Wentz2Jeffery

Patriots Unveil New Uniforms

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, GrimlockAutobot said:

 

 

Re: Redskins and Steelers. Great points on both accounts that I hadn't considered.

 

IMO I think there are indeed too many Redskins variations to pinpoint them as iconic. With the Steelers, the number font may or may not take points away. But, IMO it isn't enough to remove iconic status from them.

 

Much as I hate the Steelers italic Futura, I think the current Steelers update is a good comparison point for the Patriots, actually -- they're in a similar boat in terms of having room to tweak, but the core pieces of the identity can't really change all that much. You can even compare the great helmet debate -- both teams have a history of wearing helmets in a different, sensible-enough color (yellow, white) ... but now it sure wouldn't look right to switch to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Olympic Stadium as "sports brutalism at its best," are you kidding me? Has the whole world gone mad? THE DAMN THING DIDN'T WORK AND THE TEAM MOVED. How can it be seen as anything but a complete failure?

Share this post


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

Olympic Stadium as "sports brutalism at its best," are you kidding me? Has the whole world gone mad? THE DAMN THING DIDN'T WORK AND THE TEAM MOVED. How can it be seen as anything but a complete failure?

 

Well, there was always a chance that the collapsing roof would crush you so you wouldn't have to look at its ugly-ass architecture anymore. That seems like a net positive.

Share this post


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

Olympic Stadium as "sports brutalism at its best," are you kidding me? Has the whole world gone mad? THE DAMN THING DIDN'T WORK AND THE TEAM MOVED. How can it be seen as anything but a complete failure?

 

Indeed. That stadium is a big reason why baseball failed in Montréal. Like, it's reason number two behind the separatists.

 

Also, the Kingdome nearly resulted in the Tampa Bay Mariners and the Los Angeles Seahawks.

 

If you want "sports brutalism," how about this?

 

Kauffman_20170804_Out1.jpg&f=1&nofb=1 rogers-2.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

 

I don't know if The K and the Skydome really count, but they kinda do. 

Share this post


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

 

I think your list has all of the right teams on it. But, I'd also add the following:

 

Cowboys

49ers

Redskins

Steelers

Browns

 

Of those, I'd only consider Cowboys and Steelers (not sure how I missed Steelers earlier.)

 

My definition of 'iconic' is something unique that's so associated with some notable thing/person/team that it doesn't require any words for an average person to instantly know what it represents.

 

It's not a word that should be thrown around lightly, and it does not mean simply "been around for a long time", or "looks great" (though those could factor into it somwhat - especially the former.)

 

If you want to reduce the context and say "iconic within the NFL", then OK, but I look at it on a more cultural level.  

 

We're talking Yankees for MLB, and maybe two others.

 

So for NFL, I think most people would see a Packers uniform and instantly associate it with the NFL team that Lombardi coached and Bart Starr played for.  The colors and consistency over the years certainly helps.  Ditto for the Steelers and Cowboys.  There's others that are on the cusp, and if you want to argue the 49ers and Bears, there's certainly valid points there, but I'm not sure that I'd put them in my list (though I wouldn't argue it either.)  Browns?  Washington?  No way.  Not even in the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

So for NFL, I think most people would see a Packers uniform and instantly associate it with the NFL team that Lombardi coached and Bart Starr played for.  The colors and consistency over the years certainly helps.  Ditto for the Steelers and Cowboys.  There's others that are on the cusp, and if you want to argue the 49ers and Bears, there's certainly valid points there, but I'm not sure that I'd put them in my list (though I wouldn't argue it either.)  Browns?  Washington?  No way.  Not even in the discussion.

 

Had the 49ers not stunk for most of the 2000s and 2010s, they'd be on this list. Joe Montana was synonymous with pro football in the 80s and early 90s and you couldn't think about the NFL without also immediately thinking about the 49ers. Kind of like the Pats of 2000-2020.

 

But that iconic moment passed in a way it never did for the Steelers, Cowboys and Packers (which are the three most iconic NFL teams). Pretty sure it's actively passing right now for the Patriots.

Share this post


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

 

Of those, I'd only consider Cowboys and Steelers (not sure how I missed Steelers earlier.)

 

My definition of 'iconic' is something unique that's so associated with some notable thing/person/team that it doesn't require any words for an average person to instantly know what it represents.

 

It's not a word that should be thrown around lightly, and it does not mean simply "been around for a long time", or "looks great" (though those could factor into it somwhat - especially the former.)

 

If you want to reduce the context and say "iconic within the NFL", then OK, but I look at it on a more cultural level.  

 

We're talking Yankees for MLB, and maybe two others.

 

So for NFL, I think most people would see a Packers uniform and instantly associate it with the NFL team that Lombardi coached and Bart Starr played for.  The colors and consistency over the years certainly helps.  Ditto for the Steelers and Cowboys.  There's others that are on the cusp, and if you want to argue the 49ers and Bears, there's certainly valid points there, but I'm not sure that I'd put them in my list (though I wouldn't argue it either.)  Browns?  Washington?  No way.  Not even in the discussion.

 

My definition of an iconic uniform in sports has nothing to do with winning. For me, it has everything to do with longevity/continuity that, as a result, makes that brand instantly recognizable. (Looking great is also a factor for me but to a MUCH lesser degree than longevity/continuity)

 

The following teams I mentioned before fall squarely in that category for me. They're as instantly recognizable as McDonald's, Visa, Coca Cola, Ford, Disney etc. etc. etc. are to the business world. 

 

Bears

Packers

Cowboys

Giants

Redskins

49ers

Browns

Steelers

Colts

Chiefs 

Raiders

 

And IMO there are more than 2 or 3 teams that fall into that category in MLB off the top of my head:

 

Yankees

Red Sox

Dodgers

Cubs

Cardinals

A's

Tigers

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SFGiants58 said:

I don't know if The K and the Skydome really count, but they kinda do. 

 

Never thought of Kauffman that way, especially pre-renovations. I just figured it was modernism on a budget. Plus, it was never really meant to be all that imposing, all low elevations and curves. The SkyDome, yeah, and I've never particularly cared for the SkyDome, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those stadiums didn't fail because of their exterior designs, they failed because of their interior designs. Multipurpose football/baseball stadiums were basically a mistake (notice how you don't see those at all today) and the AstroTurf back then was like playing on rock. 

 

They also failed because the teams sucked. The Expos were a perennial leader in attendance in the early 80s. The Seahawks were perennially mediocre and made the playoffs three times from 1985 to 2001, winning zero playoff games. The Mariners had terrible attendance for their entire existence until a new stadium was announced. They actually had above average attendance from 1996 to 1998 while they were still in the Kingdome, and after they moved to Safeco attendance didn't really spike until 2001 and dropped back to average after 2002. For the record, their attendance today is perennially below average. If the Seahawks and Mariners were dominant teams in the 80s and 90s their attendance would have been just fine.

 

The Louisiana Superdome stopped being a multipurpose stadium in the 70s and despite the Saints being the joke of the NFL, the stadium stayed afloat I'm guessing thanks to Bowl games (NFL and college); they modernized the interior, and today it's going strong.

 

architecture-superdome-99305736-crop-5aa

 

louisiana-superdome_100365856_l.jpg

 

Good example of brutalist architecture in sports today. Not as interesting as Olympic Stadium or the Kingdome though, IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Ark said:

Those stadiums didn't fail because of their exterior designs, they failed because of their interior designs.

 

Good example of brutalist architecture in sports today. Not as interesting as Olympic Stadium or the Kingdome though, IMO

 

Agree with you about the Superdome.

 

But the Kingdome had a hideous (again, hideous) exterior. Nothing about it is interesting nor pleasing to the eye. There was literally nothing unique about it, even for brualist architecture. Exterior ramps were used in cookie cutters all across the country. 

 

Yuck.

 

The Last Game at the Kingdome: A Baseball Love Story - Lookout Landing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, GrimlockAutobot said:

 

My definition of an iconic uniform in sports has nothing to do with winning. 

 

It doesn't, but the fact is that certain teams were winners at a time when national broadcasting was just taking off, and therefore got in most people's homes far more often than some other teams did, and that certainly helped them become iconic.

 

Your list isn't bad, I just feel differently about how some of those looks are perceived.  Some of it has to do with whether the team is a "locally followed" team, a "nationally followed (by fans, haters, and the general public) team", or a "globaly-known" team.

 

Just off the top of my head,neither the Tigers nor Browns even sniff the category because they're more "local" teams. Outside of the world of baseball and football fans that know, I don't think they're that recognizable.  Within the football world, the Browns helmet is absolutely iconic - but I just am looking at things from a broader lens, and to me it doesn't belong up there.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Ark said:

Those stadiums didn't fail because of their exterior designs, they failed because of their interior designs.

 

Olympic Stadium was supposed to have a retractable roof that would get pulled up the weird angled mast. It never worked right, eventually they stopped even trying, and it cost a billion dollars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, the admiral said:

 

Olympic Stadium was supposed to have a retractable roof that would get pulled up the weird angled mast. It never worked right, eventually they stopped even trying, and it cost a billion dollars.

 

Let's not forget the shenanigans involved in that monstrosity's construction! A $124 million project became a $600 million nightmare. Read Up, Up, and Away! for more details, should you be looking for a fantastic baseball book.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

It doesn't, but the fact is that certain teams were winners at a time when national broadcasting was just taking off, and therefore got in most people's homes far more often than some other teams did, and that certainly helped them become iconic.

 

Your list isn't bad, I just feel differently about how some of those looks are perceived.  Some of it has to do with whether the team is a "locally followed" team, a "nationally followed (by fans, haters, and the general public) team", or a "globaly-known" team.

 

Just off the top of my head,neither the Tigers nor Browns even sniff the category because they're more "local" teams. Outside of the world of baseball and football fans that know, I don't think they're that recognizable.  Within the football world, the Browns helmet is absolutely iconic - but I just am looking at things from a broader lens, and to me it doesn't belong up there.

 

 

 

 

 

The Tigers might have more of a foot in the door than other teams. I guarantee they received a huge boost from Tom Selleck wearing a Tigers hat in Magnum which was a huge worldwide hit. I mean theres a freakin tigers hat in the magnum exhibit at the Smithsonian. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad Montreal's Olympic Stadium exists mostly because it fits in with the classic Montreal aesthetic of weird alien crap built for the Olympics or World Expo, interspersed with all the old French colonial buildings. (Such a delightfully strange city, I miss it terribly.) The soccer they've played in there since the Women's World Cup is absolutely nutty though, a pitch made out of mismatching green patio carpet surrounded by stands at such odd angles it looked like a junkyard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 63Bulldogs63 said:

I guarantee they received a huge boost from Tom Selleck wearing a Tigers hat in Magnum which was a huge worldwide hit. I mean theres a freakin tigers hat in the magnum exhibit at the Smithsonian. 

 

05695808b06d1a9cb64e67939af4ec5830d83491

 

This is still the very first thing that comes to mind when I think of the Tigers.  I think though that what's iconic is "Tom Selleck In Tigers Hat", rather than anything about the Tigers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

05695808b06d1a9cb64e67939af4ec5830d83491

 

This is still the very first thing that comes to mind when I think of the Tigers.  I think though that what's iconic is "Tom Selleck In Tigers Hat", rather than anything about the Tigers.

yea but by that logic you're discounting the iconography of Ice Cube in a Raiders or White Sox jacket or hat, which would be to remove it from a cultural context necessary in understanding each of the teams' brands. Granted, the second part of that sentence doesn't quite equate to magnum, but I think the first part does :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Htown1141 said:

yea but by that logic you're discounting the iconography of Ice Cube in a Raiders or White Sox jacket or hat, which would be to remove it from a cultural context necessary in understanding each of the teams' brands. Granted, the second part of that sentence doesn't quite equate to magnum, but I think the first part does :P

But that doesn’t make those uniforms iconic, they aren’t even worn by the team when playing.

Share this post


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

But that doesn’t make those uniforms iconic, they aren’t even worn by the team when playing.

He brought up a hat, so I specifically identified a hat when creating my point. and because that hat was worn on the field, and that Raiders logo was worn on the field, and the helmets and hats are a big part of the uniformworn by the team when playing, my argument was it helps make these uniforms iconic through logo association.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Htown1141 said:

yea but by that logic you're discounting the iconography of Ice Cube in a Raiders or White Sox jacket or hat, which would be to remove it from a cultural context necessary in understanding each of the teams' brands. Granted, the second part of that sentence doesn't quite equate to magnum, but I think the first part does :P

 

I can't speak to the White Sox gear because they were probably just black and white clothing to Ice Cube.

 

But, when guys like Ice Cube and Tom Selleck wear Raiders and Tigers respectively, even if it's in fictional material, for them, they're likely wearing those items to represent their local brand. Ice Cube is from Los Angeles, California and Tom Selleck is from Detroit, Michigan.

 

I'm from Chicago but, I've lived in Maryland for the last 17 years. I still proudly wear my Chicago gear not only because I love my local teams (Except the White Sox) but, it makes me feel closer to home as well. It reminds me where I came from. It's a part of who I am.

 

Whether or not a professional sports team's brand is synonymous with the city they play in is also a key factor in deciding whether that brand is "iconic" IMO. i.e. the Yankees "NY" represents NYC as much as any landmark or anything else within the city itself.

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.