spartacat_12

There have been rumours that the Canes will be unveiling a new home jersey.

Sure, but he never transcended the sport and became part of the zeitgeist the way guys like Bonds, Jeter, or A-rod did. That's the point Stephen A was trying to make, although he didn't do the greatest job presenting his argument. Ohtani might be like Trout, in that he is content letting his play on the field speak for him, but that is going to be limiting any reach his brand could have beyond the baseball community.

I have not heard anyone in the fanbase pushing for either of these things. Prior to the recent rebrand, most people were adamantly against the updated 2D logo, and the black laurel striped jerseys are probably the 2nd least popular ones that the team has ever worn (after the SENS alternate). Vegas already uses metallic gold striping with a sublimated floral pattern. Leave it to them.

The Sens don't need gold stripes anywhere on the jersey. You don't see the Blackhawks using green, yellow, or orange outside of their logos.

They actually announced the logo a couple minutes before your post: https://shopwinterhawks.com/

I liked the leaked prototype logo from a few years back that included the flaming cowboy hat. Maybe they could revisit something like that for a Cowboys-inspired fauxback/RR.

His point seems pretty clear to me, and I'm not exactly sure why it has people so offended. It's difficult to get a sense of a player's personality when their media appearances are done through a translator. No one is expecting a foreign-born player's English to be perfect, but I think people appreciate when an effort is made. Munenori Kawasaki quickly became a fan favourite in Toronto because of his enthusiasm with the media. This wouldn't have happened if he had a translator with him all the time. What if the player in question wasn't a visible minority? Imagine what people around the NBA would be saying if Luka Doncic didn't speak English well and required a translator?

Change the colour of the helmet on the left to match the one on the right and you've got the perfect Rams uniform.

Well when the Campbell & Wales trophies were introduced they were originally awarded to the regular season division winners. It wasn't until the '80s that they began awarding it to the playoff conference champs.

Weird that the Canes use the striping from their previous away jersey instead of the current one. Also, the Coyotes change has been known for a long time by anyone paying attention. They already presented their new head coach with a Kachina jersey at his introduction, and we've seen plenty of marketing material using the logo.

Well here are some quick changes that would fix each example I provided: The Cardinals should completely remove black from their uniforms (although the Falcons recent changes removed some of the similarities). One of the Wolves or Mavs needs to bring green back into the fold. Minny seemed like they were going to, but for some reason only use it on one uniform. The Lightning & Canes need to incorporate more black & silver into their sets, which would make a huge difference. Just because you don't agree with people, it doesn't mean they are being whiny. The majority of people on these boards are able to provide intelligent arguments to back up their opinions, and aren't just suckers for anything shiny & new that teams throw against the wall. It is literally a white version of the current home uniform, minus the gradient numbers. At this point they need to ditch the bone jerseys, along with every pair of pants that isn't yellow.

Well when you're in the stands or put the game on TV mid-broadcast you usually don't get a close look at the logos right away. The colours & striping are typically the first indication you get of who's playing. Obviously none of those looks are identical, but they're close enough that it is confusing to a casual observer.

They look like intra-squad scrimmages. I thought that point was obvious.

Calling conference championships & Presidents Trophies mediocre accomplishments is a pretty bold statement considering the Bruins have 1 Stanley Cup in the last 50 years. Well they can either commemorate the most successful campaign in nearly 3 decades, or they can maintain the delusion that they're the league's marquee franchise & that they're better than everyone else. Other than a Carey Price number retirement, they could go another 20+ years without raising another banner.

That logic is fine if you are designing uniforms in a vacuum, but you're not. Yes you want the team to look good, but a major part of branding is standing out and offering something unique compared to your competitors. Your way of thinking is what has lead to matchups like these:

It will be interesting to see what Montreal decides to do. Currently the Bell Centre only has banners for Stanley Cups & retired numbers, but considering that this was their most successful run in nearly 30 years I'm sure they'll want to do something to acknowledge it. Unless I'm mistaken, every team that has lost in the finals since Montreal last did in '89 has a banner commemorating it Maybe they take a page out of the Bruins books and add one banner highlighting every season when they were a Cup finalist but didn't win. The Bruins include the seasons they won, but this would be a bit redundant for the Habs.

I prefer the reactions on here to the inevitable "so clean", or responses that you see from the general public whenever a new uniform is unveiled. You can complain all you want, but there's a reason teams like the Packers, Colts, Raiders, etc. uniforms have stood the test of time, meanwhile teams like the Bucs & Jags have immediately backpedaled to traditional looks the first chance they got.

Because it is completely unnecessary. Just because the NFL is going to allow secondary helmets doesn't mean every team HAS to come up with one. If a team organically comes up with an idea for a uniform that would benefit from an alternate helmet, or has a throwback that requires one, that's fine. Earlier in this thread you commented that the Bears don't need another helmet, so I'm not sure why you are insisting on Baltimore having one just for the sake of it. There was a ton of backlash from the fans when the gold pants were worn, so I think that is working more against your argument than for it. The Ravens have been around for 25 years, have been one of the league's most successful franchises over that period of time, and have basically kept the same brand. I don't think they have much to gain from another helmet.

Nobody is saying there has to be some sort of rule in place banning the Ravens from using a purple helmet. I'm just saying that when it comes to branding, it's generally a good idea to try and stand out from your competitors. Blue has always been one of the Tampa Bay Lightning's colours, but that doesn't change the fact that switching to a blue & white set made them look like Leaf knock-offs.

If it comes back as a third, the demand from fans will be to make it the home jersey again. Then in another decade we'll get the throwbacks back as alternates again, and then fans will buy enough that they switch back. And this will go on for the rest of history. Going with Kraken as the name is enough to balance out the traditional uniform design. They were smart in knowing that most non-casual fans would hate the name, so they kept the logo & uniforms fairly simplistic as a compromise.

Well cities like Phoenix & Miami will likely be uninhabitable by the end of this century, and that doesn't seem to be a concern for pro sports leagues. I don't think the Raiders drawing fans is going to be a problem. Only 9 home games, with most of them happening on the weekend means there will be plenty of out of town fans planning trips there around the schedule. The only issue they might face is that the crowds might be skewed towards the visiting team.

The Las Vegas metro area population has doubled in the last 20 years, and is projected to hit 3 million in the next 5 years. It has been one of the world's major entertainment destinations for decades now, and if it weren't for professional sports' puritanical views on gambling, there would have been teams there a long time ago. Whether or not they land a MLB team, I think the NBA is an inevitability. I'd like to see the A's find a solution that keeps them in the Bay Area, but I'm not sure why so many people have issues with Vegas getting professional sports. This isn't that different than LA getting 3 expansion teams & 2 relocated teams in less than 10 years during the late '50s/'60s.

I just saw the statement from Waddell that the Canes released, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. He said the organization wants to ensure "a safe environment for fans", yet they had almost a full barn during the playoffs, and have already announced 100% capacity with no masks at next season's home games.