Jump to content

MLB Changes 2017

TVIXX

By TVIXX
in Sports Logo News

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 5.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
DG_ThenNowForever

DG_ThenNowForever

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

This may actually be worse news for me than the NBA news.   I hate the NBA news and each team having a different corporate sponsor is an extra step into the nightmare than a manufacturer logo.  But this looks really, really bad.  It's messing with a uniform that I guess I hold more dear than NBA uniforms.  MLB has always gone low-profile on-field with nothing on its hat and a pretty hard-to-notice sleeve logo (dating back through Russell and Rawlings).  This is really jarring and I am kind of at the point where I think the big leagues should just rip off the band-aid and go full Euro-hockey.  I think I'd rather see that than watch it progress over 10 to 20 years.

 

I think the better Euro-example is soccer. Ads on shirts are accepted, and I think an important part of the jersey purchasing experience. I.e., do you want an "empty" Barcelona jersey? Or one with the proper QATAR Airways logo? (Maybe a bad example; my first was Carlsberg and Liverpool, but that's not been a thing for a long time). With the NBA, I think you'll see a desire for the "real" Lakers jersey, complete with Trojan patch.

 

Would this be as bad if it were Nike being placed on the front? I think Under Armor being conflicting interlocking letters is a bigger problem than it being a logo, myself. People noticed, but didn't complain as much, about Nike's stealth undershirt ad campaign for so many years:

http://i5.asn.im/derek-jeter-_u9gp.jpg

1 hour ago, ShutUpLutz! said:

and the drunken doodoobags jumping off the tops of SUV's/vans/RV's onto tables because, oh yeah, they are drunken drug abusing doodoobags

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OnWis97

OnWis97

Posted
Posted

 

2 hours ago, Griffinmarlins said:

Gosh, you people are getting annoying with the crying over this. It doesn't look bad. That picture of the Auburn player above is the perfect reason I'm fine with this move. The logo isn't going to be that big, so just suck it up and move on. 

 

 

55 minutes ago, Matito said:

I'm not a fan of the move by any means, but the uproar makes it seem like Under Armor is going to change bats to tennis rackets and jerseys to garbage bags. From an aesthetic point of view, yeah, the logo on the chest is unsightly and unnecessary, but it's not going to be the end of the world. We all survived the World Series with the Cubs and Indians wearing New Era flags on their caps, so we'll survive just fine with UA logos on the chest.

 

tl;dr - Fine, voice displeasure. I know I have. But don't whine and cry and act like this one act is going to ruin the game forever.

 

Just to make sure I am clear, complaining about something is bad but complaining about the complainers is what, noble?  

 

Disclaimer: If this comment is about an NBA uniform from 2017-2018 or later, do not constitute a lack of acknowledgement of the corporate logo to mean anything other than "the corporate logo is terrible and makes the uniform significantly worse."

 

BADGERS TWINS VIKINGS TIMBERWOLVES WILD

POTD (Shared)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OnWis97

OnWis97

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

Yes, I think it's the interlocking elements to the logo that make it a very bad fit. Nike logo wouldn't be near as objectionable.

 

20 minutes ago, DG_Now said:

 

I think the better Euro-example is soccer. Ads on shirts are accepted, and I think an important part of the jersey purchasing experience. I.e., do you want an "empty" Barcelona jersey? Or one with the proper QATAR Airways logo? (Maybe a bad example; my first was Carlsberg and Liverpool, but that's not been a thing for a long time). With the NBA, I think you'll see a desire for the "real" Lakers jersey, complete with Trojan patch.

 

Would this be as bad if it were Nike being placed on the front? I think Under Armor being conflicting interlocking letters is a bigger problem than it being a logo, myself. People noticed, but didn't complain as much, about Nike's stealth undershirt ad campaign for so many years:

 

I really don't have a feeling one way or the other about UA's logo.  Adidas, Nike, UA, Reebok, Majestic...whatever.  To me it's about that there's a non-team logo there and not so much what it is.  And even if I preferred the swoosh to the UA, I'd absolutely rather have the later on the sleeve than the former on the chest.

 

I figured the day would come when a more "trendy" manufacturer would get this contract and that their logo would be more obvious on the sleeve than Majetic's is now.  But this is so, so much worse...and it's about the placement.

Disclaimer: If this comment is about an NBA uniform from 2017-2018 or later, do not constitute a lack of acknowledgement of the corporate logo to mean anything other than "the corporate logo is terrible and makes the uniform significantly worse."

 

BADGERS TWINS VIKINGS TIMBERWOLVES WILD

POTD (Shared)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TBGKon

TBGKon

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Griffinmarlins said:

Gosh, you people are getting annoying with the crying over this. It doesn't look bad. That picture of the Auburn player above is the perfect reason I'm fine with this move. The logo isn't going to be that big, so just suck it up and move on. 

Agreed, it's not the end of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stu-BallsOmnicorp

Stu-BallsOmnicorp

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, jmac11281 said:

All of these decisions being made by manufacturers and leagues are making it awfully easy for me not to buy jerseys anymore. Couple that with the outrageous prices, it's basically a no-brainer for me.

Yeah I've started just buying old stuff off of ebay. The quality and look tend to be better than what is being produced today and I can get it at a fraction of the cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kroywen

kroywen

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, hormone said:

Hate that this is happening, but if it keeps a giant Pepsi or MasterCard off the sleeve (especially in place of a team logo) I guess I'll take it

As mentioned before, I think this is going in the opposite direction. Having the manufacturers' logo on the chest frees up space to have a sleeve ad without the two competing for space, while also maintaining the ability for teams to have a sleeve patch on the opposite sleeve without a manufacturers' logo next to it.

 

Both Under Armour and advertisers can get what they want: prominent space on the jersey without competing for attention with an adjacent patch. If teams were to wear an ad on one sleeve and a team patch on the other, an Under Armour sleeve logo would be overshadowed by one of those. With a UA chest logo, a team can wear an ad, a sleeve patch, and the Under Armour logo, without any of them adjacent to one another or competing for attention. Everybody's happy, except for us fans who care about these things.

 

In other words, MLB just set themselves up perfectly for when they want to start wearing ads on jerseys. Will the additional revenue from Under Armour's contract delay it a couple years? Perhaps, but once the NBA (and perhaps NHL) mainstreams uniforms ads in North America, I'm sure MLB won't pass up free advertising revenue to go on top of the existing Under Armour revenue. I can't see MLB holding out through 2029 on advertisements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BBTV

BBTV

Posted
Posted

 

1 hour ago, selgy said:

Which is worse?

 

The Padres uni, or UA?

 

UA.  By far.  

 

I wish that if supplier (I won't even call them manufacturers since many just slap their logo on something that someone else makes) logos had to be on jerseys, and sleeve wasn't acceptable, they'd go over the NOB or even under the number.  I think over the NOB would be the best option (in all sports), but I get why the suppliers may not like that idea.  also You'd start to see a lot of rules about long hair.

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas

Thomas

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, Matito said:

I'm not a fan of the move by any means, but the uproar makes it seem like Under Armor is going to change bats to tennis rackets and jerseys to garbage bags. From an aesthetic point of view, yeah, the logo on the chest is unsightly and unnecessary, but it's not going to be the end of the world. We all survived the World Series with the Cubs and Indians wearing New Era flags on their caps, so we'll survive just fine with UA logos on the chest.

 

tl;dr - Fine, voice displeasure. I know I have. But don't whine and cry and act like this one act is going to ruin the game forever.

It sucked and now there is another little thing creeping in, bit by bit, a small detail at a time, it makes the uniforms worse than before. As the kids say: it was a clean look! Now it´s not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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

  I accept