BBTV

The Jets were a WAH team for several seasons in the era in which these were worn, so it makes sense.

No. It doesn't even require any thought to know why.

The blue seems too vibrant. This is a daylight game. Obviously lighting is a factor when making these comparisons, but this seems a little far off:

Dude - he made the all-star team twice. Not once - twice.

Thanks. While the mothership is no better of a source than Wikipedia (and the part you posted isn't attributed to anyone), this part is actually attributed to someone and supports what you said: “It was nice to bring it back and at that point, just textile and fabrication and production processes had changed where the purple on the helmet would match the purple undershirt or the belt was the same color as the sock,” Rossini said. “Even in five, six years, it’s amazing how that process had improved, where you’re like wow, we can nail this uniform.”

Jordan paid $275M for his majority stake in the Hornets, of which he's sold some (while still remaining the majority shareholder) and probably already recouped his initial investment. The sale was for $3B. IDK how much of a stake he's keeping in the franchise, but given that he's essentially playing with house money, he's getting (if the 80% number is true) $2.4B minus however many shares he's keeping. He likely just put more than a billion dollars in his pocket. More than a billion.

What's your source for this being the reason? I thought it was just realitively-new owners wanting something that was theirs.

The Royals are one of those teams that should just play off of the nickname and not push the city, other than maybe an occasionally-used alt (or city connect, now that those exist.) They have a great script and (if they tried) could have some other great imagery to form a great brand around, and frankly, "Kansas City" takes up 10 spaces and is kinda clunky when spelled out on a uniform, and isn't a city that people outside of it are going to buy anything that says it (unlike a city like LA or NY.) Just "Royals" (like how the Angels are just the Angels, the Raiders are just the Raiders) has a lot of potential if they went balls deep into it.

People sometimes forget that this is a sports logos board. We should be mature enough to evaluate a design independently of whether we're fans of the team* or a rival team, and how good the team is/was. I'm also here for the clothes. If we're discussing a permanent change and whether it's a good decision or not, we can talk about historical branding and subconscious associations and all that while also evaluating the design completely objectively. *I do appreciate it when long-time fans of a team chime in to add some context around why there's some little quirk on the uniform, or why some pattern has some significance. Stuff that's lost in all the BS Nikese. Like the Portland airport carpet (*runs away*).

Maybe if i saw it with navy pants (and a normal collar) it'd be acceptable.

Also, those old Seahawks blue uniforms were mostly worn in the dull-sterile-soulless Kingdome, so they in turn also looked dull. You almost never saw them under bright-natural light, where admittedly they looked significantly better. I only rarely got to see them live on TV, because the Seahawks were practically never in any national game, but used to collect football cards in the '80s and remember thinking how dull they looked compared to some of the other teams that also wore a royal-ish blue. It's my opinion that the current Seahawks colors should be their "forever" colors, whether they keep the current uniforms (which IMO have aged pretty well for a non-traditional uniform) or adopt a more traditional look (I'm in the crowd that thinks the above recoloring of the throwback looks pretty good.)

Nick Foles says hi

I can guarantee that the team is just another item in his portfolio, and he'll check out after the initial period of shaking hands and kissing babies. If the financial numbers indicate a rebrand will be profitable then he may appoint someone to run that, but from a "passion" standpoint, I guarantee he really doesn't care.

I'll raise you Mark Rypien and Art Monk

and sometimes if you click on the next page of results, it interprets it as you running another search and makes you wait longer.

They should be careful what they wish for. Harris was the one who hired Hinkie to initiate “the process”, then essentially abandoned that team to go buy more toys, and is now involved in a war against an entire community.

I think it's the fabric. The Eagles throwback also looks way more vibrant than it ever did when it was dull mesh. I think people have twisted memories that it was a bright kelly green, when in reality, the material made it look darker (though the numbers on the white jersey were brighter and closer to what we'd call "kelly".)

There's a well-documented 2-year lead-time rule. Not sure when the cut-off is, so it may even be too late to declare for 2025. Can it be waived? Anything is possible. But, for example, the Eagles can't have their new wordmark on their jerseys until next season (so they'll have played 2 seasons with the old one) because of said rule.

wouldn't it have to be 2 years?

Running backs are dummies. I'm not sure what they expect in this day and age. I get that being propped up by being a 1st round pick by a dumb team can cloud your sense of your value, but they're just not worth it. Every year, some jabroni or jabronis that make no money tend to break out and look great - whether because of an OL, great play calling, or their own talent (most likely a combo of each) but are cooked by their next contract. The Eagles, generally regarded as a "not dumb, probably pretty smart" team, let Miles Sanders go for a $6.5M AAV deal ($13M guaranteed, so basically a 2 year deal) with Carolina (an "average intelligence" team) and backfilled him with a RB room that makes combined less than $6.5M (DeAndre Swift, Rashaad Penny, Kenneth Gainwell, Boston Scott, etc). For $6.5M, which would you rather have? An above-average-but-not-great RB like Sanders, or 4 guys who have each had success in one way or the other in the league? Seems pretty clear to me. Opportunity cost is also important, and is another thing that separates dumb teams from average-intelligent teams from smart teams. In the cap era, can you really invest $10M on one guy at a position that isn't really valued anymore? Again, just sticking in the NFC East, the Eagles were able to get Hurts on a win/win deal where he's getting paid and the team still has the cap space to do whatever... within some limits. By choosing to not pay RBs, they were able to keep most of their good FAs and have a roster that is probably at worst top 3 in the league again. Conversely, dumb teams like the Giants and Dallas have tons wrapped up in players that just don't matter that much (and in Dallas' case, a QB that is ass.) I don't blame any player for holding out for every dime they can get. Each game could be their last, and the money is there for them so go get paid. I don't begrudge anyone for that. But reason needs to prevail at some point, and expecting to get more than $20M guaranteed seems unreasonable when teams have complete rooms that are just as good and cost $6M. Barkley is certainly better than Sanders, but with RBs, the difference isn't as dramatic as it used to be back in the '80s or early '90s. Neither one is worth what they're getting.

Nice catch. I forgot about that debacle.

Gonna need citation on the Eagles, since even if I don't watch them, I generally see highlights and I probably would have noticed that. But I don't catch everything. I do remember the Panthers now.

Does that happen often? I can recall maybe once or twice, but I don't pay much attention to preseason.