MLB Changes 2020

[BC985]

29 minutes ago, Yac12 said:

Now this is the way it's going to be, I can't decide if having one on the front is better than the NFL with one on each sleeve.

One on each sleeve would be much, much better. 

[Ark]

[Yac12]

17 minutes ago, Brandon9485 said:

One on each sleeve would be much, much better. 

I forgot about the NHL and having on the back.  If there has to be one, that might be my choice.

[BBTV]

5 hours ago, leopard88 said:

 

Not wearing a Polo or an Izod?

Nope. My dress is part of my personal brand, and I don’t need someone else’s infringing on it. 

[skip88]

10 hours ago, Brandon9485 said:

If we’re posting every time a swoosh is seen on a team’s player for the first time...

 

Little sign should say FU nike

 

[SFGiants58]

6 hours ago, Brandon9485 said:

One on each sleeve would be much, much better. 

Except for the Steelers and their stripes.

[skip88]

On 12/13/2019 at 12:49 PM, Gothamite said:

Advertise that it is an authentic.  Trying to add value to the high-end merchandise by visually setting it apart from the discount versions. 

I think it's more to stop your butt from sweating in your pants

[Gothamite]

and it makes them sweat .004% faster on the basepaths!

[itsmb8]

Personally, I think the swoosh makes MLB look like it's legit now.  Think of soccer and college sports, 99% of the top clubs/programs have uniforms supplied by either Nike or Under Armour (in soccer's case, Adidas too).  People naturally judge you based off what you wear, and in the sports world, by what apparel company makes your uniforms.  Now I know most of you are ages 55 and over and dont care, but A TON of people under 40 do care, at least to an extent.  

 

Plus, its that much more money that Major League Baseball will make, which is a plus in its own right.

 

Im not particularly saying I prefer the Nike swoosh on the front over Majestic's logo on the sleeve, but I am saying it's not a big deal and that younger people might look at baseball in a better light now.

[JTernup]

13 minutes ago, itsmb8 said:

Personally, I think the swoosh makes MLB look like it's legit now.  Think of soccer and college sports, 99% of the top clubs/programs have uniforms supplied by either Nike or Under Armour (in soccer's case, Adidas too).  People naturally judge you based off what you wear, and in the sports world, by what apparel company makes your uniforms.  Now I know most of you are ages 55 and over and dont care, but A TON of people under 40 do care, at least to an extent.  

 

Plus, its that much more money that Major League Baseball will make, which is a plus in its own right.

 

Im not particularly saying I prefer the Nike swoosh on the front over Majestic's logo on the sleeve, but I am saying it's not a big deal and that younger people might look at baseball in a better light now.

I’m not all that bothered by the logo. It is a far better logo than majestic’s so it’s more visible placement bothers me less than a UA or majestic logo would in the same place. A sleeve logo would be better though.

 

I’m also a 25 year old that could be considered a Nike fan boy (although the way they’ve treated sports design is my least favorite thing about the brand) and that is a ridiculous statement. MLB requires no legitimacy from a uniform supplier. This isn’t the XFL, a swoosh on those uniforms could have legitimized that league but MLB doesn’t need that.

[itsmb8]

21 minutes ago, JTernup said:

I’m not all that bothered by the logo. It is a far better logo than majestic’s so it’s more visible placement bothers me less than a UA or majestic logo would in the same place. A sleeve logo would be better though.

 

I’m also a 25 year old that could be considered a Nike fan boy (although the way they’ve treated sports design is my least favorite thing about the brand) and that is a ridiculous statement. MLB requires no legitimacy from a uniform supplier. This isn’t the XFL, a swoosh on those uniforms could have legitimized that league but MLB doesn’t need that.

 

I bet a lot of people would rather buy an authentic Nike MLB jersey vs an Authentic Columbia Sportswear jersey...  an extreme example, but you get my point.

[jn8]

5 minutes ago, itsmb8 said:

 

I bet a lot of people would rather buy an authentic Nike MLB jersey vs an Authentic Columbia Sportswear jersey...  an extreme example, but you get my point.

Well if it was a minor league jersey, I’m sure Nike being the manufacturer would help.

 

But this isn’t a minor league. This is a 100+ year old league known worldwide as the highest level of baseball on the planet. MLB doesn’t need Nike to “legitimize” them. And I’m saying this as one of the biggest Nike defenders on here

[itsmb8]

3 minutes ago, jn8 said:

Well if it was a minor league jersey, I’m sure Nike being the manufacturer would help.

 

But this isn’t a minor league. This is a 100+ year old league known worldwide as the highest level of baseball on the planet. MLB doesn’t need Nike to “legitimize” them. And I’m saying this as one of the biggest Nike defenders on here

 

but we're all baseball fans here, so obviously they dont need Nike to legitimize themselves... but in the eyes of people who are just getting into sports, having nike as the uniform supplier probably does a lot.

[MattMill]

1 hour ago, itsmb8 said:

Personally, I think the swoosh makes MLB look like it's legit now.  Think of soccer and college sports, 99% of the top clubs/programs have uniforms supplied by either Nike or Under Armour (in soccer's case, Adidas too).  People naturally judge you based off what you wear, and in the sports world, by what apparel company makes your uniforms.  Now I know most of you are ages 55 and over and dont care, but A TON of people under 40 do care, at least to an extent.  

 

Plus, its that much more money that Major League Baseball will make, which is a plus in its own right.

 

Im not particularly saying I prefer the Nike swoosh on the front over Majestic's logo on the sleeve, but I am saying it's not a big deal and that younger people might look at baseball in a better light now.

Instant gratification era we're in

---

No one wants to wear an on field hat with no known 'supplier'. That's just blasphemy. That's too generic. /End sarcasm. 

 

People have to know What brand I'm wearing. They have to know I'm wearing a new era.  At the same time, with quality of the product so bad, it'd be better not to know who makes some of these apparel items. 

 

There have been generic Nike snapbacks and flex fit MLB caps for many many years. No one inherently flocked to those Nike flex caps. Nike does not legitimize anything On its own. 

 

I think Reebok was so lackluster with the NFL, And Adidas with the NBA, that Nike came in and had an instant home run. They were seen as the savior. Here for baseball, what are they saving?

[gosioux76]

4 hours ago, itsmb8 said:

 

but we're all baseball fans here, so obviously they dont need Nike to legitimize themselves... but in the eyes of people who are just getting into sports, having nike as the uniform supplier probably does a lot.

If you're "just getting into sports" and the Nike swoosh is what gets you interested in baseball, then you're doing it wrong.

 

The only value Nike brings to this arrangement is the large volume of cash it's willing to pay MLB for the right to use its jerseys as a billboard. Let's not buy into the Nike brandspeak. It's that kind of thinking that led to a $100+ upcharge for jerseys whose only difference is the Swoosh on the collar. 

[M4One]

2 hours ago, itsmb8 said:

Personally, I think the swoosh makes MLB look like it's legit now.  Think of soccer and college sports, 99% of the top clubs/programs have uniforms supplied by either Nike or Under Armour (in soccer's case, Adidas too).  People naturally judge you based off what you wear, and in the sports world, by what apparel company makes your uniforms.  Now I know most of you are ages 55 and over and dont care, but A TON of people under 40 do care, at least to an extent.  

 

Plus, its that much more money that Major League Baseball will make, which is a plus in its own right.

 

Im not particularly saying I prefer the Nike swoosh on the front over Majestic's logo on the sleeve, but I am saying it's not a big deal and that younger people might look at baseball in a better light now.

 

So, $10.8 billion in revenues for 2018 and somehow it takes Nike putting the swoosh on the front of the jerseys to make the sport legit?

[BBTV]

 

I'd argue that the lack of logo on the front makes them more legit than the presence of one - just like it did for the NBA.  I thought the Majestic / Rawlings / RA logos were also bad, but at least they didn't interfere with the primary-identifier of the team.

 

I certainly do understand that it's possible to leverage Nike's "prestigue" to add some to your own brand, if lacking.  For example, if I was a third-tier minor football league striving for legitimacy, I could see where eating money to have that swoosh could help out, since youngsters might assume that Nike only does business with big-time teams (which is incorrect... but I'm sure some people feel that way.)

 

MLB doesn't need that - not one bit.  However, I'll give you that it's losing (lost?) its appeal to a lot of younger people and especially African Americans, and the association with the swoosh might make it "cool" in their eyes, and at least get them to notice.  Hell - maybe the Jordan logo might work too.

 

So while overall, I disagree with it, it's not the dumbest argument I've ever read.  That still doesn't change the fact that we're discussing aesthetics only, and there's no rational argument that it looks good from that perspective.  Any post that claims the jerseys are improved by it is the dumbest one I've ever read.

[BC985]

MLB is also a league whose fan base is trending older and realizes it needs to attract younger fans. I once wrote on these boards that I thought MLB uniforms would remain conservative in nature with Nike because traditionally the sport is. The more I think about it, the less sure I am that will be true. 
 

Nike has almost full range in the NBA. The NFL actually has some uniform constraint in their rules. Where does that leave MLB? A 162 game schedule leaves a lot to experiment with. 

[VikWings]

10 hours ago, Yac12 said:

Now this is the way it's going to be, I can't decide if having one on the front is better than the NFL with one on each sleeve.

 

I think in the NFL, I'd actually prefer it on the chest, if it meant they'd stop cutting off sleeve stripes to make room for it.

[BBTV]

2 minutes ago, VikWings said:

 

I think in the NFL, I'd actually prefer it on the chest, if it meant they'd stop cutting off sleeve stripes to make room for it.

 

I'm starting to think this too, considering they're basically making it an actual design element of the uniforms now.  Look at Seattle - that space on the sleeve is specifically designed for the swoosh, and the uniform would look very different with a different logo (or none at all) there.  On the Jags, their use of color has made it an important piece too.  If it were to be removed from the sleeve, there'd be no teal on the white jersey.  It's very eye-catching, and very important from a color perspective.

 

There's (unfortunately) so much else to compete with on the front (captain patches, NFL shield, other commemorative patches) that it may just blend in.  

 

Ideally, if it had to be on the uniform, above the NOB would be the best place, however then Nike wouldn't want any player to have long hair, which would open a whole other can of worms.