Gothamite

On 1/2/2020 at 4:56 PM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

The game was properly forfeited to the Streets because Carolina walked off.  A team cannot unilaterally decide not to play.

When the environment around the game is not safe?  They sure as hell can.  And should.

On 1/2/2020 at 4:50 PM, Sodboy13 said:

That's the New York-est team there ever was.

Don’t drag us into the Westchester mess.  They were a suburban team in “urban” cosplay drag. 

1 hour ago, Digby said:

I think it’s useful to go back to why the name has changed to start with; as far as I know “California Angels” was just fine and they only changed to “Anaheim” because Disney was trying to synergize. That’s not a good enough reason!

And because Anaheim paid them to.  Don’t forget that part of it. 

What an amazingly terrible idea. 

11 hours ago, dfwabel said:

Remember, a City Manager is hired and can only recommend items.  S/he can ask for the world, but if s/he fail, they will be gone quickly. 

They don't make policy, they recommend policy.

I didn’t read that as the City Manager alone made the request, I read that as the city itself.  Which may have been the City Manager, or whomever is in charge of the negotiations.  But didn’t think at all that was just one person’s ask. 

10 hours ago, monkeypower said:

Did Anaheim pay them to change to Anaheim? I always thought it was attributed to Disney.

It was one of the things Anaheim requested as part of the stadium upgrades.  No name change, no public money. 
 

I'm sure Disney was more than willing, since for years Disney wanted to make “Anaheim” a synonym for their company the same way that “Hollywood” is for the film industry.  Their interests were served by the deal, but it was still a naming rights deal. 

The only reason they changed it in the first place was because Anaheim paid them to.  So no, I’m not interested in seeing it come back. 

No, good.

I hate naming rights deals for stadiums.  I detest them for teams. 

Good. 
 

I like it a lot, but the Georgia outline on the back is a misstep. Forces the numbers into too small a space, too low on the back. 

19 hours ago, jn8 said:

And from the head up, nothing separates the Broncos, Bears, or Texans, other than decals.

And in a league of 32 teams, there will inevitably be a certain amount of overlap. 
 

But in an 8-team league?  With centralized ownership?  There’s no excuse for that.  

1 hour ago, monkeypower said:

I don't know if I fully explained the difference because I didn't know you didn't know.

 

Independent league baseball is semi-pro baseball. It's professional baseball, just leagues not affiliated with the MLB or MiLB.

On 12/6/2019 at 5:45 PM, Brian in Boston said:

Maybe it's just me, but I find something odd - indeed, off-putting - about the Narwhal playing dress-up in sea-captain's garb while wielding a harpoon. It would be like the Milwaukee Bucks rolling out a primary mark that depicted a deer sporting a winter ear-flap cap, camouflage hunting jacket, and orange safety vest, while toting a bolt action rifle.    

I always felt that way about this Bucks alternate logo:

That is so clearly a hunter's trophy.

On 12/8/2019 at 12:30 PM, Tygers09 said:

Since when have we become a bunch of Tim Gunn's? LOL!!

On 12/8/2019 at 12:43 PM, MJWalker45 said:

Since 2003?

Since 1999, actually.  Chris migrated to a new platform in 2003 that forced us to create new user accounts, but many of us have been posting here for a long, long time.

2 hours ago, jsd1996475 said:

Recently I ran across what was advertised by Lelands Auctions as a 1961 Mets prototype.  I tried to submit this to Uni-Watch, but ... they weren't interested

Or could have been your snarky derision.   

We've seen that one before, think it was several years ago.  Last time it surfaced at auction.  I want to say that the consensus was it wasn't for the Mets, but I can't remember specifics.

35 minutes ago, WSU151 said:

 

What DC doesn't need is another red white & blue team. I'm not sure it's the XFL's DC team's responsibility to resonate with Americans across the country and be America's team. 

 

It's DC's team. 

Yeah, “forget what the locals like” is kind of an odd strategy. 

1 minute ago, Volt said:

Perhaps, but this should've been their logo, with either a White helmet or the satin Silver helmet that Houston is wearing, along with these uniforms:

 

Then you lose the connection to the DC flag. 

I think Washington’s color scheme is one of the things they actually got right.

2 minutes ago, Maroon said:

 I was not actually aware of that. Thanks for the information.

That’s what is so offensive about the new Nike/MLB deal; the jerseys are exactly the same, made with the same materials on the same templates by the same craftspeople in the exact same factories as last year.

Nike just has them sew on a different logo, and then charges fans an extra $119 for it.

43 minutes ago, Volt said:

Another one that doesn't understand the power of athletic branding. 

You're right - condescension and personal attacks totally covers up the lack of a substantive argument.

Quote

Pairing with a brand manufacturer and utilizing their product & brand value provides perceived value to the company you are building.  It's why every major athletic team in the nation, regardless of league or sport, all the way down to high school and even some middle schools, chooses to wear brand name uniforms & apparel.

No, every major athletic team wears a brand logo because the brand pays them to do it. 

If it was the other way around, as you describe, then the NFL wouldn’t have blocked Nike from purring their swoosh on the front, as Nike so desperately wanted.  The NBA wouldn’t have held out as long as they did, and MLB would have eagerly accepted New Era’s flag on the side years ago.

Arsenal didn’t put the three stripes on their sleeves because they wanted to soak up some of that Adidas cred.  They did it because Adidas pays them $78,000,000 every year to do it.  Similarly, the Patriots don’t wear the Nike swoosh because they think it makes them look more professional, or because it’ll sell more jerseys.  They wear the swoosh because Nike pays them an enormous amount money for the privilege. 

Manufacturers want to be associated with major teams, not the other way around. The proof of that is in the money. 

Now, some minor players do eagerly want that logo on their uniforms, to make them look more like the major teams.  But those people have to pay to get it.

Quote

Outside of the perceived value that the brand partnership brings, it also is a major boost to merchandise sales.  The majority of the public is more inclined to buy a team apparel item if it's Nike, UA, or Adidas.

[citation needed]

The claim that the Packers would sell more jerseys branded by Nike than they would jerseys devoid of manufacturer’s logos is ludicrous on its face.  

Quote

They'll buy it, even at a higher cost, before Starter or Gildan or private label, because it's perceived to be more legitimate.  Which is exactly what this league needs:  legitimacy.  Failure to partner with a known brand is a failure.

Because this league is a relative non-entity.  A minor league fueled by ego.  That’s what’s ironic about it; the XFL actually does need the credibility of branding, unlike major leagues. 

Quote

I hope their logo doesn’t make it on the actual jersey. It’s refreshing to see a jersey that actually represents the team, and not an apparel brand. 

Absolutely. 

It’s ironic that the reason they don't have a manufacturer logo is not because they’re strong enough to have the power to protect their brand, but because they’re not worth the bother for a manufacturer to put it there. 

Which is only impressive if they started with a whole lot of them on hand. 

“Selling out” a small quantity is not a big deal. 

1 hour ago, Volt said:

Roughly 24 hours ago to, give or take, and no leaks or rumors.  XFL is decent at playing things close to the chest.

Most leaks come somewhere in the merchandise pipeline.  It's much easier to play things close to the chest when you have very few merchandise contracts.

Holy . 

That's awesome.

I want that on a t-shirt or cap.

How much do you think they pay these players?

Yeah, still not buying that.  Most MiLB players earn peanuts as it is, replacing them with players not under contract won't make much of a difference.