Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, BrandMooreArt said:

 

yea, i cant say for sure thats the case, but ive always felt the Nike unis were built to have a 5 year lifespan too. thats not 100% on them though, i think the teams saw what happened in CFB and wanted a peice of the action. theres a saying “you get hired for the work you do”. the teams wanted something new, the Oregon look, and got it

 

Exactly..  I think the clubs and Nike are equally culpable - Nike pushes the envelope but doesn't force anyone, Owners know what they want, and Nike gives it to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Volt said:


  Take the awful number font out of the Buccaneers' set and it's an enormous upgrades over their previous uniforms.

 

Yikes.  I bet you just sent half the members of this board into a sputtering conniption.  The original red and pewter Bucs' uniform is a beloved sacred cow around this parts, and the current version, even if they removed the terrible numbers, would still be considered one of the biggest downgrades in sports uniform history by most. 

 

An opinion I share, by the way. The ridiculous number font is just a turd cherry on the all around steaming pile that is the current Bucs' look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, BrandMooreArt said:

yea, i cant say for sure thats the case, but ive always felt the Nike unis were built to have a 5 year lifespan too. thats not 100% on them though, i think the teams saw what happened in CFB and wanted a peice of the action. theres a saying “you get hired for the work you do”. the teams wanted something new, the Oregon look, and got it

It’s not just Nike. Reebok’s NFL looks from the mid 2000s -Atlanta, Cincinnati, Minnesota, Arizona, Jacksonville, Buffalo- were all very representative of the trends of the time. Side panels that “flowed” into pants striping, piping, all of that mid 2000s goodness.

 

I think you’re right. It’s not intentional on the designer’s part. It’s just how trends work. And both pro designers and teams are very susceptible to trends, for different reasons. Which combine to produce uniforms that end up looking dated in five years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why have a good uniform that stands the test of time when you can have a lousy to average uniform that lasts 5-10 years and force fans to buy new versions. Cha-Ching!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, AgentColon2 said:

Why have a good uniform that stands the test of time when you can have a lousy to average uniform that lasts 5-10 years and force fans to buy new versions. Cha-Ching!

 

Plannned obsolescence.  

 

Thats a feature, not a bug. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, AgentColon2 said:

Why have a good uniform that stands the test of time when you can have a lousy to average uniform that lasts 5-10 years and force fans to buy new versions. Cha-Ching!

 

There's some truth to that, but only for teams that want to jump on the fad-of-the-day bandwagon. Free agency and the draft also encourages jersey sales no matter what the uniform looks like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, burgundy said:

 

You sure do love hyperbole.

 

 

I'm beginning to think that you are the actual color Volt that has gained sentience.

 

Got a chuckle out of me on that one.

 

I sell Nike so I do have some partiality to the brand, but I’m also a “Nike guy”; I sell UA, too, but don’t defend them nearly as much.  

 

I just don’t get the hate but my tastes are different than most here.  I quite honestly think some of you would love it if we dug up Russell’s grave and let them and Powers start making all pro and college uniforms again.  This board is heavy in traditionalists and that’s okay.  

 

But there’s a reason why Nike is the #1 brand in the world.  And the NFL apparently isn’t too unhappy with them either...they just extended their partnership for another 10 years through 2028.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Volt said:

 

Got a chuckle out of me on that one.

 

I sell Nike so I do have some partiality to the brand, but I’m also a “Nike guy”; I sell UA, too, but don’t defend them nearly as much.  

 

I just don’t get the hate but my tastes are different than most here.  I quite honestly think some of you would love it if we dug up Russell’s grave and let them and Powers start making all pro and college uniforms again.  This board is heavy in traditionalists and that’s okay.  

 

But there’s a reason why Nike is the #1 brand in the world.  And the NFL apparently isn’t too unhappy with them either...they just extended their partnership for another 10 years through 2028.

 

Can you define #1 brand in the world a bit further? They are definitely #1 in sports apparel and one of the most recognized in the world. They have achieved their position primarily by leveraging their ability to create market demand for under-monetized product categories by fusing product development with savvy sales and marketing campaigns. They rarely make the best product in a single category that hardcore athletes gravitate toward but they have a solid foothold on the aspirational athletic, and sport fashion market for footwear and apparel.

 

With that being said, I think the biggest gripe with nike is that when they act as a supplier it's pretty clear that nike's self interest is to force their major customers/clients into their branding vision as much as they can for short term gain which may not be in the best interest of the client brand. Also their design philosophy is very iterative and paint by numbers for the purpose of marketing their uniform templates, shoes etc. I guess a popular opinion might be from a consumer standpoint their product is more hype than quality and from a uniform design standpoint they don't offer much in terms of bespoke design which leads to a lot of trendy throw away designs.

Share this post


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

But there’s a reason why Nike is the #1 brand in the world.

Nike doesn't even break the top 10...

 

https://www.forbes.com/powerful-brands/list/#tab:rank

 

Maybe it's just me, but when I was a kid? I liked team identities. Not manufacturers. Nike's an industry leader to be sure, but BBTV's right. Them, Adidas/Reebok, UA. They all do the same stuff.

 

The whole industry seems turned on its head where the manufacturers, and not the team identities, are the premier brands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

The whole industry seems turned on its head where the manufacturers, and not the team identities, are the premier brands.

 

I definitely agree with you on this.

Yet I have to admit that Chelsea don't look right without the Adidas stripes.

Related image   Related image

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To play a bit of devil's advocate here, I don't think that it's a necessarily bad thing to follow current trends. While some trends fade quickly, other times the risk taken allows for a team to enhance their brand and create something exciting and unique that ends up lasting for years. I think that sports aesthetics would be extremely boring if all teams stuck to the same 4 or 5 tried and true design elements. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

Nike doesn't even break the top 10...

 

https://www.forbes.com/powerful-brands/list/#tab:rank

 

Maybe it's just me, but when I was a kid? I liked team identities. Not manufacturers. Nike's an industry leader to be sure, but BBTV's right. Them, Adidas/Reebok, UA. They all do the same stuff.

 

The whole industry seems turned on its head where the manufacturers, and not the team identities, are the premier brands.

 

Oh, excuse me...#1 *sports* brand in the world ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, guest23 said:

 

Can you define #1 brand in the world a bit further? They are definitely #1 in sports apparel and one of the most recognized in the world. They have achieved their position primarily by leveraging their ability to create market demand for under-monetized product categories by fusing product development with savvy sales and marketing campaigns. They rarely make the best product in a single category that hardcore athletes gravitate toward but they have a solid foothold on the aspirational athletic, and sport fashion market for footwear and apparel.

 

With that being said, I think the biggest gripe with nike is that when they act as a supplier it's pretty clear that nike's self interest is to force their major customers/clients into their branding vision as much as they can for short term gain which may not be in the best interest of the client brand. Also their design philosophy is very iterative and paint by numbers for the purpose of marketing their uniform templates, shoes etc. I guess a popular opinion might be from a consumer standpoint their product is more hype than quality and from a uniform design standpoint they don't offer much in terms of bespoke design which leads to a lot of trendy throw away designs.

 

Rarely make the best product in a category?  Nike spends more in R&D than UA earns in revenue each year.  The quality of their uniforms and the materials they’ve developed lead the pack and the rest of the manufacturers spend years catching up.  I sell the stuff.  I presented Nike and UA basketball uniforms to a customer today and the quality, fit, finish and design options aren’t even comparable.  Alleson manufacturers UA’s sublimated uniforms...how many league contracts does Alleson have?  Would you put your team in Alleson, for name or quality?

 

Nike’s football unis blow away UA’s and Russell’s (RIP) and Adidas is the only one that gets close.  The fine details are what many don’t see, but they’re superior.  You can knitpick and say that NBA jerseys have torn or there are issues with certain colors; sure, but it’s also because Nike hasn’t rested on their laurels and isn’t still using the same fabric as 5 years ago let alone 10 or 15.  I just got up and lifted my best UA jersey off the rack and then my best Nike jersey.  The UA feels almost twice as heavy and the fabric is certainly twice as thick.  As a pro athlete, which would you rather wear?  Which would you rather your teenage boy wear on Friday night?

 

I don’t know why I try to argue on Nike’s behalf...I’m stopping here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

I definitely agree with you on this.

Yet I have to admit that Chelsea don't look right without the Adidas stripes.

Related image   Related image

 

 

 

Are you saying the bottom Adidas set is better than the top Nike set?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Volt said:

 

Are you saying the bottom Adidas set is better than the top Nike set?

 

No. Some of the Adidas designs had serious flaws, such as lines on the front of the shirt or stripes that were too wide. I chose the best example from Adidas along with the current Nike design, which is pretty nice. 

 

The current Chelsea kit is simple and dignified. It looks alright; it just doesn't feel right for Chelsea, especially when compared to the best that Adidas had to offer, the 2008-09 kit with the white collar.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, AgentColon2 said:

Why have a good uniform that stands the test of time when you can have a lousy to average uniform that lasts 5-10 years and force fans to buy new versions. Cha-Ching!

 

I think this is why NFL teams need to take a Ohio State / Oklahoma / Nebraska route with uniforms. A team can have a classic look, but try something different once or twice a year to sell more jerseys. Not that those are the best design examples, but the idea behind is smarter than trying to fix a classic look that isn't broken.

 

Color Rush is a step in the right direction. But I think they can be a little bit more creative and flexible. As long as the uniform is only worn a few times a year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

No. Some of the Adidas designs had serious flaws, such as lines on the front of the shirt or stripes that were too wide. I chose the best example from Adidas along with the current Nike design, which is pretty nice. 

 

The current Chelsea kit is simple and dignified. It looks alright; it just doesn't feel right for Chelsea, especially when compared to the best that Adidas had to offer, the 2008-09 kit with the white collar.

 

i think part of that may be because they moved away from samsung. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, shaydre1019 said:
10 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

No. Some of the Adidas designs had serious flaws, such as lines on the front of the shirt or stripes that were too wide. I chose the best example from Adidas along with the current Nike design, which is pretty nice. 

 

The current Chelsea kit is simple and dignified. It looks alright; it just doesn't feel right for Chelsea, especially when compared to the best that Adidas had to offer, the 2008-09 kit with the white collar.

 

i think part of that may be because they moved away from samsung. 

 

You know, that's another thing.  I don't like paying attention to the shirt advertiser, but Samsung was much cooler than Yokohama Tyres.  The new advertiser reminds me of the early days of the Premier League when teams had ads from some really cheesy companies.

Related image

Chelsea's current shirt advertiser is the worst since this one.

Image result for zola chelsea

 

 

I must admit that I hate myself for even noticing such things.  But companies pay for placement on teams' uniforms because it works.  They're really buying placement in our memories.  It's a kind of pollution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

Yikes.  I bet you just sent half the members of this board into a sputtering conniption.  The original red and pewter Bucs' uniform is a beloved sacred cow around this parts, and the current version, even if they removed the terrible numbers, would still be considered one of the biggest downgrades in sports uniform history by most. 

 

An opinion I share, by the way. The ridiculous number font is just a turd cherry on the all around steaming pile that is the current Bucs' look.

Yep. No Bucs fans wanted an overhaul. Most probably didn't even want an update, though one was needed. But all that Nike had to do was brighten the red (the new brighter shade of red is the best part of the redesign), tone down the outlines on the numbers (I preferred orange, but I wouldn't have complained too much if they just went with black), and enlarged/updated the detail of the skull flag, though their roboskull looks terrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm... so I'm not sure what happened to the Titans' thread, but where should we post about it now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.