Los Angeles NFL Brands Discussion

[Quillz]

1 hour ago, 4_tattoos said:

Did the Rams ever make a full bodied full version the current Ram logo?

No, just the head logo.

 

3 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

Any modernisation of this would just be an inferior version of the current logo, which already uses the same concept.

Probably. I'd still be curious to see what the team would do to modernize it, though. The perspective of the two logos is slightly different.

[Pharos04]

Personally I wouldn't mind seeing the Rams modernize this old one
 

not only does it go with their Blue/White temporary scheme, but to me it could go very well with their modernized retro font

[Jake Manternach Creative]

The Rams stadium is now being delayed until 2020. I wonder if they will push back the release of their new uniforms and potential new logo.

[duxrcool048]

1 minute ago, Jake Manternach Creative said:

The Rams stadium is now being delayed until 2020. I wonder if they will push back the release of their new uniforms and potential new logo.

 

You beat me to it lol. I just saw this too. That was the first thing I thought. Does that just mean another season with these mismatched uniforms?

[upperV03]

8 minutes ago, Jake Manternach Creative said:

The Rams stadium is now being delayed until 2020. I wonder if they will push back the release of their new uniforms and potential new logo.

That's certainly possible. The Rams' beat reporter for ESPN initially reported the uniform release would be pushed back to 2020 now, but he then corrected himself and said the Rams are unsure of whether they'll still do it in 2019 or delay it to coincide with the stadium opening in 2020.

[Fresno St. Alum]

So Kronke saw his own shadow, which means 1 more yr of sucky uniforms 

[Quillz]

4 hours ago, Jake Manternach Creative said:

The Rams stadium is now being delayed until 2020. I wonder if they will push back the release of their new uniforms and potential new logo.

Damn... Does this also mean LA is out of the running to host the Super Bowl?

 

But hey, at least the new identity will still come with the new stadium.

[Quillz]

4 hours ago, upperV03 said:

That's certainly possible. The Rams' beat reporter for ESPN initially reported the uniform release would be pushed back to 2020 now, but he then corrected himself and said the Rams are unsure of whether they'll still do it in 2019 or delay it to coincide with the stadium opening in 2020.

Honestly, I'd rather they delay it. It just seems to make more sense from a marketing standpoint to have a new identity with a new stadium. Doing it a year early seems "off." (And in a perfect world, maybe that year's delay will make the uniforms even better).

[G-tron]

1 hour ago, Quillz said:

Damn... Does this also mean LA is out of the running to host the Super Bowl?

 

But hey, at least the new identity will still come with the new stadium.

Good question. They're currently scheduled to host the Super Bowl for the 2020 season, so I wonder if the NFL would delay a year just so they can work out any kinks with a practice-run year.

[Quillz]

22 minutes ago, G-tron said:

Good question. They're currently scheduled to host the Super Bowl for the 2020 season, so I wonder if the NFL would delay a year just so they can work out any kinks with a practice-run year.

Actually, if it was indeed 2020, I don't really see an issue. I for some reason it was they got the Bowl in 2019, to be played in 2020. But in fact it will be played in 2021. And really, it's "just" another game, so I would imagine it will turn out okay.

 

Oh, I spoke too soon. I wonder if the exception will be granted?

Quote

Current NFL rules prohibit a stadium from hosting a Super Bowl in its inaugural season. Owners would have to approve a waiver of the rule to allow Super Bowl LV to be played there as scheduled.

[guest23]

37 minutes ago, Quillz said:

Actually, if it was indeed 2020, I don't really see an issue. I for some reason it was they got the Bowl in 2019, to be played in 2020. But in fact it will be played in 2021. And really, it's "just" another game, so I would imagine it will turn out okay.

 

Oh, I spoke too soon. I wonder if the exception will be granted?

 

If it's easier logistically it stays. This is a private organization that uses a cartel business model. They make their own rules, there is nothing binding at all. If the owners are ok with the exception they make the exception. The rule makes no sense anyway.

[Quillz]

19 minutes ago, guest23 said:

 

If it's easier logistically it stays. This is a private organization that uses a cartel business model. They make their own rules, there is nothing binding at all. If the owners are ok with the exception they make the exception. The rule makes no sense anyway.

I figure at this point, it's easier to keep the Bowl in LA than move it. I can't imagine them enforcing the rule. Also I know for sure that's a NFL-only rule... MLB has never had any qualms about new stadiums hosting the All-Star Game, for instance.

[BBTV]

11 hours ago, Quillz said:

I figure at this point, it's easier to keep the Bowl in LA than move it. I can't imagine them enforcing the rule. Also I know for sure that's a NFL-only rule... MLB has never had any qualms about new stadiums hosting the All-Star Game, for instance.

 

I worked on a stadium (LFF) during its first season and I'll tell you that in no way could we have hosted a major event like the SB. It took the entire first season to really "know" the stadium and what works from an operational perspective (stadiums aren't plug-and-play when it comes to staffing needs, game-day management, vendors, fan needs, etc). 

 

It would likely be a miserable experience for fans, as it's not not possible to have all the quirks figured out (and more importantly, fixed) during the season. 

 

Thats not a knock on their ability to put together a great stadium mgmt team - it holds true for every stadium. 

[TBGKon]

15 hours ago, Quillz said:

Damn... Does this also mean LA is out of the running to host the Super Bowl?

 

But hey, at least the new identity will still come with the new stadium.

The would likely have to request a waiver from the NFL to host the Super Bowl in the first year a stadium opens.

 

 

[The_Admiral]

47 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

I worked on a stadium (LFF) during its first season and I'll tell you that in no way could we have hosted a major event like the SB. It took the entire first season to really "know" the stadium and what works from an operational perspective (stadiums aren't plug-and-play when it comes to staffing needs, game-day management, vendors, fan needs, etc). 

 

It would likely be a miserable experience for fans, as it's not not possible to have all the quirks figured out (and more importantly, fixed) during the season. 

 

Thats not a knock on their ability to put together a great stadium mgmt team - it holds true for every stadium. 

 

Didn't we sort of see this with Dallas? The Super Bowl was in the second season of Jerryworld and even then I remember there being a lot of glitches. And I don't just mean the Packers winning! hoo hoo!

[Red Wolf]

An extra year to let this thread grow even bigger. Amazing. 

[aawagner011]

Hopefully this will turn into a textbook example of how not to manage your brand and the NFL will change its archaic rules. A team moves cross country and the rules prohibit them from updating their look for several years? Idiotic. It's true that the stadium delay is not related to the NFL uniform rules. However, it is a problem considering the Rams want the new set to correspond to the debut of the new building...meaning we have to begrudgingly tolerate these horrible mishmash of styles for possibly four seasons.

[guest23]

On 1/12/2016 at 8:48 AM, OnWis97 said:

Now that we are close to having LA teams, I am surprised there is no thread in this forum on what they may look like.

Is there any way we are looking at an identity overhaul?

 

I'd say it's unlikely, particularly given the three teams we are talking about.. Both the Rams and Raiders have history in LA (so do the Chargers, but not as memorable). It would be really odd to see the Rams, who've been the Rams since, what the 30s (?), change names. I don't think whatever sympathy there is for St. Louis will cause much momentum for a Cleveland Deal, thanks to the history in LA, the lacking certainty that St. Louis will have a team again, and the lack of "lunchpail/blue collar fan" reputation. The Raiders also have LA history and while they've had a rough decade plus, their brand has historical importance. I think their brand would stay the same not only if they moved to LA but to San Antonio or London. Also, like St. Louis, there will be nothing near a guarantee that Oakland will ever get another team.

 

San Diego is the most likely to overhaul, but probably still unlikely. Given the proximity of San Diego to LA, they may even retain some fans. Plus it's a brand that's been around for 50 years or so and, once again, no Cleveland Deal is likely for San Diego. Truth is, I don't like the identity (curved lightning bolts?) but I certainly don't want to see it change, diminishing those 50 years and resulting in something likely to be worse.

 

I have no horse in the race, so as a neutral fan, I'd like to see the names remain the same, and the identities essentially the same.

 

Predictions:

• If Raiders move: No identity change save for "Oakland" to "Los Angeles."
• If Rams move: No name change. The horns stay. Move to the old blue/yellow scheme (60%). Otherwise, stay with current look (35%) or move to old blue/white scheme (5%)
• If Chargers move: No name change. The bolts stay on the helmet. Stay with current look (80%). Otherwise go to some old look (15%) or a new variation of the "bolts" (5%)

 

Any thoughts?

 

I'm not trying to be snarky but I have to think that people suggesting that any of these teams change their identity have to be on the younger side or very naive about the NFL. 

 

On field success aside, these are 3 of the most visually iconic NFL franchises.  Their uniforms especially their helmets are or have been amongst the most iconic in league history.  Why on earth would you ever change these identies? No way anything new would have the staying power. Like many have said the absolute best options would be for both la teams to revert back to older looks.  

[Gothamite]

15 hours ago, Quillz said:

I figure at this point, it's easier to keep the Bowl in LA than move it. I can't imagine them enforcing the rule. Also I know for sure that's a NFL-only rule... MLB has never had any qualms about new stadiums hosting the All-Star Game, for instance.

 

That's because of the various leagues' schedules.  Baseball teams work out the kinks in their stadiums much more quickly.

[Rockstar Matt]

This doesn't look that bad...