throwuascenario

On 5/17/2023 at 10:58 AM, CS85 said:

 

It's all inevitable.  The entire product, every single aspect of it, will enter a closed system.  Annual subscriptions, local market premium fees, PPV super bowl, draft, and playoffs.

 

 

This would literally kill the sport within 30 years. No sports league will exist when their only market is existing, die-hard fans. They will never  gain any new fans when you have to pay to watch. Ask the NHL, MLB, and NBA how that's worked over the last 30 years with their cable deals. And if they're charging to watch all games, football will turn into a niche sport and lose any casual fans they have too.

Other sports should be copying the NFL, not the other way around.

If your billion dollar business's only real asset is a brand, hiding that brand is beyond dumb.

When you're focused on nickels and dimes, you lose the whole dollar.

On 5/29/2023 at 2:51 PM, bosrs1 said:

 

Ah, yeah you had to see the post my post was responding to which said:

 

“Funny thing about that mock-up is... how much do you think the A's would demand from MGM for advertising to face it that direction?”

 

 

I mean, in theory they could threaten MGM to face the stadium another direction if they don't pay them. That's the only feasible way they could get money from them, if MGM even cared.

On 4/7/2023 at 9:00 AM, BBTV said:

 

Well if you're claiming "literally never", then, IIRC, he refused to talk to media after the Super Bowl, placing the burden on his teammates.  He complained to kids about women that can't cook, can't clean, and don't know when to be quiet, and questioned how a female reporter can talk about football.  But maybe I took that out of context... like he claims everything he's ever said has been (despite full context being available on recordings.)

 

I couldn't care less about TD dances and taunting.  In fact, I think there should be more of that.  But I think it's beyond fair to question his character.... and maturity.  And that would make me question if he's the kind of role model I'd want for a young and impressionable player.

 

But I don't follow the team, so if people that do disagree, then that's cool - I hope he re-signs there.  But the first time he has to play and gets louder cheers than the starter... then starts going on about how he should start, and the whole thing crumbles down, we'll see how that goes.  

 

I have no problem with a guy being confident or cocky.  A player should be.  And I love guys that add character and excitement to the game - TO was one of my favorite players.  I just don't think that makes for a good backup QB.

 

 

So he's immature for literally saying nothing? And how on Earth do you know what he's saying to his kids? And yeah, she threw the word "routes" into a question that didn't at all need it just to make it seem like she knew football. So he roasted her for it. And maybe you  don't have a problem with guys being confident but NFL GMs clearly do. Guys like Marcus Mariota, Matt Ryan, or Sam Darnold will never run out of chances because they make NFL coaches, GMs, and owners feel good about themselves. Guys like Cam, Baker, and even a Malik Willis make them feel threatened. So they can't wait to put them in their place.

If all they're doing is adjusting the color, I wonder why they even announced it. They put those jerseys on sale for nothing, most fans wouldn't have even noticed.

7 hours ago, BBTV said:

 

Is he really the kind of guy you want to "mentor" someone?  Hasn't he had his share of maturity issues?

 

I wouldn't want him at all as a backup, because he still thinks he's a starter (and he might be, but that's not the point.)   I don't think you ever want a backup that thinks he should be the starter - could only cause problems.

 

EDIT:

I've made this point before, but I really think it's true.  "Backup quarterback" is its own separate position, separate from "quarterback".  It's a different role, requires a player to fully be committed to it and be able to balance being "always ready" with knowing that they're in a role that will likely see them spend most of their time helping the starter prep, and never play.

 

For crappy teams it doesn't really matter much. but al true contenders need a professional "backup quarterback".  The obvious case that I'll point to is Nick Foles.  He was paid a ton of money to come in as Wentz' backup, and it paid off.

 

It also helps if the "backup quarterback" has at least some similar skills to the starter, so the whole offense doesn't need to be rewritten (again - more important for contenders.)  Eagles had this bite them last year when Hurts went down and Minshew played.  They adjusted the offense, but it still didn't really work.  I'm hoping that Mariota is ready to be a "backup quarterback" since it seems like he would be comfortable in the same offense as Hurts.

He has literally never had one issue with maturity. I don't know what you're referencing. Touchdown dances maybe?

And yeah, by talent alone he is a starter. He took the worst roster in the NFL to a 7-8 record in his last meaningful playing time. His #1 receiver was Jakobi Myers, who would've been cut from some other NFL rosters that season. There is a reason Brady left.

It then took an NFL record free agency class for Mac Jones to even match that this year.

NFL management doesn't like confident players. They like guys that come in, put their head down, and shut up. Same reason Baker Mayfield was released by the Panthers. Sam Darnold is a little weakling that talks to the ground and knows how bad at football he is. He doesn't make Matt Rhule or David Tepper or any other NFL GM or coach feel bad about themselves by having a healthier self-esteem than them.

Case in point: Matt Ryan, Marcus Mariota, and Geno Smith were starters last season. None of which had had a productive season since 2018. All of them have in common that they talk to the ground and are generally scared of the world. They are totally unthreatening, something NFL teams value more than winning apparently.

7 hours ago, CDCLT said:

Yes. There's no man I'd rather have mentor our next QB. When Cam played the whole team felt different. He was such a valuable asset to the team and the city's culture and he's a great guy off the field too. He's made mistakes, obviously - the "woman talking about routes" comment isn't something that's really defensible. He's a competitor, through and through, and especially given how the modern QB is so influenced by him Cam would be my first and only choice.

It's hard to explain to someone outside the Panthers fanbase what Cam meant to the team. It always felt like we had a chance to win when he was there. That's never been true any other time in team history. He made people care about Charlotte and every person in Charlotte care about the Panthers. It's a complete disgrace the way his tenure ended. As if it wasn't a bad enough ending releasing him in 2019, they had to bring him back just so Matt Rhule could bench him for one of "his guys" after just 2 games to try and scapegoat his way into keeping his job one more year.

Cam's last home game with the Panthers was a meaningless game where the team had already been eliminated - and after I believe two drives - one of them a scoring drive, no less - he was inexplicably benched for Darnold for the rest of the game - in which they barely passed midfield. I will never understand why he couldn't finish that last home game and will never really forgive anyone involved with the Panthers for letting it happen.

5 hours ago, BuckDancer said:

If those classic teams changed their look, I would probably be against it, to me they already have that timeless look I talk about so there is no NEED to modernize/make any drastic changes, what they have now is timeless. We're talking about mostly 06 teams who have been wearing these unis for 40-50 years now, the rangers changed their look at one point if I recall to a Winnipeg jets looking jersey back in the 70's, they went back to their classic look and that was a good call. They had also spent decades prior going back to the 1920's refining their jerseys like other 06 teams and some newer teams like the blues, and now have that iconic look that never really needs to be changed much. When I talk about teams who need to keep exploring their brand identity I'm talking about teams who still haven't found that iconic, timeless look. The rangers, red wings, hawks, ect. looked great in the 60's, 80's 00's, today. Never looked out of place. I can't say the same for some of these other teams who have now gone back to an old look decades later. So if they did decide to change their look, they had better come up with something just as iconic, if not then yes stick to the current timeless look.

 

No, you're misunderstanding what I'm asking. I'm not asking if they should switch. I'm saying, assume the following scenario.

This offseason, the Montreal Canadiens announce that they are unveiling a brand new uniform. It doesn't have the center stripe and has a different logo on it. They were this for 10 or 11 seasons before they realize  that fans like their old uniforms better. So they decide to go back to their exact classic uniforms with the CH logo and the blue center stripe.

The question: In this scenario, is going back to their old look lazy?

3 hours ago, Brave-Bird 08 said:

Compared to how Nike fumbled around with shoulder "loops" for so long, including with Carolina, the irony of all of this is they finally got it right when they switched Carolina onto the vapor template. Compare this below photo to the awful attempt they had with LSU in the early 2010s.

 

Interesting that "mobility is mentioned." Can an expert explain his? Is there actually something about the way the stripe is applied that constricts the sleeve area, and that is a functional reason for going back to truncated? 

 

Shame because I actually really appreciated them making jerseys with full loops.

 

I don't get this either. I thought they totally fixed the stripes when they switched templates in 2019. Shortening them will make them a lot worse.

Does this reset their 5-year change window? Not worrying about them switching to Nikefied garbage for 5 years would honestly be the biggest positive of this change

1 hour ago, GDAWG said:

So he's not willing to be a backup for Mahomes?

It's pretty much all players that play with his playing style or played in his youth camps. And the three rookies this year.

As a Panthers fan, I'd love to see him come back to mentor their draft pick this year. We should've never gotten rid of him in 2019 and this is the first chance we have to upgrade over him. The team would've been 1000x more watchable if we had just kept him until now.

On 4/5/2023 at 12:43 AM, BuckDancer said:

Just to make things clear, I'm not trying to police anything, just my opinions. If the blues want  to pull out the old '67 retro thirds they wear now as their new jerseys they can. I just think it's a bad call with what they have now. Their current look is something that feels much less dated, more modern, yet still feels "classic" and not like a trendy experimental fish stick type jersey. The sharks old jerseys suffer from the same problem, especially the logo, looks too dated. Compared to a team like chicago or montreal whose jerseys are timeless.

 

I don't think that the Blues' current uniforms look dated, nor do their originals. I just think that their current uniforms have a much worse color balance and that navy is honestly not needed anywhere in their scheme at all. It's way overused in their current uniforms. Get rid of the navy, up the yellow, and their currents would be better than their originals. If that was the case, they should continue to use them because they're better. Not because they once wore the originals so they should be out of the running.

I actually feel the exact opposite about the Sharks. To me, the overly-cartooned 3D shark is way more dated than their original logo. The logo is actually the thing that puts their originals above the currents for me. The old logo or a new 2D logo on the current jersey would be their best look IMO.

On 4/5/2023 at 12:43 AM, BuckDancer said:

No, I don't think teams should have to constantly change their unis. Many teams have gotten it right and have no need to change. The hawks, blues, original vegas, rangers, canadiens, red wings, pre adidas devils, and others look great. I think that's the main point of the argument, a lot of teams should keep exploring options with their look until they finally get to that definitive identity that stands the test of time.

 

So let's just say that Detroit, or Chicago, or Rangers, or Canadiens, changed their uniforms next season to something totally new. There was outrage but they changed nonetheless. In a few years they realized they made a mistake and wanted to go back to what they wore before.  Would it then be lazy to change back?

On 4/5/2023 at 12:43 AM, BuckDancer said:

The hurricanes for me are one of those teams, I see them much like colorado, they just need to keep exploring and updating their original look to bring it into the modern era. Would I be upset if colorado just straight up brought back their original look? No, but again, I think what they did over the past 6 years in toning down some of the more 90's/dated aspects of the jerseys (new shoulder logo, simplified numbers, loss of black) and fixing some of the inconsistencies (home jersey striping) has worked out well for them overall, and there is still work to be done. Now you may argue that the avs lost or were stripped of character when they got rid of the yeti foot or the old font with two outlines, but I think it was a good call. I think carolina and other teams should look to do the same instead of just outright bringing back the exact same thing they wore 25 years ago. 

To me, the Avalanche made tweaks to their jerseys which is much different than a new uniform. The Hurricanes did not make tweaks between their original and 2017 uniforms. They're completely different uniforms. That's the difference. I just think the Hurricanes are one of the teams that totally got it right the first time. Every time they've altered their brand since has made it worse, with the exception of the 2017 Adidas reds, which were an improvement over both what came before it and after it. But far worse than the originals.

I do think small tweaks can improve them. For instance, on their current throwbacks of the 2006 uniform, the bottom stripes curve on the back. I actually love that look and it's something that wasn't original to them.

I'm also saying all this as someone who hates throwback uniforms (with rare exceptions). If you don't think it's good enough to be your full-time look, it's not good enough to wear ever.

22 hours ago, VikWings said:

 

That uniform police exists in the NBA where they don't allow teams to go back to exact old uniform or logo designs for some reason.

Lol, the NBA will approve a uniform that doesn't inclue any of your team name, city name, team logo, team colors, or team typefaces (so literally anything that distinguishes it as your uniform) but will restrict you from using your own old uniforms. What a joke of a league.

I apologize if this is the wrong place for this, but I couldn't find another sports business related thread.

Does anyone else think that one of the reasons that the NHL, along with the NBA and MLB have fallen eons behind the NFL in popularity is because of how available the NFL makes games on TV?

I've never understood why you woudn't do everything to copy the NFL if you're one of these leagues that is eating its dust. With the further decline of cable, teams in all 3 of those leagues should be giving their games away, at least locally, like the NFL does.

I'll use a baseball example because it applies to me, but the exact same thing could easily apply to the NHL or NBA:

I grew up in a market with no MLB team. A few years ago, I moved to a city that doesn't have one but is very close (1.5 hours) to one that does. I would've very likely became a fan of said team and bought tickets, merchandise, and contributed to ad sales by watching their games on TV. But I don't have cable and would've had to buy a Bally Sports+ subscription to watch them. Seeing how I didn't grow up a fan and have no current attachment to the team, that was more than I was willing to do. So I gave up on the idea and they've made exactly $0 off me since.

If your only marketing to people who are already fans of your product, you literally cannot grow your fanbase by definition. It boggles my mind that with all the revenue extra fans can bring in, that they'd nickel and dime people completely out of their fanbase by making their games inaccessible.

Look how many fans the Cubs brought in when WGN was nationally broadcasting their games. Astonishingly, exposing your brand to the widest possible audience works to expand your fanbase. Who would've thought?

2 hours ago, nickp91 said:

 would love the Canes and Checkers to renew their partnership as it should be

Why have complete control over development, easy logistical access to call-ups, and expand your fanbase into one of the fastest growing markets in the US that can lead to increased ticket sales, merchandise sales, and TV viewership at the NHL level, when you can get a slightly better financial deal from a team across the country who's fans and management couldn't place Raleigh on a map?

3 hours ago, BuckDancer said:

The blues, avalanche, sharks, jets among others all could have went in a more safer direction and just pulled out something old out of the closet (60's blues/original sharks/wha jets, rockies inspired jerseys) much like the sens, yotes, flames, ect. but thankfully they didn't. As much as I like the blue/gold blues look and the '91 sharks look, I think most would agree their current unis are superior and were a wise choice, while still having those retro jerseys as optional thirds.

 

I think that both the Blues and the Sharks are wearing worse uniforms now than they were at one point before. If they switched tomorrow to their respective old uniforms, they would be switching to a superior uniform (in my opinion). There's nothing lazy about upgrading your uniform. It simply doesn't matter whether or not you've worn them in the past. They're just better uniforms. There shouldn't be some uniform police saying they can never go back to a better uniform (in my opinion).

3 hours ago, BuckDancer said:

The hurricanes may have looked their best in their original set, but is that the best they could look? I don't think so, I think they could easily come up with something more modern and even better than what they wore back then. Which is what I thought they were going to do in 2017 when they introduced that modernized red jersey with the sublimated flag pattern. But now that they gone ahead and messed that whole thing up and have an incoherent uniform set that will likely just give way to another old favourite instead of a more modern classic. 

 

That's my issue, too many teams not really trying to work on their present look, refine it and keep making it better, carolina is great example, and just throwing in the towel and wearing a retro set instead. 

Yes, that is the best they could look. They were the perfect uniforms for them. The 2017 set was miles better than they're current garbage, but was worse in pretty much every way than the set it was based on. It was basically the original set stripped of all character. There's nothing you can do to "evolve" that set but strip it of character and bastardize it. So just wear them as is.

To further understand your position - do you think all teams should be changing uniforms every few years? The Canadiens? Rangers? You seem to be implying that uniforms need to evolve or else they become outdated. Or it specifically teams that mistakenly switch away from uniforms that for some reason means they should never be able to bring them back?

3 hours ago, CDCLT said:

The logo could use some tweaks IMO but I don't think they'll change it. I'm for us switching to blue as our primary jersey color so that we can own that look and set ourselves apart from the NFC South. My ideal set would have blue helmets to truly create a unique look for the team but I'm ok with white/blue/white.

Actually the logo looks great on white. I change my vote to white with blue as a close second. Just not black where the logo completely disappears.

5 minutes ago, SteeloGreen said:

Theres going to be some kind of modification/simplification.  Current jerseys Black/Blue both have the silver in them.  If they are dropping silver then the jerseys are going to changed.

There's a tiny amount of silver that could easily just be switched to white. That's what I'd want but it's obviously not what they'll do. I think the palatability of the uniforms will come down to helmet color. White or blue helmet and they're on their way to doing well. Black helmets and the whole thing will be a train wreck no matter what.

Just now, CDCLT said:

I would be totally ok with white/blue/white being our look. I'd imagine some kind of blackout color rush would be the alt.

The blue pops on the black jerseys in a way it doesn't as the base for a jersey. Still, as long as the jerseys aren't overly modern trash, it will still be decent enough.

I really hope they don't touch the logo. It's perfect as it is.

56 minutes ago, McCall said:

Honestly, I'd have no problem with white helmet / blue jersey / white pants. I'd rather they just keep their current blue jerseys, but I can live with it if it's tasteful.

I'd still prefer blue / black / blue but that wouldn't be bad.

On 4/1/2023 at 2:45 PM, BuckDancer said:

I'm not questioning whether some of them were popular choices, I'm saying a lot of these were generally lazy decisions, especially arizona and ottawa.

 

I like when teams keep refining their look, a team like St. Louis for example, has throughout the decades introduced numerous looks from their original 60's light blue/gold look, to their 80's darks blue and red, the angled jerseys in the 90's, and then they kept refining their '98 look until they got what they have today. Which I would say is probably their best look and a modern classic. Now they could have easily just jumped on the old school trend after messing up their look in 2007 like many teams did and just went back to an old 70's or 80's look like their current third retro jersey. But thankfully they did it right and just fixed their mistake, which I wish many teams had done instead of the retro jersey return, and ended up with someone even better than what they had pre edge.

I don't understand this take at all. Every team should look as good as they can. It doesn't matter if the uniform they're switching to has been used before or not.

I think you're arguing that teams shouldn't use old designs because of nostalgia. I totally agree with that. I think the Coyotes and Senators made that mistake. They picked uniforms that are not their best look because they used them before. That's bad.

But it's also bad to say that teams can't use old looks because they've used them before. Buffalo and Edmonton switched back to uniforms that happen to be their best look. There's no reason they should be precluded from having done so just because they used them in the past. We've seen both teams try and try again to improve on their original looks and they never have. To think they will given more time when they've had 20+ years is foolish. They never will. They never should've switched them in the first place and never should again now that they're back. It's not lazy for them to wear their best look.

In the same vain, I would cry with joy if my Hurricanes switched back to their original look full-time. They, like Buffalo and Edmonton, have never improved upon it and should give up trying. To think that their beautiful original uniforms should be banished just because they once wore them and switched away is absurd. That is their best look and what they should always look like. It would absolutely not be lazy for them to announce this offseason they were going back to them.

Is there still a chance the Panthers change this year? If so, any leakings on what direction they could be headed?

I really hope they don't change. They absolutely nailed the jerseys from day 1. I do think silver muddies up the color scheme and would much rather them wear a blue helmet and blue pants full time. Would look fantastic with the home and away sets. But they would never make that change alone. If it even came at all, it would come with trashy "modern" jerseys that set them on the 5-year carousel to hell.

Let's hope they learned from their mistakes at QB and don't make the same with the unis. Sometimes what you have is as good as you're gonna get. Changing just to change is not the answer.

2 hours ago, Indigo said:

I meant uniform-wise, but i guess technically they are being used. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

As for the Broncos, our only hope is that they do an all-white inverse of the Color Rush set, that way they can mix and match white pants and jerseys with the orange.

But that would rely on Denver being competent, whichi is a big ask from a team that wore this:

Unpopular opinion: I actually like this better than with the white pants. There are exceptions but as a general rule, in my opinion - the helmet should always match the pants unless it matches the jersey. It creates such a balanced look. I know the stripes don't match, but they look like crap matching or unmatching so it doesn't really matter.

7 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

I have no objection to the monetising.  What I don't like is the visual clutter.  I know that this patch is small; but in addition to the wholly inappropriate ad patch, these things start to add up.

 

 

 

Yes, but the World Series patch is also a source of unnecessary clutter.

 

Well, that's where we differ. I totally hate clutter as well (excessive anniversary patches drive me crazy) but I like having something that commemorates something as big as getting to the World Series or any other league's finals and that you can look forward to every year. I feel similarly about someone's debut. It's a big deal.

6 minutes ago, FiddySicks said:

The thing I don’t like about it is that it’s monetizing every aspect of the uniforms. It’s their right do so, no doubt. But it feels like such a shameless cash grab. It’s really disappointing to see from a league that spent so many years having tight restrictions on uniform details specifically to prevent that kind of crap.
 

It’s one of the things that bothers me about baseball the most, actually. They’ve been so snooty and up their own asses about “tradition” and “unwritten rules” to the point where it’s been kind of of putting, in a way. Now it sort of feels like they took those principles and just tossed them out the window for a few extra bucks. It’s like there was zero value to all of the time and effort they wasted policing that stuff for so long. It makes some of what Major League Baseball is doing hard to take at all serious. 
 

That’s just my feeling, anyway. 

I mean I get that. I just don't think this is it. It's an MLB logo with the word debut under it. To me it just commemorates a special occasion, like a World Series patch on a smaller scale. What they do with the patch later doesn't really matter to me. If they had put a Fanatics or Topps logo on the patch, then I'd totally agree.

I don't understand the hate for the debut patches. I actually think it's really cool. Like watching highlights years from now of future star players it'll be cool to see.

The trading card aspect of it is dumb but who really cares.

2 hours ago, infernoqueso said:

You just reminded me that they will probably win it this year wearing the "Canes" road sweater with red helmets

I don’t like the white uniforms either but much prefer them to the black ones. I think the diagonal lettering thing always feels like a Rangers ripoff but that double flag logo is so bad on a hockey jersey that it’s even worse. Add to that the fact that the Hurricanes are a red and then black team, so those don’t even feel like Hurricanes uniforms. At least the colors are right on the white ones.

I actually kind of like the red helmets. It balances the colors nicely. I’d say it’s equal to the white helmets in my eyes.

1 hour ago, BuckDancer said:

Why the Hurricanes didn't just make a matching road uniform in 2017 during the Adidas rebrand I'll never understand.  

 

Or y’know, just wear their 1997-2007 home and away uniforms for the rest of time .

BTW: The Hurricanes have worn 12 different uniforms in the past 10 years, with only 2 of them matching. Their current roads and this year’s reverse retro that they wore for 2 games. So they’ve worn 11 different jersey designs with 5 different logos and never had a matching home and away design.

Not sure if this opinion is unpopular or not but:

Teams in all sports go WAYYY overboard with the anniversairy stuff. Celebrating one every five years is just way too often. It completely waters it down when you do have a legitimate one and just adds visual clutter to your identity every five years.

Here are the legitimate anniversairies: 10, 25, 50, 75, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300, etc.

Even worse is in the NHL when they insist on putting the anniversary logos at center ice. Your center ice logo should be your primary, core brand. Not some one off. To think the Canes could hoist the cup this year on top of a one-off logo while wearing those horrible black jerseys.... yuck.

7 hours ago, infrared41 said:

 

Yes. I never said Mayfield was the problem, but feel free to infer that I think he was part of the bigger problem.

 

 

Okay, I understand. I do disagree that he was even part of the problem. The problem has plagued the Panthers since the year Mayfield got drafted, and that's their owner.

7 hours ago, tBBP said:

 

Yyeeaahhh Urban Meyer says hi .

At least Jacksonville had the common sense to can him after one season. Every single player that Rhule coached played better before and after he was their coach. Not one player came to the Panthers and improved and every single player played much better either after leaving or after he got fired.

All that to say, Meyer was worse but if I had to choose between 1 season of Meyer or 2.5 of Rhule, I'll take Meyer.

12 minutes ago, infrared41 said:

 

Yeah, I don't care.

 

I never said Mayfield was the issue with the Panthers. What I said was the Panthers were a better team without him. I'm fine with having a discussion with you (pedantic as you can be) but you need to stop making up and then claiming I said it.

So I said Mayfield wasn't the problem. In response, you said that they were better without him.

You're seriously saying that I can't infer from that statement that you were implying that he was the problem?