Los Angeles NFL Brands Discussion

[WavePunter]

3 hours ago, Cosmic said:

I keep seeing people refer to the rule as bad... I don't agree.  It's not a bad idea to make teams have some consistency.  There's even a little wiggle room built into the rule, so teams can tweak a look that needs a little help.  The Rams are just stretching the definition of "minor" as far as they possibly can. IIRC, the Rams could have applied to change immediately with the relocation, but they didn't bother.  They probably could have done a quick change to the throwbacks, then come out with a new alt as the start of their rebrand to coincide with the new stadium, then switched to the new look full time five years after relocation.  But they were too "smart" for that.  This isn't the NFL's fault; it's all on the Rams.

while i agree with your post, my question is what rule are people referring to? the 5-year rule?.. the rams have been in these uniforms for 16 years now, so they should be pretty clear to make a change, shouldn't they? perhaps they're sticking with these jerseys to avoid pushing the 2019 rebrand back to 2022..

[C-Squared]

1 hour ago, WavePunter said:

while i agree with your post, my question is what rule are people referring to? the 5-year rule?.. the rams have been in these uniforms for 16 years now, so they should be pretty clear to make a change, shouldn't they? perhaps they're sticking with these jerseys to avoid pushing the 2019 rebrand back to 2022..

 

That is absolutely the move on their end... not unlike the Titans in 99, the new stadium debut will be marketed like their true arrival and they need the threads to match. I chalk up the Frankenstein unis to nothing more than heavy-handed market research.

[Gothamite]

10 hours ago, Rockstar Matt said:

 

Can't believe a professional football team is going to trot themselves out on the field with this mismatched uniform. Absolutely hilarious. 

 

That's pretty funny from somebody with a  Cowboys avatar.

[Gothamite]

1 hour ago, WavePunter said:

while i agree with your post, my question is what rule are people referring to? the 5-year rule?.. the rams have been in these uniforms for 16 years now, so they should be pretty clear to make a change, shouldn't they? perhaps they're sticking with these jerseys to avoid pushing the 2019 rebrand back to 2022..

 

And that's where the 5-year rule comes into effect. 

[Survival79]

6 hours ago, Cujo said:

 

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/18811001/los-angeles-rams-unveil-retro-overhaul-uniforms-helmet

 

"The Rams went to their white jerseys for both home and road games in 2016, their first year back in Los Angeles.

 

On the road, they wore blue pants with gold stripes. Those stripes will now be white."

[oldschoolvikings]

1 hour ago, Gothamite said:

 

And that's where the 5-year rule comes into effect. 

 

 

 

What's interesting about this what it's telling us about the 5 year rule, which has never really been clearly defined to the general public. I think we all figured the rule wouldn't apply to pants and socks, but now we find out it doesn't apply to helmets, either. Apparently. Which is surprising to me. NFL helmets are used so much in graphics and marketing you'd think they wouldnt want a team changing helmet visuals more often than 5 years either.

[VikWings]

7 hours ago, ColeJ said:

i honestly doubt the rams will ever wear the navy jerseys.

 

dallas has shown a tendency to start wearing the "cursed" jerseys more and more recently, so it wouldn't surprise me if all the "white at home" teams accommodated the rams until the redesign... and in instances where they can't, the rams wear some kind of throwback or color rush.

 

If the NFL schedules the Cowboys game for either Thanksgiving or Color Rush then you avoid that problem.

 

 

6 hours ago, Cosmic said:

I keep seeing people refer to the rule as bad... I don't agree.  It's not a bad idea to make teams have some consistency.  There's even a little wiggle room built into the rule, so teams can tweak a look that needs a little help.  The Rams are just stretching the definition of "minor" as far as they possibly can. IIRC, the Rams could have applied to change immediately with the relocation, but they didn't bother.  They probably could have done a quick change to the throwbacks, then come out with a new alt as the start of their rebrand to coincide with the new stadium, then switched to the new look full time five years after relocation.  But they were too "smart" for that.  This isn't the NFL's fault; it's all on the Rams.

 

It's been way more than 5 years since they debuted the current unis. So they could have easily did a full change either last year or now. They're just stubbornly waiting to unveil new uniforms until the new stadium in 2019 and if they change now, they can't again in 2019. So instead of getting new uniforms now (or last year) or just riding out the St. Louis colors until 2019 they're doing this mismatched, half assed garbage to phase out the gold from STL without doing an official change.

[uniguy22]

8 hours ago, TJSC said:

The uniform set looks very sharp when you see it from far away, since the gold looks non-existent.

This is a good point. These will probably look really good in the sunlight and watching from a distance. 

[VikWings]

The silver lining here is at least the neck roll collar is gone. (Hopefully it is on the throwback as well. Don't know why it was on that to begin with.)

 

Saints and Bengals, you're up. Stop being the Avalanche.

[Gothamite]

42 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

What's interesting about this what it's telling us about the 5 year rule, which has never really been clearly defined to the general public. I think we all figured the rule wouldn't apply to pants and socks, but now we find out it doesn't apply to helmets, either. Apparently. Which is surprising to me. NFL helmets are used so much in graphics and marketing you'd think they wouldnt want a team changing helmet visuals more often than 5 years either.

 

 

I don't think we actually know that.  It's been established that relocating teams get a degree of special dispensation to make changes. The specific degree has never been established - perhaps the NFL was willing to let them change the helmets twice in theee years but not the jerseys, because of the merchandise pipeline. 

[rams80]

7 hours ago, Old School Fool said:

 

This is what the Rams will probably wear in London. I can't think of a more perfect way to showcase our sport to the UK than trotting out a mismatched uniform on a team that plays like crap. That's sure gonna drive the incentive for a London NFL team!

 

The Rams are playing in London.  You're already doing a bad job of showcasing the sport.

[rams80]

2 hours ago, C-Squared said:

 

That is absolutely the move on their end... not unlike the Titans in 99, the new stadium debut will be marketed like their true arrival and they need the threads to match. I chalk up the Frankenstein unis to nothing more than heavy-handed market research.

 

Again, its the Rams.

 

Don't assume competence or some shred of a thought-through plan.  Ever.

[OnWis97]

7 hours ago, Cosmic said:

I keep seeing people refer to the rule as bad... I don't agree.  It's not a bad idea to make teams have some consistency.  There's even a little wiggle room built into the rule, so teams can tweak a look that needs a little help.  The Rams are just stretching the definition of "minor" as far as they possibly can. IIRC, the Rams could have applied to change immediately with the relocation, but they didn't bother.  They probably could have done a quick change to the throwbacks, then come out with a new alt as the start of their rebrand to coincide with the new stadium, then switched to the new look full time five years after relocation.  But they were too "smart" for that.  This isn't the NFL's fault; it's all on the Rams.

In general, I think the rule is good.  I don't want NFL teams changing uniforms every year like college basketball teams. However, it should probably apply beyond just the jerseys because this looks so bad.  your point on the Rams is true...this is on them (especially if they could have applied for a waiver, which I was unaware of).  They are going to look like this by choice.  At this point (given, they never applied for a waiver),  I'd rather they suck it up and look like St. Louis for the next couple of years instead of mixing and matching.  They are going to look silly and it is their fault.  If I am the NFL, I am thinking of adding helmets and maybe even pants to the five-year rule after this.

 

Yes, the five-year rule is good.  I don't think it should apply when a team relocates, but apparently it does not have to.  Therefore, in no way, shape or form is this on anyone but the Rams.

[OnWis97]

58 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

 

 

What's interesting about this what it's telling us about the 5 year rule, which has never really been clearly defined to the general public. I think we all figured the rule wouldn't apply to pants and socks, but now we find out it doesn't apply to helmets, either. Apparently. Which is surprising to me. NFL helmets are used so much in graphics and marketing you'd think they wouldnt want a team changing helmet visuals more often than 5 years either.

I am really surprised by this.  The helmet is the bigger identifier than the jersey for most fans.  I suppose part of it could be the PR of jersey sales.  "I buy a new jersey the year it's introduced and then they get rid of it two years later!"  I know people buy the mini-helmets, but not in the same numbers.  Nevertheless, from an identity-consistency standpoint, it seems like the helmet is at least as important as the jersey.

[BJ Sands]

Everybody seems shocked and taken aback that the Rams would mess up their uniforms, and I don't know why you should be. Well-run organizations don't move.

[OnWis97]

16 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

 

I don't think we actually know that.  It's been established that relocating teams get a degree of special dispensation to make changes. The specific degree has never been established - perhaps the NFL was willing to let them change the helmets twice in theee years but not the jerseys, because of the merchandise pipeline. 

But two years from now, when they make the "full" change, they will no longer be a relocated team.  As pointed out above, these  uniforms are more than give years old so they are setting themselves up for a full change at "new stadium" time.  I would think that, if helmets are not exempt, this would start the clock over since they won't be a relocating team in 2019.  

 

It's strange to me that they want to time the change with the new stadium rather than the new city.  Going back to an "LA" look makes sense when going back to LA, as opposed to going to a new stadium.  Maybe they were waiting out the second team (i.e., will it be the Chargers?) so they decided not to make the change for that reason?  Anyway, bravo, Rams.

[Gothamite]

8 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

But two years from now, when they make the "full" change, they will no longer be a relocated team.  As pointed out above, these uniforms are more than give years old so they are setting themselves up for a full change at "new stadium" time.  I would think that, if helmets are not exempt, this would start the clock over since they won't be a relocating team in 2019. 

 

We know that the plan was always to come out with a full overhaul for the new stadium, and that such an overhaul is already in the works.  It was later reported that the NFL was willing to waive some of the time constraints for the relocating teams, but the limits of that waiver have never been established.  Perhaps it allows them to tweak existing elements, especially those not subject to standard merchandising models, while the total overhaul is in progress. 

 

I'm just hesitant to extrapolate out and claim that we know something more about the rule itself from this situation, when it's already been established that the rule in this situation has some flexibility.  

 

The only thing we know for sure is sure is that what the Rams do from 2016-2019 is separate and distinct from what every other team (save the Chargers) is allowed to do. 

[WavePunter]

43 minutes ago, VikWings said:

 

If the NFL schedules the Cowboys game for either Thanksgiving or Color Rush then you avoid that problem.

 

 

 

It's been way more than 5 years since they debuted the current unis. So they could have easily did a full change either last year or now. They're just stubbornly waiting to unveil new uniforms until the new stadium in 2019 and if they change now, they can't again in 2019. So instead of getting new uniforms now (or last year) or just riding out the St. Louis colors until 2019 they're doing this mismatched, half assed garbage to phase out the gold from STL without doing an official change.

As i suspected in my post earlier, they're doing precisely what you're saying.. they don't want to push back the 2019 rebrand, so they're keeping the jerseys the same.. i think they may be doing 2 things here..

1. introduce an interim "brand" to potentially build a 4th source of revenue (Throwback LA, St. Louis, Interim LA, 2019 LA).. it won't add jerseys to the offerings, since it's the St. Louis version, but mini-helmets, navy/white apparel, new logo hats/apparel, etc. will be "new" and possibly drive some sales in the meantime, then a potential full rebrand to Throwback LA look/colors, but likely different enough to warrant purchase of both Throwback LA gear and 2019 LA gear..

2. i think they could possibly be trolling the NFL a bit here by exploiting the flaws in the "5 year rule" for a number of reasons.

[Gothamite]

15 minutes ago, WavePunter said:

i think they could possibly be trolling the NFL a bit here by exploiting the flaws in the "5 year rule" for a number of reasons.

 

Given how Goodell continually tried to block his relocation, it wouldn't surprise me if Kroenke was pushing the envelope now. 

[Guy with Machete]

14 hours ago, TJSC said:

 

http://m.therams.com/news-and-events/article-1/Rams-Unveil-Uniforms-for-2017-Season/355cd8b2-cbff-4430-8df8-e3b8faf3ff82