Jump to content

NickSixers

Members
  • Posts

    196
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by NickSixers

  1. 1 hour ago, FinsUp1214 said:

    Well, I was very wrong about Canada - pretty much the only thing tying back to 1986 is the wordmark inside the collar. Everything else is quite different:

     

    spacer.png

     

    spacer.png

    The treatment of the Swoosh in the oval is very odd. Haven't seen that before, certainly not on any of the other kits in this cycle.

    • Like 4
    • Hurl 1
  2. Per Uni-Watch:

    Quote

    Interestingly, Nike did not create the team’s new look. Much of the preliminary work was done by the Brooklyn sports branding agency Doubleday & Cartwright, with sports designer Matthew Wolff and the team’s internal design staff also involved. Nike and the league were essential partners that helped to provide oversight and big-picture guidance for the project.

    Not a surprise to see either of those names having contributed to this.

    • Like 6
  3. 4 hours ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

     

    This actually proved false last year, but I can't for the love of me remember the exact examples.  I watched carefully through every team's patches because I gotta show something in the Wikipedia uniform images.  I decided to go with every example being right-handed, and so for teams with switching patches the patches showed on the left sleeve, but there were a number of teams who did not switch patches.  I know Minnesota and Kansas City were two , and indeed did not get an ad patch last year.

     

    But I do know for sure there was at least one team who switched patches without getting an ad... or had fixed patches but then got an ad.  Unfortunately, my memory is failing me.  I do know for sure that Philly ditched their sleeve numbers to seemingly make way but never did.

    Teams are PREPARING for ads. The preparation isn't connected to their ad sales team finding an acceptable deal. But you have to prepare so that you can introduce the ad patch when you find an acceptable deal.

  4. I'm still expecting the Eagles to do something one of these years. At the least, they need to put the new word mark on the jersey under the NFL shield. I'd expect (and fear) a more thorough revision.

  5. 3 hours ago, FiddySicks said:


    Lol, it’s the largest cruise ship company in the world. Not exactly some niche company. Also, based out of Miami. Anyone from the area is going to recognize the crown and anchor. 

    One thing: they don't buy that sponsorship to appeal to people in the Miami area. You pay the premium to be on Messi's shirt to have a worldwide impact.

  6. Blue chip companies typically are not shirt sponsors worldwide. That is how you end up with offshore betting companies sponsoring one-third of the Premier League.

    Smaller "challenger" brands are more likely to sponsor shirts/patches than Apple, Google, etc.

    • Like 2
  7. 5 hours ago, Eszcz21 said:

    So,  Nike just plans on making the NFL as NBA as possible. I feel like most teams that make a uniform change are going to start having home and road uniforms that are completely different from each other than an alternate that has nothing to do with them as well instead of everything just being a color swap.  I'm absolutely terrified of what the Lions are going to look like when they get new uniforms, I'd rather them just stick to what they have now if they're not going to just go back to the Barry Sanders uniforms with the current logo. 

    It all comes down to the teams and their willingness to play along. Many teams have strong brand identities and won't go along with whatever Nike wants. The Patriots have a strong identity and don't have any Nike craziness in their new(ish) uniforms. (I personally think they need silver pants, but that's neither here nor there.)

     

    The Texans appear to be the perfect storm of a team lacking strong leadership and vision, so this could be very ugly.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.