saw in a Starter outlet shop in the late 1990s. The version just before Reebok edge.

White Sabres starter replica from before they went to black/red.

What all these have in common is I bought them at least 20 years ago...I'm too old for this stuff now (But I haven't thrown them out, either).

A couple of days ago I went to my first Mild game since before Covid. In OT they pulled the goalie, which left me confused because I didn't see a penalty call.  They ended up scoring almost immediately and it was later confirmed to me that there was no call.

But the most interesting thing about that is I learned that in the NHL if you lose a game in which you pull your goalie OT, you don't get the OTL point.  Since I'm admittedly a casual fan these days, I am not sure whether that's common knowledge (or maybe it's not because I am sure it doesn't happen a lot). Either way, what's the purpose of the rule? 

On 3/7/2024 at 2:50 AM, FrutigerAero said:

Nah you're good, I think we're agreeing more than disagreeing here. I don't think money-wise, they would be a money printer, don't misunderstand me.  Moneywise MLB should probably just put a third team in New York (New Jersey Jerseys?).  I guess I was thinking, "No corporate sponsors?  Surely they could muster as many as Milwaulkee".

 

But re: Delta, Delta's name is literally on the Utah NBA arena.  A big sponsor.  SLC is not their headquarters, but it is their western hub.

 

 

So weirdly hostile.  From living in 6 different states in all parts of the US and observing the culture and attitudes and preferences in each, what I've seen is that Utah people love sports, more than any other place I've been to, and I do not say that lightly.  If you disagree, fine, but your experiences are not mine. 

 

I believe putting a team in Utah would mean adding MLB fans who would give a crap and if the team was competing, they would easily draw 80-90% all season long.  They wouldn't make as much money as a big city team with a big TV deal and apathetic transplants.  Definitely, but I'm not an owner counting dimes so I don't care.

 

But some of the complaints are just weird.  Hard to get to games?  Utah has a great public transportation system that can take you right downtown all the way from the south of the valley.  And the traffic is never bad.  Check out where they're ranked here.  Maybe it will make you laugh with joy at what a good transportation system it is:

 

Rankings: Transportation - Best States (usnews.com)

 

Now here is what is hard... getting to Oracle to see my Giants 

Based on my minimal experience in SLC, the city punches way above its weight in terms of transit.  If they located a ballpark properly, SLC residents would have an easier time getting to games than residents of almost any city in the US.

But it's a small city. Are they going to rely on people coming in from places like Provo, Ogden, etc. that are far enough away that it's going to be a problem for a weeknight game, rendering their ability to sell tickets to the majority of games insufficient?

I don't know the answer to that but that's something that occured to me.  Maybe the Jazz offer a partial answer.

Ah...Then he may end up somewhere but I kinda think you'll see some "surprises" gobbled up before him. He might enter the year as a backup.

I'd actually be surprised if he ever takes another snap...because doesn't anyone that signs him have to pay him like $20M because of the Broncos contract? Maybe I'm wrong; NFL contract rules are not really my thing.

52 minutes ago, TBGKon said:

There's no way the league will allow a 2 week pause for the entire league, if anything for the media partners.  2 bye weeks is definitely possible, but not that the same time or consecutively.

Absolutely. I could even see the bye weeks being spread apart in ways that are as beneficial as possible (whatever that might be) with some "bye-heavy" weeks around the 1/3 and 2/3 point. But every week will have enough games to cover the regular TV schedule.