Los Angeles NFL Brands Discussion

[ramsjetsthunder]

I like the Ram head secondary on blue, but on white something just isn't quite right. Both these logos look best on blue.

[CLEstones]

20 hours ago, IceCap said:

Easy. The NFL wouldn't let them ditch the St. Louis-era jerseys for throwbacks and still let them debut new uniforms when their stadium opens. So they had to keep the StL look around as a stopgap. They could wear the throwbacks as a de facto "home" look, but they still had to wear the white, navy, and old gold StL uniforms for half the season. They really wanted to get away from the St. Louis look though, so they swapped the gold horns out for the white horns. Since white horns on blue was an exclusively LA look for them.

It wasn't meant as a long-term direction for the team. Just a way to diminish the St. Louis navy and old gold until such time as they could roll new unis out with their new stadium.

 

Of course this hodgepodge could have been avoided had they taken the NFL up on their offer to switch to the throwbacks full time across the board when they moved to LA. They opted against that though, because doing that would have re-set the clock on uniform changes, and they'd have to wait five years before changing again. Which meant they couldn't debut in their new stadium with new unis. The Rams were dead-set on that happening, so they created the half-and-half "compromise" look for a few seasons to bridge the gap.
That would have been ok I guess had the new uniforms for the new stadium worked out, but it looks like they're going to botch it. Making the whole LA Rams uniform story kind of a huge cluster

Should have just gone with the throwbacks when they moved back and called it a day.

 

Makes sense.  I just feel like the 5-year Rule should be voided if a team changes city.

[IceCap]

2 minutes ago, CLEstones said:

 

Makes sense.  I just feel like the 5-year Rule should be voided if a team changes city.

It was! The NFL voids the five year rule when a team moves, and they offered the Rams to do it for them. The NFL told them they were free to go to the throwbacks full time upon moving to LA. They chose not to. 

[MJD7]

1 hour ago, IceCap said:

It was! The NFL voids the five year rule when a team moves, and they offered the Rams to do it for them. The NFL told them they were free to go to the throwbacks full time upon moving to LA. They chose not to. 

Could the Rams have chosen to unveil an entirely new set of uniforms then too, or was there not enough time to get it done?

[IceCap]

28 minutes ago, MJD7 said:

Could the Rans have chosen to unveil an entirely new set of uniforms then too, or was there not enough time to get it done?

Not enough time IIRC. 

[Gothamite]

Exactly.  In part because Goodell kept stonewalling and trying to prevent the Rams from moving, when Kroenke finally got permission to go back to LA there was only eight months before the beginning of the season; not enough time to create new uniforms. 

 

The league offered to let the Rams adopt their throwbacks full-time, but that would have started another five-year clock, and the Rams wanted to unveil new uniforms with the new stadium.  Hence the halfway measures to get us to this point..

[MJD7]

1 hour ago, IceCap said:

Not enough time IIRC. 

 

56 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

Exactly.  In part because Goodell kept stonewalling and trying to prevent the Rams from moving, when Kroenke finally got permission to go back to LA there was only eight months before the beginning of the season; not enough time to create new uniforms. 

 

The league offered to let the Rams adopt their throwbacks full-time, but that would have started another five-year clock, and the Rams wanted to unveil new uniforms with the new stadium.  Hence the halfway measures.

The ideal situation, then, would’ve been to allow them to switch to the throwbacks, but give them an exception to the five-year rule.
 

If I’m the Rams, I kind of can’t blame them for taking the route that they did, since they pretty much ended up getting most of what they wanted by the end anyway, getting to wear the throwbacks at home.

[The_Admiral]

They should have had a neo-throwback set ready to roll out the day they won the vote. They bought the land in December 2013, it's not like this was a surprise to them.

[hawk36]

NFL is 32 teams/owners. You'd think an organization that small could implement some common sense exceptions to their rules. In the end it just made them and the Rams look foolish. No reason for it.  

[IceCap]

12 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

NFL is 32 teams/owners. You'd think an organization that small could implement some common sense exceptions to their rules. In the end it just made them and the Rams look foolish. No reason for it.  

They HAD common sense exceptions for the rules though! I don't know how many times people need to say it but the NFL waves the restriction on new uniforms when a team relocates...the Rams were given the chance to go with the throwbacks full time upon moving back to LA. The Rams chose not to take the NFL up on the offer.

 

I get it, people like to blame the NFL for stuff, but they were more than willing to let the Rams go with the LA Rams throwbacks full time upon the move. The Rams chose not to because they were dead set on debuting new uniforms with their new stadium. Which, in my opinion, was a dumb and arbitrary decision on their part.

[ramsker]

6 minutes ago, IceCap said:

They HAD common sense exceptions for the rules though! I don't know how many times people need to say it but the NFL waves the restriction on new uniforms when a team relocates...the Rams were given the chance to go with the throwbacks full time upon moving back to LA. The Rams chose not to take the NFL up on the offer.

 

I get it, people like to blame the NFL for stuff, but they were more than willing to let the Rams go with the LA Rams throwbacks full time upon the move. The Rams chose not to because they were dead set on debuting new uniforms with their new stadium. Which, in my opinion, was a dumb and arbitrary decision on their part.

 

In their slight defense, they ended up having to wear that look a year longer than they thought they were going to. The new stadium got delayed by a year. 

[IceCap]

Just now, ramsker said:

In their slight defense, they ended up having to wear that look a year longer than they thought they were going to. The new stadium got delayed by a year. 

My point is that the whole idea of debuting new unis in a new stadium is kind of dumb if you think about it. I suppose it sounds good in a board meeting, but how many uniform changes have coincided with new stadiums? Very few. Often because stadium construction and uniform change timelines are different and hard to sync up unless you deliberately plan both out- which most teams don't.

Ideally the Rams should have gone with the throwbacks full time once they got back to LA. Then they roll out their new gradient segmented horn uniforms a few years after the new stadium opens. Sure, you don't get to debut new unis in the new building but at least the brand is consistent. The way it's been? It's been haphazard. And I know the gut reaction is to blame the NFL for being inflexible, but that's not reflective of reality.

[guest23]

4 minutes ago, ramsker said:

 

In their slight defense, they ended up having to wear that look a year longer than they thought they were going to. The new stadium got delayed by a year. 

 

A year behind and a few billion over budget but hey they got their shiny new stadium.

[WSU151]

17 minutes ago, IceCap said:

My point is that the whole idea of debuting new unis in a new stadium is kind of dumb if you think about it. I suppose it sounds good in a board meeting, but how many uniform changes have coincided with new stadiums? Very few. Often because stadium construction and uniform change timelines are different and hard to sync up unless you deliberately plan both out- which most teams don't.

Ideally the Rams should have gone with the throwbacks full time once they got back to LA. Then they roll out their new gradient segmented horn uniforms a few years after the new stadium opens. Sure, you don't get to debut new unis in the new building but at least the brand is consistent. The way it's been? It's been haphazard. And I know the gut reaction is to blame the NFL for being inflexible, but that's not reflective of reality.

 

I think only the Titans, Seahawks, and Lions (new black accents in 2002). Might be missing a couple. Cardinals missed the timing by a year, Patriots missed it by two years. Ravens updated helmet logo the year after their stadium opened. 

[The_Admiral]

The Buccaneers had one or two years in pewter at Tampa Stadium. The Vikings had their new/current uniforms for the last year at the Metrodome. Off the top of my head, there are many more cases of the new uniforms preceding the new stadium by a year or two than the other way around.

[hawk36]

40 minutes ago, IceCap said:

They HAD common sense exceptions for the rules though! I don't know how many times people need to say it but the NFL waves the restriction on new uniforms when a team relocates...the Rams were given the chance to go with the throwbacks full time upon moving back to LA. The Rams chose not to take the NFL up on the offer.

 

I get it, people like to blame the NFL for stuff, but they were more than willing to let the Rams go with the LA Rams throwbacks full time upon the move. The Rams chose not to because they were dead set on debuting new uniforms with their new stadium. Which, in my opinion, was a dumb and arbitrary decision on their part.

I disagree. I would think the logical thing to do would be to let the team use their throwbacks until they move into the new stadium when they get new uniforms (regardless of if it's 2, 3, 4 etc. years). The Rams didn't take them up on their offer because it was a bad offer. They obviously wanted new uniforms in the new stadium. Marketing drives and pays for everything. 

 

It just drives me crazy when it's so simple yet they don't let it happen because they are so stuck on not bending the rules. Bend within reason. 

[IceCap]

3 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

I disagree.

You disagree with the well-established fact that the NFL offered to wave their uniform restrictions and allow the Rams to go with their fullbacks full time upon moving back to LA? Because that was reported. It happened.

 

4 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

I would think the logical thing to do would be to let the team use their throwbacks until they move into the new stadium when they get new uniforms (regardless of if it's 2, 3, 4 etc. years).

The NFL was already waving one uniform rule (that you need two year's notice to change) by offering to let the Rams change upon moving. Why would they bend again? Just so the team could roll out new unis in a new stadium? As I said above that rarely happens, and it's kind of dumb to work towards that as a goal.

 

5 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

The Rams didn't take them up on their offer because it was a bad offer.

 

6 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

It just drives me crazy when it's so simple yet they don't let it happen because they are so stuck on not bending the rules. Bend within reason. 

 

The NFL said "hey Rams, we know you usually have to wait two years to change uniforms, but you can totally go with throwbacks if you want, because this is a unique situation."

That's pretty much an example of "bending the rules within reason."

[guest23]

13 minutes ago, IceCap said:

You disagree with the well-established fact that the NFL offered to wave their uniform restrictions and allow the Rams to go with their fullbacks full time upon moving back to LA? Because that was reported. It happened.

 

The NFL was already waving one uniform rule (that you need two year's notice to change) by offering to let the Rams change upon moving. Why would they bend again? Just so the team could roll out new unis in a new stadium? As I said above that rarely happens, and it's kind of dumb to work towards that as a goal.

 

 

 

The NFL said "hey Rams, we know you usually have to wait two years to change uniforms, but you can totally go with throwbacks if you want, because this is a unique situation."

That's pretty much an example of "bending the rules within reason."

 

Either way you look at it the commish was pissed that he got strong armed by SK and the JJ secret ballot vote. Once the owners approved the move you bet he was going to handle the relocation by the guidelines and not do the rams any favors. Corporate guidelines are not laws and are frequently excused for exceptions or revised outright when it suits the situation but they are also used to as a cudgel against those that challenge the status quo.

[ltjets21]

44 minutes ago, WSU151 said:

 

I think only the Titans, Seahawks, and Lions (new black accents in 2002). Might be missing a couple. Cardinals missed the timing by a year, Patriots missed it by two years. Ravens updated helmet logo the year after their stadium opened. 

Lions still did not have black in 2002, I believe the Eagles made minor changes their first year at the linc.

[raz]

1 hour ago, guest23 said:

 

Either way you look at it the commish was pissed that he got strong armed by SK and the JJ secret ballot vote. Once the owners approved the move you bet he was going to handle the relocation by the guidelines and not do the rams any favors. 

 

Sigh ... but he WAS trying to do the Rams a favor. They refused. How do you all not understand?

 

Also, why have guidelines if you're not going to use them? Weird to complain that they did things the way they said they're going to do things. The Rams knew that, the commish threw them a bone, they refused. And everybody blames the league. Jeesh.