Gothamite

On 5/26/2021 at 8:37 PM, BJ Sands said:

I always liked this Jets logo. Combined the classic Jets shape with a NY logo and is more than distinct from the Giants.

This should absolutely be their helmet logo.

On 5/26/2021 at 5:03 PM, Claystation360 said:

Wasn't there talk when one of them ( Giants or Jets ) moved to Jersey they were gonna take on the NJ moniker but obviously decided against it.  

No.  That was never going to happen.

The Giants tried to downplay New York by taking "NY" off their helmets (as the Cosmos did to their badge when they also moved to the Meadowlands), but neither of those teams was ever going to actually cut ties.  That would have been suicidal. 

This is... not good 

2 hours ago, See Red said:

I don't know how people struggle to understand why people won't drive to a dumpy stadium that's a pain in the ass to get to to watch players they barely know because they all get traded as they hit their prime just to line the pockets of an owner they despise.

We’re talking about one of the best teams in baseball, though.  First place from Opening Day to the very day they clinched a pennant. 
 

And still, could only draw flies. 

7 hours ago, Sport said:

I just don’t understand the quickness to dismiss this enormous factor. 

And I don’t understand the insistence on pretending that’s the only possible factor.
 

Ah, well.  To each their own. 

2 hours ago, Sport said:

I don’t think the market has ever been given a truly fair test. 

Before 2008 and 2009, I would absolutely have agreed with you.

The Expansion Committee should never have let MLB be bullied into placing a team in Tampa Bay. 

1 hour ago, Sport said:

I don't know why everyone keeps searching for other reasons when this very large, very valid reason explains the entirety of the problem. 

The very large, very valid reason is that the Rays are the third most popular MLB team in their own market.  Even when they're winning.

That's not the stadium's fault.  It's the expansion committee's.

20 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm curious about the evidence of the ratings breakdown per team. I doubt the Rays or their network affiliate want to make it public. What would the 38 Yankees and Red Sox games draw in comparison to the other 124 games?

 

I hear the Yankees-Red Sox sound bite often enough that I want some evidentiary proof. Again, I'm not totally disputing it, I'm just wondering about the statistical validity. 

I don’t think we’ll ever get a television breakdown by opponent.  But that would be interesting. 

I was going off the polls from a couple years back that put the Rays as the third favorite team. Among baseball fans. In their own market. 

Which would explain the discrepancy between their decent television ratings and their pathetic attendance, which not even winning has been able to improve.  “Stadium location” is often cited by the team’s apologists, but I’m offering an alternate explanation that would fit the facts. 

1 hour ago, Ridleylash said:

Honestly, though, I feel like this whole thing does more to discredit the location for the Trop over the actual support the region has for baseball. The Rays do well for a smaller-market team locally when it comes to viewership, so I don't think it's the overall region that's the problem here, necessarily.

The television ratings are helped by a disproportionate number of games against the Yankees and the Red Sox, the Tampa Bay area's two favorite teams.

2 minutes ago, IceCap said:

See, this is the perfect Jets logo to me. It's bold, not too cluttered, and retains the ideas of the classic logo. 

Couldn't agree more.    

Given that football players barely wear sleeves anyway, most sleeve treatments are moot. Contrasting sleeves are one of the few things that can actually work.

11 hours ago, Dexter Morgan said:

These while not perfect.... way better than Nike era.

 

 

honesty, if they wanted to modernize this jersey they could have simply removed the white stripe from the shoulders.  Add their NY logo to the helmet, and you have a great Jets uniform. 

On 5/16/2021 at 4:57 PM, GoHawks said:

I feel like having a plane on the helmet of a New York team could be bad for obvious reasons even if it would look nice.

No. it wouldn't.

It really, really wouldn't.

I don't know if it would look good, but it sure as hell wouldn't be "problematic".

22 minutes ago, Bruhammydude said:

Unpopular opinion, I love this helmet. Having a color swap with a green shell and white jets would look beautiful.

Well, it couldn’t be any worse than the current one. 

Lukas says the explanation was never made official - I remember it being much more definite.  Or maybe it was just so obvious at the time?
 

https://www.espn.com/espn/page2/story?page=lukas/081017&sportCat=nfl

There was a big kerfuffle at the very thought that Tom Terrific might have to add an initial to the back of his jersey. And as if by magic, the rules changed so he didn’t have to. 

On 5/8/2021 at 1:08 PM, dont care said:

No, they don’t even allow first initial anymore

Still allowed, just not required.  They changed the rule when the Patriots drafted a second Brady.

Teams can have multiple players with the same NOB.  They don’t have to differentiate but can if they like. 

Downgrade all around. The blue doesn’t have as much contrast with the black as red, and neither does the metallic gold over the athletic gold. 

Looks like they’re borrowing and slightly adapting the Wisconsin Bakers’ Association “Original Cream Puffs” logo for the uniforms. 

I like it.  Very local.  Everyone who has been to the State Fair will recognize that logo.  And this is an improvement on it. 
 

They will also be using the group’s mascot, Craven D. Creampuff.  Here she is with Milwaukee’s second-best costumed baseball mascot. 
 

EDIT: Looks like we have a sneak peek at the jerseys.  These I'm much less enthusiastic about.

I love this one.  The little cap and everything.  

27 minutes ago, TenaciousG said:

The Patriots’ current uniforms are almost perfect. They just need to go silver pants at home instead of monochrome:

 

 

Seconded. 

2 hours ago, Pizzaman7294 said:

It's a photoshopped graphic just to show which number he picked. Take it easy, guys. 

Of course it is. 
 

But we can still point out that it’s a bad photoshop.  

Good point. 

I also understand that different designers within a studio can create very different work.  Especially if sports isn’t a focus, they might not have a house style. 

14 hours ago, NicDB said:

This is almost as cringe when the Milwaukee AA team chose that goofy Milkmen identity.  Essentially, "Hey, we're a baseball team in Wisconsin" which makes even less sense when the Mallards play in a league with 9 other in-state rivals.  The only thing inherently Madison about this is the capitol skyline in the back.  Even the puddles don't look like the lakes surrounding the isthmus. 

Also, the old colors tied the Mallards back to the Madison Muskies, the Oakland A's affiliate that broke in the nucleus of their pennant winning clubs from 1988-90.  THAT'S what says Madison baseball to me.  The fact that it had to be pointed out that the new colors (allegedly) came from the city flag tells me they really missed the mark on a local-based identity.

I call BS on this claim.  It's not in any of the promotional materials I can find, and after the wildly successful Forward Madison branding I would expect that to be front and center if true.

I did learn a little bit more about the process from this Madison.com article, including this peek at rough drafts:

I like that one on top a lot.  That would have been a better starting point.

We also learned that they considered changing the name too, creating a new mascot called "the Muskellard", a muskie/mallard hybrid.

Finally, there was this WTF moment from team president Vern Stenman:

Quote

Ultimately, the team and designers stayed with the Mallards and built a new look for the team as it enters its 21st year at Warner Park. This duck will be the third logo used by the team, representing to Stenman a desire to strengthen the connection between the team and the city, specifically the north side.

 

“Kind of a fun little reference in here that you might not see right away is that he's calling his shot, like Babe Ruth. But he's also pointing to the north side of Madison, which is home,” Stenman said. “And there's a lot of interesting things happening — good and bad — on the north side of Madison."

Good and bad, man?  Seriously?  Way to rep your town.

2 hours ago, DMadSport said:

• The rebrand comes from the same design group (Planet Propaganda) who designed the identity for Forward Madison FC; that team shares ownership with the Mallards, and their branding, IMHO, incorporates the Madison touches in a much classier way.  (Soccer is perhaps more discriminating in terms of visual brands than baseball, but you get the idea.)

I don't believe that.  Not that I doubt the facts, but it seems inconceivable that the best brand in lower-level American soccer came from the same firm that gave us this mess.

Seems like the teams may share ownership, but they sure as hell don't share staff.

2 hours ago, DMadSport said:

• The rebrand originated with an off-the-agenda remark from the team president during a staff meeting about whether coming out of the COVID lockdown was the right time for the Mallards to rebrand; the staff thought it was.  That meeting took place last September -- only eight months ago!

Now that I believe.