Nike, NFL extend deal through 2019

[guest23]

Those photos are cherry picked. If you were to look at a full range of photos or game footage you'd see the same sweat box effect giving off the "2 shades of green" effect. The packers have that dark green as an option (why would nike keep it off limits to the nfl?) but have made the decision that those options are not acceptable.

[Guest]

Those photos are cherry picked. If you were to look at a full range of photos or game footage you'd see the same sweat box effect giving off the "2 shades of green" effect. The packers have that dark green as an option (why would nike keep it off limits to the nfl?) but have made the decision that those options are not acceptable.

The sweatboxes make all the jerseys (besides white) have the 2-shades effect. The Jets use actually have different colored striping/number that gives in the 3-shade effect... Different materials between the striping and the base jersey is what I see causing this. (really bad sweatboxes in image #2)

[martymcfry]

Those photos are cherry picked. If you were to look at a full range of photos or game footage you'd see the same sweat box effect giving off the "2 shades of green" effect. The packers have that dark green as an option (why would nike keep it off limits to the nfl?) but have made the decision that those options are not acceptable.

The sweatboxes make all the jerseys (besides white) have the 2-shades effect. The Jets use actually have different colored striping/number that gives in the 3-shade effect... Different materials between the striping and the base jersey is what I see causing this. (really bad sweatboxes in image #2)

Then how do you explain this?

[eliasrappaport]

I'm agnostic on the shiny (if anything, I prefer matte fabrics), but until Nike finds a way to make green jerseys in a single shade of green, the Packers ain't switching. Even if the players wanted to, which has been asserted but not supported.

I just pray that the eagles switch back to metallic jerseys next year. Nike somehow can't make their color and the new matte versions just don't look te same. It's not supposed to look like how it does now.

[guest23]

Those photos are cherry picked. If you were to look at a full range of photos or game footage you'd see the same sweat box effect giving off the "2 shades of green" effect. The packers have that dark green as an option (why would nike keep it off limits to the nfl?) but have made the decision that those options are not acceptable.

The sweatboxes make all the jerseys (besides white) have the 2-shades effect. The Jets use actually have different colored striping/number that gives in the 3-shade effect... Different materials between the striping and the base jersey is what I see causing this. (really bad sweatboxes in image #2)

Then how do you explain this?

Stage lighting and flash photography.

[TheOldRoman]

The Jets' sweatboxes don't match the non-mesh fabric even before players start sweating. It looks bad on a hanger and horrible in games. The difference is, Nike appears to have been able to make the mesh and flat fabrics match for other teams, so the jerseys only look bad during games. Despite bungling things and taking too long, Nike was able to get a close match across fabrics for the Eagles' green. So I'm guessing the overriding cause of this (other than Nike shamefully offering that pile of crap to the Jets) is the Jets not realizing how awful they look and demanding that Nike work as diligently at fixing their green as they did for the Eagles.

[guest23]

Whatever pantone shade of green nike is trying to replicate for the jets simply will not look good. They need to find a shade where the mesh and base panels don't look so drastically different which is an inherent design flaw that's magnified when displayed in a flat/drab green.

The design flaw is the mesh. The fabric is too thin and porous to look good next to the base material.

[Chewbacca]

I'm honestly blown away that there isn't much outrage from anyone on here about this. I think the NFL's uniforms have gone mostly downhill since Nike took over. Don't get me wrong, I know it's the teams that sign their designs off but I just do not like what Nike has done at all. The plastic collars, mismatching colors, not getting shades of green right, and how about that awful helmet the Jaguars continue to use. Matte black would be a much better helmet for the Jags and I think it would even improve their overall look on the field by quite a bit. Most of the redesigns have not been very good and I won't even call the Bucs' new uniforms a redesign because they are just downright pathetic. They did improve the Vikings, I will give them that but I still don't love their new look. After seeing what Nike produced in College Football before they took over the NFL, as soon as I learned that they were in charge of the NFL's jerseys, deep down, I had a feeling things were going to go downhill. Thankfully, it hasn't been as awful as I thought it would be but nevertheless, I'm disappointed to hear this.

[jc...]

I think Nike has done better at striping. I'm sure you all remember some of the Colts shoulder stripes on the Reebok jerseys. Or even the sleeve stripes which were all stretched and distorted.

[guest23]

I think Nike has done better at striping. I'm sure you all remember some of the Colts shoulder stripes on the Reebok jerseys. Or even the sleeve stripes which were all stretched and distorted.

The uniforms are much more uniform within each team now. You have way less customization and tailoring due to the superior fit of the nike cut. From a uniform consistency perspective nike has made a significant improvement. Aesthetically speaking the collars and reliance on matte fabrics are a downgrade. From a retail merchandise perspective they blow rbk offerings out of the water.

[guest23]

I'm honestly blown away that there isn't much outrage from anyone on here about this. I think the NFL's uniforms have gone mostly downhill since Nike took over. Don't get me wrong, I know it's the teams that sign their designs off but I just do not like what Nike has done at all. The plastic collars, mismatching colors, not getting shades of green right, and how about that awful helmet the Jaguars continue to use. Matte black would be a much better helmet for the Jags and I think it would even improve their overall look on the field by quite a bit. Most of the redesigns have not been very good and I won't even call the Bucs' new uniforms a redesign because they are just downright pathetic. They did improve the Vikings, I will give them that but I still don't love their new look. After seeing what Nike produced in College Football before they took over the NFL, as soon as I learned that they were in charge of the NFL's jerseys, deep down, I had a feeling things were going to go downhill. Thankfully, it hasn't been as awful as I thought it would be but nevertheless, I'm disappointed to hear this.

I've got a hunch that nike did not come up with that helmet design and was likely forced on them by the JAGS and nfl properties. That design doesn't jive with anything they have either designed or partnered with HGI in the past. It just looks too amateurish for nike to attach their name to it.

[mbannon92]

...how about that awful helmet the Jaguars continue to use. Matte black would be a much better helmet for the Jags...

IIRC the gradient helmet wasn't Nike's idea--it was the owner/front office. People need to stop holding that against Nike.

[BBTV]

At the end of the day, it's all they owner's decision.

The league may have rules saying what he CAN'T do, but he has the final say on what they DO do.

If Nike designs a trash uniform like they did for the Bucs and the owner says "ok cool whatever" then that's not Nike's fault. If you're not going to put the lion in a cage, don't complain when it eats you.

[Gothamite]

I don't think that's always true. I've read that mlb has veto power over team names, for example.

[TheOldRoman]

But that goes with what he's saying. The MLB says you can't name your team the Albuquerque Assclowns, but if you wanted to call them the Albuquerque Stars, they'd probably not have a problem with it. The league is going to let the owner call the shots until he does something objectionable. The NFL would probably let a team design whatever awful helmet it wants until it gets to the point the helmet can't be easily reproduced in graphic form or doesn't photograph/record well in certain settings.

[guest23]

It's been mentioned here multiple times and in various articles the league has final say over all new designs. Whether that's league management (e.g. properties) or an owner committee I'm not sure.

[BBTV]

At the end of the day, it's all they owner's decision.

The league may have rules saying what he CAN'T do, but he has the final say on what they DO do.

If Nike designs a trash uniform like they did for the Bucs and the owner says "ok cool whatever" then that's not Nike's fault. If you're not going to put the lion in a cage, don't complain when it eats you.

I don't think that's always true. I've read that mlb has veto power over team names, for example.

That's what I'm saying. There may be some restrictions on the owner's whims (like if he wanted to change the name of the Jets to the Jersey Jerkoffs, or if the Eagles' owner wanted to actually attach real wings to the uniforms) but he still chooses anything he wants within the world of allowed choices.

Basically I'm saying blame the owner, not Nike. Pretty much the same thing I say every time this anti licensee talk heats up. At the top level, the team has responsibility to protect its identity and heritage. No jerkoff from Nike or adidas can just walk in to John Mara's office and tell him that the Giants are going to be wearing volt (to represent the electricity of the fans) and anthracite (because it burns a blue flame which embodies the team's nickname "big blue").

Well, yeah - actually some jerkoff could walk in there and tell him that - but if the Giants take the field in those new cutting-edge duds, it's on Mara, not the jerkoff.

It's been mentioned here multiple times and in various articles the league has final say over all new designs. Whether that's league management (e.g. properties) or an owner committee I'm not sure.

Properties or some committee would have to OK the designs just to make sure they comply with rules, don't have any design element that could get them sued (like the Jaguars original set), but that's probably about it. The approval board isn't (probably) going to be evaluating the uniform on aesthetic merit, and isn't going to tell a team that late in the process to start over, unless there's a legal or compliance reason.

[Sec19Row53]

...how about that awful helmet the Jaguars continue to use. Matte black would be a much better helmet for the Jags...

IIRC the gradient helmet wasn't Nike's idea--it was the owner/front office. People need to stop holding that against Nike.

Is there a source on that? And really, I'd ask that question about a lot of the things that we hold true here, because I'm not in the position to know.

[guest23]

At the end of the day, it's all they owner's decision.

The league may have rules saying what he CAN'T do, but he has the final say on what they DO do.

If Nike designs a trash uniform like they did for the Bucs and the owner says "ok cool whatever" then that's not Nike's fault. If you're not going to put the lion in a cage, don't complain when it eats you.

I don't think that's always true. I've read that mlb has veto power over team names, for example.

That's what I'm saying. There may be some restrictions on the owner's whims (like if he wanted to change the name of the Jets to the Jersey Jerkoffs, or if the Eagles' owner wanted to actually attach real wings to the uniforms) but he still chooses anything he wants within the world of allowed choices.

Basically I'm saying blame the owner, not Nike. Pretty much the same thing I say every time this anti licensee talk heats up. At the top level, the team has responsibility to protect its identity and heritage. No jerkoff from Nike or adidas can just walk in to John Mara's office and tell him that the Giants are going to be wearing volt (to represent the electricity of the fans) and anthracite (because it burns a blue flame which embodies the team's nickname "big blue").

Well, yeah - actually some jerkoff could walk in there and tell him that - but if the Giants take the field in those new cutting-edge duds, it's on Mara, not the jerkoff.

It's been mentioned here multiple times and in various articles the league has final say over all new designs. Whether that's league management (e.g. properties) or an owner committee I'm not sure.

Properties or some committee would have to OK the designs just to make sure they comply with rules, don't have any design element that could get them sued (like the Jaguars original set), but that's probably about it. The approval board isn't (probably) going to be evaluating the uniform on aesthetic merit, and isn't going to tell a team that late in the process to start over, unless there's a legal or compliance reason.

I'm willing to bet that the league takes marketability and public perception into account as well as overall impact to the league's brand. They don't want a design or identity that deviates from the overreaching brand of the shield.

[dolphins91]

I'm so glad that Nike is back. They are miles ahead of any company,make the best designs, and their uniforms are much more comfortable than they 2000s shiny garbage. They have improved looks, (MIN, MIA, SEA) and all Jacksonville needs is a full matte helmet. And all TB needs is I different # font. The only thing I'd like is to try to make the jets greens match a little better, but other than that they did a great job so far and can't wait to see what comes in the future.