Los Angeles NFL Brands Discussion

[TJSC]

Here's what the Rams uniforms look like in the Los Angeles Coliseum's sun...

[BBTV]

It's cute that they're letting a 10-year-old play quarterback.

 

They just can't wear mono navy in LA.  Gods that's a horrible combo for them.  They should look in to replacing the "Rams" wordmark with a "LA" or something, just to have something different for this new era they're embarking on.

[WSU151]

 

16 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

It's cute that they're letting a 10-year-old play quarterback.

 

That's the first 10 year old I've seen that has facial hair, muscles, and is taller than other NFL players.

[Sykotyk]

1 hour ago, Cosmic said:

The NFL suspended blackouts altogether in 2015, and they haven't brought them back yet.  The stopgap where a team could set a lower threshold was not a very good solution.  IIRC if you said that 75% full was enough to lift the blackout, then you surrendered all or part of your revenue for any seats sold over 75%.  I also don't think you could change it on a game-by-game basis.

But, I don't think that was ever a concern.

 

I don't think fans decided whether or not to attend a game whether it was available on television. Especially at the NFL costs today. Back when a ticket were more reasonable (adjusted for inflation), that may have played a part. But, the cost between sitting on you couch watching on cable or antenna for free (since you're probably getting cable whether you get NFL or not) or paying $78/average ticket price plus the cost of getting to and from the stadium and the expense of parking and probably food while away from home, and the time needed to arrive at the stadium before the game and the time it takes to leave the game... I don't think that's a last minute decision for most people today.

 

So the blackout isn't really hindering people. Besides, when the Rams first moved to Los Angeles, they didn't want any home games aired, even ones that sold out.

[oldschoolvikings]

13 minutes ago, WSU151 said:

 

 

That's the first 10 year old I've seen that has facial hair, muscles, and is taller than other NFL players.

 

My 7 year old's classmate has a weird wispy start of a mustache.

 

The navy pants suck sacks.

[Rockstar Matt]

11 hours ago, TJSC said:

Here's what the Rams uniforms look like in the Los Angeles Coliseum's sun...

 

God damnit. Lose the navy pants. If they won't wear gold, at least wear white. 

[O.C.D]

11 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

It's cute that they're letting a 10-year-old play quarterback.

 

They just can't wear mono navy in LA.  Gods that's a horrible combo for them.  They should look in to replacing the "Rams" wordmark with a "LA" or something, just to have something different for this new era they're embarking on.

Dude, you should have tried out! I bet you could have schooled that 10 year old scrub!

[Gothamite]

18 hours ago, TJSC said:

Here's what the Rams uniforms look like in the Los Angeles Coliseum's sun...

 

If they were still using the old Ripon shiny fabric, that might actually have looked okay. The Brewers use the same color scheme, as the only time it works is with metallic gold thread under the bright noon sun. 

 

But as it is, the drab colors plus matte fabrics equals a terrible look.   Can't be replaced soon enough. 

[4_tattoos]

Didn't the Cardinals change their logo & uniforms a year before moving into their current stadium? Wonder why the Rams are so hell bent on not changing the uniforms until the new stadium opens? 

[TJSC]

38 minutes ago, 4_tattoos said:

Didn't the Cardinals change their logo & uniforms a year before moving into their current stadium? Wonder why the Rams are so hell bent on not changing the uniforms until the new stadium opens? 

Probably to clear inventory on St. Louis gear, which is actually a smart marketing decision.

[Gothamite]

There is a certain symmetry to introducing new uniforms with a new park. I understand that. If they can't change upon moving, and have to wear the ugly St. Louis uniforms in LA at all, might as well hold the new ones for the massive event of their own stadium. 

[crosfam]

I hope they simply wear all white for daytime home games, except for the alts twice for late/evening games (if they have at least two). They can wear the blue pants on the road, and just minimize the use of the navy blue tops (color rush only, maybe).  They really should have pressed to wear the LA era  unis full time for the next two years, as has been suggested (demanded ) on this site.  The Navy blue just does not say "LA" too me.  

[guest23]

1 hour ago, TJSC said:

Probably to clear inventory on St. Louis gear, which is actually a smart marketing decision.

 

I'm sorry this statement just does not make sense. At this point anything with stl branding will have to be sold at a steep discount/liquidated as there's little value left . Smart marketing 101 would dictate that you promote the relocation to LA first and foremost and smarter marketing would dictate that you adopt the legacy color scheme as the new fan base has overwhelmingly embraced it. Lastly, inventory clearance is never the responsibility of the marketing dept (they are all about the next/new thing), that task is left to finance and ops folks to sort out.

[dont care]

2 minutes ago, guest23 said:

 

I'm sorry this statement just does not make sense. At this point anything with stl branding will have to be sold at a steep discount/liquidated as there's little value left . Smart marketing 101 would dictate that you promote the relocation to LA first and foremost and smarter marketing would dictate that you adopt the legacy color scheme as the new fan base has overwhelmingly embraced it. Lastly, inventory clearance is never the responsibility of the marketing dept (they are all about the next/new thing), that task is left to finance and ops folks to sort out.

There is still plenty of stuff from the St. Louis days that don't have "St. Louis" on the actual merchandise, like the current jerseys so they can sell those down to get the desired result.

[TJSC]

Full body view:

[BlackBolt3]

Ohhhhhh... that's unfortunate.

[The_Admiral]

6 hours ago, Gothamite said:

There is a certain symmetry to introducing new uniforms with a new park. I understand that. If they can't change upon moving, and have to wear the ugly St. Louis uniforms in LA at all, might as well hold the new ones for the massive event of their own stadium. 

 

I'd agree if this were a one-year deal, but I can't do three more years of ugly St. Louis holdovers. They need to admit their error and get back into classic colors for next season. Opening the new stadium will be impressive enough on its own without new uniforms.

[WSU151]

6 hours ago, TJSC said:

Probably to clear inventory on St. Louis gear, which is actually a smart marketing decision.

 

 

5 hours ago, dont care said:

There is still plenty of stuff from the St. Louis days that don't have "St. Louis" on the actual merchandise, like the current jerseys so they can sell those down to get the desired result.

 

Yeah I don't think that's the reason.  I don't think Nike has 3 years worth of navy and gold Rams inventory to clear.  

[TJSC]

Confusing marketing is confusing. What colors are they using?

 

[Sykotyk]

For a league that prides themselves on stream-lined efficiency and 'image'... the NFL has done a bang-up job screwing up something as simple as 'giving the people what they want'.

 

When you make it too obvious you're trying to double-dip by using the craptastic uniforms now and newer ones in three years that will put these ones into some quasi-sentimental place in the hearts and minds of the populace (if that).... then it stops being a 'rules are rules' decisions and simply 'these idiots will pay for jerseys twice!'.

 

Great taste to leave in their mouths.