Los Angeles NFL Brands Discussion

[crosfam]

Rams: Bummer on the no-change.  I at least hope they wear the white jerseys at home in the So Cal sunshine, with white pants.  And then one color-rush night in all yellow, and two times (opening night in LA, and another night game would be best) in the royal blue and yellow alts.  You could wear the navy pants on the road this year, and then retire them for new gold pants (or the new combo if they come to their senses).  If the Ravens did surprise gold pants, the Rams can too. 

 

If I were the king of LA football, I'd switch to the Royal and Yellow look full time now, and then modernize the design and add a blue/white alt for the new stadium debut.

 

Chargers:  Switch to powder blue, refreshed white jerseys for road and early season home games.  White pants at home, navy pants on the road.  Alternate yellow pants.  Navy alt jersey with yellow numbers.  Keep the white helmet...

 

LV Raiders.  No change of course.  Maybe a white alt with silver numbers and alt white pants (for the alt only).

 

LA football set for the next 20 years...

[The_Admiral]

6 hours ago, crosfam said:

LV Raiders

 

I get my stabbing knife and prepare for war

[jgiff17]

Fisher has been in this position before...they will wear all white at home unless it's the couple times they can wear the color rush uniforms and the throwbacks. I'd be surprised if we see navy worn at home at all. Possibly some team could make them wear them away but at home they will pull the Tennessee Oiler card

[chakfu]

I really don't believe it's simply a rules issue - I think the league and team together prefer to milk the Navy set with a bump from the move, then get the 2nd bump with the Royal recolor.  Since the name stays the same they feel they can get away with delaying the change and double dipping - even though recoloring now would be much more elegant.

[oldschoolvikings]

14 hours ago, chakfu said:

I really don't believe it's simply a rules issue - I think the league and team together prefer to milk the Navy set with a bump from the move, then get the 2nd bump with the Royal recolor.  Since the name stays the same they feel they can get away with delaying the change and double dipping.

 

That's a really good point.  Think about it... any new LA fan that wants to represent the Rams for the next 3 years will have to do it in the current colors. And they will... sure some will just wait, but not most.  They're excited, they want to go to games in jerseys, hats, whatever, and since navy and beige is all that's available, it will sell. It just will. Then when the new uniforms are introduced ("Hey, everybody!  The REAL colors are back!!)  there will be another selling bonanza.  Double dipping, indeed.

 

Brilliant.  Cynical and manipulative, but brilliant.

[Fresno St. Alum]

39 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

That's a really good point.  Think about it... any new LA fan that wants to represent the Rams for the next 3 years will have to do it in the current colors. And they will... sure some will just wait, but not most.  They're excited, they want to go to games in jerseys, hats, whatever, and since navy and beige is all that's available, it will sell. It just will. Then when the new uniforms are introduced ("Hey, everybody!  The REAL colors are back!!)  there will be another selling bonanza.  Double dipping, indeed.

 

Brilliant.  Cynical and manipulative, but brilliant.

 

If I was a Rams fan I would just buy the throwback alt. and/or the color rush, knowing the Navy will be obsolete in 3 years. Plus the Alt will have use forever since it's what they wore when they left.

[OnWis97]

1 hour ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

That's a really good point.  Think about it... any new LA fan that wants to represent the Rams for the next 3 years will have to do it in the current colors. And they will... sure some will just wait, but not most.  They're excited, they want to go to games in jerseys, hats, whatever, and since navy and beige is all that's available, it will sell. It just will. Then when the new uniforms are introduced ("Hey, everybody!  The REAL colors are back!!)  there will be another selling bonanza.  Double dipping, indeed.

 

Brilliant.  Cynical and manipulative, but brilliant.

That was my first thought.  Makes total sense.  Some people old enough to remember the "new Coke" thought it was a plan to get us re-invigorated for the "original Coke."

 

Sure, the Rams wearing these colors for a few years will detract from the brand some.  But the NFL is back and I think the goodwill/image loss will be minimal and certainly more than made up for in two mad-dashes to buy memorabilia in a three year period.  

 

Hell, this may even explain the Buffaslug.

[elliott]

They are just trying to be like UCLA already: two shades of gold, two shades of blue.

 

Hopefully they can clean this up and standardize to Royal/Yellow like everyone wants in two years-- that's just a hell of a long time to wait

[Lee Noire]

When the Rams go to the blue and yellow in 2019 they can't just bring back the throwback right? They have to design something new?

 

I feel like I'm getting my sports leagues mixed up. I know one of them has a weird rule about not using designs from the past when it comes to uniform and logo changes.

[BlackBolt3]

6 minutes ago, Lee Noire said:

When the Rams go to the blue and yellow in 2019 they can't just bring back the throwback right? They have to design something new?

 

I feel like I'm getting my sports leagues mixed up. I know one of them has a weird rule about not using designs from the past when it comes to uniform and logo changes.

I'm fairly sure that's the NBA, because the Hornets couldn't just bring back their 90s' uniforms.

[Gothamite]

The 49ers would seem to indicate that the NFL does not have a similar rule. 

[Lee Noire]

16 minutes ago, BlackBolt3 said:

I'm fairly sure that's the NBA, because the Hornets couldn't just bring back their 90s' uniforms.

That's what I was thinking about.

 

13 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

The 49ers would seem to indicate that the NFL does not have a similar rule. 

Yeah I suppose so. Even it is a tiny bit different, but I get ya.

[guest23]

1 hour ago, Gothamite said:

The 49ers would seem to indicate that the NFL does not have a similar rule. 

 

Well if you want to get technical there are some distinct differences from the montana era throwbacks: shade of gold, helmet logo, pants stripes, shoulder numbers, truncated sleeve stripes. Theoretically that would be the equivalent of the pistons going back to the rob motif with some tweaks.  Bottom line is that the nba has a no going back rule but you can achieve the same look/feel with a few modernizations and conversely the nfl may not have a no going back rule but a team that wishes to do a complete throwback will likely add a few modern tweaks for the sake of differentiation. The end result is the same.

[Gothamite]

14 hours ago, guest23 said:

Bottom line is that the nba has a no going back rule but you can achieve the same look/feel with a few modernizations and conversely the nfl may not have a no going back rule but a team that wishes to do a complete throwback will likely add a few modern tweaks for the sake of differentiation. The end result is the same.

 

Objection, Your Honor.  Assumes facts not in evidence.

 

There is absolutely no reason to believe that the tiny differences between the 49er's Montana-era uniforms and the modern uniforms were introduced "for the sake of differentiation."  

 

They could have just as easily been introduced because construction methods are different (leading to shoulder v sleeve numbers, or to the cut-off stripes) or because styles have changed (and those absurdly-thick pants stripes are seen as such).  But making changes for changes' s sake?  I don't see how we can say that with any level of confidence.

[Sport]

My guess is they'll bring back royal blue and yellow, but will design a new uniform around those colors (and you can bet it'll be whacky Nikeisms under the guise of "performance") because then it allows them to continue to sell throwbacks while also selling the new gear. Same reason they're not rebranding until 2019. They can sell the navy and khaki to the folks who absolutely must wear what the team is wearing while simultaneously selling throwbacks to the older fans and people willing to wait 3 years. 

[leopard88]

1 hour ago, Gothamite said:

 

Objection, Your Honor.  Assumes facts not in evidence.

 

There is absolutely no reason to believe that the tiny differences between the 49er's Montana-era uniforms and the modern uniforms were introduced "for the sake of differentiation."  

 

They could have just as easily been introduced because construction methods are different (leading to shoulder v sleeve numbers, or to the cut-off stripes) or because styles have changed (and those absurdly-thick pants stripes are seen as such).  But making changes for changes' s sake?  I don't see how we can say that with any level of confidence.

 

The witness stated that he was speculating and that his testimony was not intended to be factual.  I'll allow it for whatever weight it may have.

Objection overruled.

[guest23]

2 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

Objection, Your Honor.  Assumes facts not in evidence.

 

There is absolutely no reason to believe that the tiny differences between the 49er's Montana-era uniforms and the modern uniforms were introduced "for the sake of differentiation."  

 

They could have just as easily been introduced because construction methods are different (leading to shoulder v sleeve numbers, or to the cut-off stripes) or because styles have changed (and those absurdly-thick pants stripes are seen as such).  But making changes for changes' s sake?  I don't see how we can say that with any level of confidence.

 

They wore a near exact reproduction of the Montana era during the A. Smith era before switching to the current set, yet they made small changes despite having a finished product ready to go. I don't think your argument holds.

[Sport]

1 minute ago, guest23 said:

 

They wore a near exact reproduction of the Montana era during the A. Smith era before switching to the current set, yet they made small changes despite having a finished product ready to go. I don't think your argument holds.

That's because that was for an exact throwback. When they decided to go back to those uniforms full time they weren't obligated to match every specific detail and were free to make tweaks or "fixes" to the original that they thought worked better as a full-time primary uniform. That's probably why they did what they did and not because of some rule against wearing throwbacks full time. I don't think that rule exists in the NFL. 

[hbgoo1975]

I would rather have the team wear these uniforms with the complete collar at the Coliseum than the dark blue and century gold!

[BBTV]

3 hours ago, McCarthy said:

That's because that was for an exact throwback. When they decided to go back to those uniforms full time they weren't obligated to match every specific detail and were free to make tweaks or "fixes" to the original that they thought worked better as a full-time primary uniform. That's probably why they did what they did and not because of some rule against wearing throwbacks full time. I don't think that rule exists in the NFL. 

 

It wouldn't surprise me if NFL Properties (or whoever governs these things) made them add the word mark under the collar for trademark of some other legal purpose (otherwise it's just a red jersey with white numbers and stripes that anyone could legally make and sell). 

 

I think they actually did explain the reasons for the slanted stripes.  They weren't good reasons, but still reasons. 

 

I haven't heard of the NFL banning throwbacks verbatim, but has there been any recent uniform change that didn't include at least a word mark under the collar? I'd imagine that (or the inclusion of some other team mark if none other exists on the sleeve or something) would be a requirement.