Bill81361

NFL Changes - 2016

Recommended Posts

Well the Oilers kept the name for two years...but they also had other reasons for that,

 

And Goth, I echo Bucfan56 in that I know you're not making it up, but I don't know about the three year rule for teams that move...Hypothetically, if Cleveland had moved to Baltimore in 2016, they'd have to keep the Browns name and uniforms for two-to-three more years?  That doesn't make sense.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking that too initially, but the whole "Cleveland Deal" was a pretty special case in its own right. 

 

 

And again, I'm not accusing anyone of making something up, but I'd like to see verification of that, if for nothing more than I find it to be interesting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bucfan56 said:

I was thinking that too initially, but the whole "Cleveland Deal" was a pretty special case in its own right. 

 

 

And again, I'm not accusing anyone of making something up, but I'd like to see verification of that, if for nothing more than I find it to be interesting. 

I seem recall reading that teams are free to rebrand immediately upon relocation. The Rams could go throwback if they wanted to.

 

I suspect that they're keeping the navy and old gold because the jerseys are location-neutral. So they can still sell off already-produced St. Louis-era stock in preparation for the redesign in 2019.

 

The Oilers kept the name because Bud Adams wanted them to remain the Oilers. He only agreed to change the name when fan backlash forced his hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bucs didn't wait until Raymond James Stadium was built to change their uniforms.

 

I don't see the Lambs waiting 3 more years to change. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Rams have said outright that they cannot rebrand this year, that they have to observe the process. It's possible they could get the league to waive the rules, especially if they intend to do something as simple as adopt the throwbacks full-time, but that hasn't happened so far. 

 

Baltimore Ravens didn't come into it since that was an expansion, not relocation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would imagine that the relo rules are similar to the new owner rules in that the 5-year thing is waived, but you still can't just flat-out change.  

 

Even with a new owner there would likely need to be at least a full season before he could get a change pushed through.  The licensees would be hosed for 2016, but would probably be OK for 2017 as long as they didn't overproduce Rams stuff.

 

This begs the question - what happens if the Browns move again?  Their uniform has a huge city-specific wordmark on it - certainly that would have to change, as well as any other city-specific marks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On March 3, 2016 at 5:21 AM, Gothamite said:

Which was the rumor - they were considering standardizing the colors now that HDTV has rendered the current set moot. 

 

Oh man, I hope so.  Just doing that would improve their set dramatically.  The Cowboys' white jerseys look like cheap high school jerseys.  The richest team in the NFL should look the part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Teal said:

Will colour rush be back in 2016?

Yes 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And expanded to include every single team.  And made mandatory. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/6/2016 at 4:08 PM, Ice_Cap said:

I seem recall reading that teams are free to rebrand immediately upon relocation. The Rams could go throwback if they wanted to.

 

I suspect that they're keeping the navy and old gold because the jerseys are location-neutral. So they can still sell off already-produced St. Louis-era stock in preparation for the redesign in 2019.

 

The Oilers kept the name because Bud Adams wanted them to remain the Oilers. He only agreed to change the name when fan backlash forced his hand.

 

I'll admit...I, myself, never had any problem with the Tennessee Oilers, as regionally inaccurate as the name would've been. Imagine those uniforms (with, perhaps, a primarily red alternate) lasting to this day!!

 

Shame that Tennessians didn't like the name.

 

As for the Rams--I would still at least like to see them in the Blue/Yellow throwbacks full-time while waiting for the Inglewood palace to be completed--maybe they can switch next year after getting the last of the Navy/Gold out of their system.

Edited by DustDevil61
Wordage Cleanup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, dennisbergan said:

The Bucs didn't wait until Raymond James Stadium was built to change their uniforms.

 

I don't see the Lambs waiting 3 more years to change. 

Patriots played 2 seasons at the old Foxboro stadium in the current uniforms, the Cardinals wore their current uniforms in the last year at Sundevil. And IIRC the Lions played a season at Ford Field in the old Barry Sanders uniforms. 

 

There actually aren't that many instances of a team planning a uniform launch to coincide with a new stadium. Not in the NFL, at least. The Seahawks are the only one I can think of right now, but the Rams may go that route. From a branding standpoint I can understand a desire to wait until the stadium is ready and design uniforms to go with the home stadium. That's called synergy. It would also give them more time to consider all their options and properly focus group ideas*

 

*not saying focus groups haven't produced bad results before. Just saying this could be why they'd wait. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RAMS... I think the best solution is for the NFL to allow them to use their throwbacks more than twice (isn't that the current rule?). Leave it open and if the fans are adamant that they want the old blue/yellow simply use them most, if not all, the time. It was done in '94(?) for the 49ers so it's not like it's unrealistic. If they want to throw in the navy/gold once or twice just to help sell the remaining inventory, fine. But I think this is a perfect opportunity for the NFL to show some common sense and loosen the regulations for a year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Gothamite said:

The Rams have said outright that they cannot rebrand this year, that they have to observe the process. It's possible they could get the league to waive the rules, especially if they intend to do something as simple as adopt the throwbacks full-time, but that hasn't happened so far. 

 

Baltimore Ravens didn't come into it since that was an expansion, not relocation.

 

The rams don't have time to do a rebrand but there absolutely was time to either recolor the current set  to royal/yellow or make the throwback the primary and add a white version. Sure the league would have grant an exception and some licensees would be inconvenienced but this is not a problem that some production rescheduling, expediting fees, and likely some nominal compensation couldn't have solved. I'm sure the most important licensee, nike would have jumped at the opportunity to have new LA rams gear to market and sell as opposed to the same old crap with the city names swapped.

 

Also baltimore was a relocation with a mandated rebranding. Just because they left the record books and trademarks behind in cleveland it was art modell moving his established franchise with roster and staff simply operating under a different name. That is significantly different than expansion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a licensing perspective, it was absolutely a rebranding.   Not a relocation.

 

8 minutes ago, guest23 said:

The rams don't have time to do a rebrand but there absolutely was time to either recolor the current set  to royal/yellow or make the throwback the primary and add a white version. Sure the league would have grant an exception and some licensees would be inconvenienced but this is not a problem that some production rescheduling, expediting fees, and likely some nominal compensation couldn't have solved.

 

You mean a rebranding? ;)

 

I agree with you, I'm just repeating what the Rams said.  There wasn't time from the perspective of the team/league/suppliers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who's on board for using the blue and yellow throwback jerseys, and foregoing a white set? Follow in the footsteps of the Lakers. Wouldn't even require a "rebranding." Perhaps one uses royal blue and the other navy...minor details!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gothamite said:

From a licensing perspective, it was absolutely a rebranding.   Not a relocation.

 

 

You mean a rebranding? ;)

 

I agree with you, I'm just repeating what the Rams said.  There wasn't time from the perspective of the team/league/suppliers.

 

Neither of my suggestions would constitute a rebranding effort. Rebranding as a term/concept is so woefully misapplied on these boards to the point where any redesign or slight  modification is considered a rebrand. My suggestions are to take existing designs and colors the team currently uses with their throwback promotions and merchandise which would refresh their current identity and do nothing to change the rams brand that the move to LA already hasn't impacted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.