Gothamite

Packers make it official - early 50s. 

Packers leak?  1950s throwbacks, not the rumored 1935/36?

“Commanders” is a pretty stupid name.  And if they’re not going to go with a Tuskegee Airmen reference, then I want nothing to do with “Redtails”.  As a bird it’s hard to see as anything other than a halfway measure designed to keep “Red” to soothe the hurt feelings of fans. 
 

Guess I’ve got to root for “Wolves”.  Maybe alliteration will win the day. 

8 hours ago, Bruhammydude said:

Unless the Packers have a surprise unveiling coming, it looks like they aren't getting a new throwback after all

the most recent throwback was unveiled at the end of August.   There’s still time. 

8 hours ago, JayMac said:

Some of these people would know the difference unless the franchise changed colors. Maybe that is why we have now have Nike's city connect in baseball and the 700 uniforms in the NBA. 

Yep.

In order for the Squares to notice that these alternate uniforms are actually alternate uniforms, teams have to go so far outside the box that they don't look like themselves anymore.  

16 hours ago, insert name said:

The eyebrow raise is what gets me. Like the person making this was a fan of The Rock. 

or Spock. 

On 7/22/2021 at 10:42 AM, insert name said:

If Under Armour can figure it out with UCLA, I'm sure Nike can too. I think it's absurd after all these years and they haven't produced a uniform that can properly display looping shoulder stipes. 

not too absurd when you consider that Nike just doesn’t want to.

On 7/20/2021 at 1:01 PM, Ridleylash said:

Eh, I think there's a way to make it work if you futz with the color placements a bit;

This looks pretty decent, IMO.

I think you’re on the right track here.  Even that is a huge improvement. 

Yeah, unfortunately you can’t just do a recolor.  
 

Many designs only work in the colors they were designed for.  I just wish they had designed it with the team colors in mind. 

I'll say this - the traditional striping of the Fauxback makes the modern sweaters look even worse.  Love the logo, but they need to simplify the design around it.

38 minutes ago, Burmy said:

Alas, poor Skating Fridge...you were too good for this world.

 

And thanks to the pandemic, he never got his moment of glory.  Real shame.

Okay, now I'm confused.  The AHL just tweeted this graphic:

Does that mean they're going to be wearing multiple versions of it?

EDIT: nope.

2 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

Regardless, fans overwhelmingly love the new mark, and that’s ultimately what counts… even if I personally think they left something better on the table and am extremely disappointed they chose to commission a local apparel company who has a reputation for stealing art (including mine) to run the process.

Yes, but let's not forget that fans tend to like almost every new logo.  Even the Buffaslug was greeted with huge merchandise sales.

It's how well they age, once the initial rush wears off, that matters.

It’s fine, I guess.  But after the fridge and the skeleton, it’s a little obvious and more than a title underwhelming. 
 

Milwaukee Admirals unveiling a new third jersey tonight.  Rumor is the logo will be all-new as well. 

this is the old one - it’s actually a carryover from the previous set, was popular enough to survive a rebranding. 
 

2 hours ago, WSU151 said:

They were never going to change back to the old name., much like how Cleveland will never go back it its old name, no matter the backlash.

of course not.  But I wouldn’t put it past Snyder to think he could find a way. 
 

Do I think it could ever have happened?  Of course not.  But I can’t entirely discount that he thought it might happen.   That’s how little regard I have for him. 

7 hours ago, gosioux76 said:

I felt the same way when North Dakota announced its rebrand from Fighting Sioux. The other options, which included Roughriders, Sundogs and (my preference) Nodaks, were all more unique than the eventual choice, Fighting Hawks.  Much like with Marquette, its as if in making their choice they favored the least controversial over the most interesting. 

 

It's easy to understand why they did, especially for campuses in which the nickname topic had come to define entire eras. It's just unfortunate they couldn't add a little risk into the equation. We'd have had some better outcomes. 

In Washington's case, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that they chose a bland placeholder name specifically out of spite for being forced to change.  Maybe in hopes that the fanbase would rebel and they could use the backlash to keep their original name.

That combination of pettiness and ineptitude would be perfectly appropriate for Snyder. 

35 minutes ago, mjd77 said:

Yes.  Even though Golden Eagles isn't really horrible, I believe there is still a decent sized contingent that absolutely hates it.

19 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said:

It's not horrible, but it comes off as incredibly generic. Color plus random animal not from the area. Could have been Blue Hens. Yeah, I know

Blue Hens would at least be charming. “Golden Eagles” came off at the time as though they were deliberately trying to be as generic and innocuous as possible. 
 

I mean, fair play to Marquette for realizing that the iconography was problematic. But while the motivation was sound, the execution left a lot to be desired. 
 

I always presumed that “Hilltoppers” was unavailable because it had been adopted by (the long-since unrelated)  Marquette University High School. 

3 hours ago, Bill0813 said:

If Warrior has the historical context you claim, then GS should not be allowed to use it, voluntary rebranding or not.

Again, there’s a world of difference between  a team that already uses “Warriors” trying to rebrand it to a different meaning, and a new team adopting it now as an explicitly non-Native name.

One is possible.  The other laughable. 

53 minutes ago, Bill0813 said:

Pretending?  Like Golden State does?     They were able to rebrand the name, but that point keeps getting ignored because of Washington's long history with the word that shall not be named.  Saying it would be different for Washington if it were done years earlier makes no sense.

Why on earth should we think context does not matter?

Teams that get ahead of a problematic identity, willingly changing it before they are forced to, they can sometimes salvage a name by rebranding and redefining it.  But Washington, who have spent the last half-century doubling down, tripling down, litigating, and then only changing when forced to and under extreme duress, they’ve lost any benefit of the doubt.

Plus there is a marked difference between a team taking its existing name and redefining it to remove the racist context and a team adopting a name new to them that has also historically carried that content.

For those two reasons, ”Washington Warriors” would be seen for precisely what it would be, a wink-and-nod to Native identity by a team that didn’t really want to give up theirs. 

5 hours ago, DNAsports said:

Rams get an A+ on this jersey, IMO.

 

Sleeves look 10x better on retail jerseys 

can’t be an A+ with thay goofy number style.  
 

B+, maybe.  Which is still far above anything else in their set. 

8 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

So, no room for the Washington Gold or Washington Golden Eagles?

Had Marquette wanted to keep “Warriors” thirty years ago, they absolutely could have salvaged it with a new mascot.   I’ve said that before.
 

But it’s the difference between being proactive and holding out until you are finally forced to do the right thing.  Washington has lost any benefit of the doubt by refusing to even acknowledge the problem for a half-century after First Nations representatives initially asked them to. 
 

If Washington had taken these steps in the 1970s, or even in the 1990s as Marquette did, then they could have made the case that “Warriors” was something other than the transparent wink-and-nod that it would obviously be today.

15 hours ago, Bill0813 said:

Golden State Warriors have never used any native iconography.   For Washington to assume warriors must equate only to a reference to Native Americans is more insulting. 

It would be more insulting as if they used “warriors” pretending that it never had any native connotations in our country. 
 

taking that name off the table is the right call. 

I agree, but then I've come to the conclusion that no teams should have sleeve striping, since no teams actually have sleeves anymore.

Strip it off the road, and you've got a great set of jerseys.

12 hours ago, BBTV said:

The 10 in that graphic looks more like the serif version of MLB block than it does varsity block like what the Giants use.  The inside of the 0 has the little notches in the corners rather than having 90-degree corners.  What's the source for that?

looks like Wikipedia, from the self-appointed uniform guardian who insists on making the graphics, fights anyone who intrudes on his turf, and still gets the details wrong.