Los Angeles NFL Brands Discussion

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

22 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

If the Rams had worn white, not only would they have been remaining consistent, but also both teams would have been in their primary uniforms.  

 

15 hours ago, AgentColon2 said:

Weeeeell, not exactly. Giants primary uniform is Blue over white this season. Giants already announced they will wear gray pants for all road games when forced to wear blue jersey.

 

Ah, that's right.  So the Giants would have been wearing a combination that should be their primary uniforms.

[OnWis97]

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/18183812/san-diego-chargers-exercise-team-option-move-los-angeles-2017

 

So it looks likely that the Chargers are going to L.A.  This probably works out nicely from an alignment perspective (West Division; opposite conference of Rams) but assuming this comes to fruition, could either team's look be impacted by the fact that they both have blue/yellow histories?  

 

Could it push the Rams to the (boring and surprisingly well-liked) white and blue?  Push the Chargers to phase Navy all the way out of their identity and focus on powder?  Could either team go way out there and overhaul their colors?

 

I tend to think this improves the chance that the Rams go the Padres route.  Of course, I kinda think they were going to do that anyway.

[MCM0313]

28 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/18183812/san-diego-chargers-exercise-team-option-move-los-angeles-2017

 

So it looks likely that the Chargers are going to L.A.  This probably works out nicely from an alignment perspective (West Division; opposite conference of Rams) but assuming this comes to fruition, could either team's look be impacted by the fact that they both have blue/yellow histories?  

 

Could it push the Rams to the (boring and surprisingly well-liked) white and blue?  Push the Chargers to phase Navy all the way out of their identity and focus on powder?  Could either team go way out there and overhaul their colors?

 

I tend to think this improves the chance that the Rams go the Padres route.  Of course, I kinda think they were going to do that anyway.

Noooooooo! Blue-and-white is boring!

[OnWis97]

7 minutes ago, MCM0313 said:

Noooooooo! Blue-and-white is boring!

I find it interesting that it's fairly popular for the Rams but absolutely hated for the Padres...I suppose it could be because blue is so prevalent in MLB.

[Gothamite]

Yep.  Different sports have different aesthetics.

[hawk36]

1 hour ago, OnWis97 said:

I find it interesting that it's fairly popular for the Rams but absolutely hated for the Padres...I suppose it could be because blue is so prevalent in MLB.

Is it really popular though? I know some like it but don't get the feeling the love for blue/white comes even close to that for royal/yellow in LA. Maybe I'm wrong?

[OnWis97]

1 hour ago, Gothamite said:

Yep.  Different sports have different aesthetics.

Well, as I was typing it I thought of how much I liked the Maple Leafs look (particularly Ballard Leaf, but I digress).  So whatever inconsistency there is, I am guilty as well.

 

32 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

Is it really popular though? I know some like it but don't get the feeling the love for blue/white comes even close to that for royal/yellow in LA. Maybe I'm wrong?

I cannot speak to LA.  But on this board, the white and blue seems popular.  As popular as royal/yellow?  Maybe not.  But certainly not un-popular.

[Waffles]

The Chargers have now been in San Diego for eight years longer than the Browns were in Cleveland before their move to Baltimore - why wouldn't the way that was handled have set a precedent for keeping the Chargers name in San Diego?

[hawk36]

1 minute ago, Waffles said:

The Chargers have now been in San Diego for eight years longer than the Browns were in Cleveland before their move to Baltimore - why wouldn't the way that was handled have set a precedent for keeping the Chargers name in San Diego?

I'd love for that. My only thoughts though are:

 

1. Unlike the Browns, the Chargers were in Los Angles before they were in San Diego so there is a history to the Los Angeles Chargers

2. If the Chargers leave, I don't see another NFL team coming to San Diego for a very, very, long time if ever again.

[Waffles]

2 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

I'd love for that. My only thoughts though are:

 

1. Unlike the Browns, the Chargers were in Los Angles before they were in San Diego so there is a history to the Los Angeles Chargers

2. If the Chargers leave, I don't see another NFL team coming to San Diego for a very, very, long time if ever again.

 

Good point on their L.A. roots (I accidentally omitted that), but I don't think decades of connection to San Diego can be cancelled out by one year of Los Angeles Chargers history.

 

And on your second point, should a city's "ownership" of the name/identity should be contingent on their attractiveness as a relocation/expansion candidate? If we're going to say a team's colors, logos, history, etc. belong to the fans/community, shouldn't those things belong to them regardless of whether they'll be used again on an NFL field?

 

Besides, now that L.A. is off the market, the owners are going to need a new city to flirt with to extort money from their cities. I can foresee many years of new San Diego stadium renderings from front offices around the league, hopefully with the Chargers logo at midfield.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

1 hour ago, Waffles said:

The Chargers have now been in San Diego for eight years longer than the Browns were in Cleveland before their move to Baltimore - why wouldn't the way that was handled have set a precedent for keeping the Chargers name in San Diego?

 

The unconscionable messing with history by the NFL regarding the Browns was done only to forestall a lawsuit.  While it wasn't intended to be a new precedent, it did unfortunately lead to situations that are just as bad (San Jose Earthquakes; Rochester Rattlers), and situations that are even worse (Charlotte Hornets). 

A new team can take the name of an old team; but this does not necessitate perpetrating the lie that the new team and the old team are part of the same franchise. The Washington Senators and the Winnipeg Jets prove this.  

The fact that people don't understand that changing the fact of history to suit one's preferences is a very, very bad thing to do really saddens me.  I know that I get too worked up about this; but every mention of the Cleveland Browns pisses me off.  The Browns' contribution to the disrespect of history makes that team the most hated in all of sports for me.  

Anyway, as @hawk36 has pointed out, the Chargers originated in Los Angeles.  Another factor is that Los Angeles and San Diego are basically in the same neighbourhood, being only a little farther apart than New York and Philadelphia.  Though, to be fair, when one considers the perception of distances in the West as opposed to the East, L.A. and San Diego are more comparable to cities as close to one another as Washington and Baltimore.

So, for all these reasons, there is no justification for even thinking about doing any spitting in the eye of history in this case.

[hawk36]

I wonder if they'd consider being the California Chargers when they move since it's been pretty clear that the people of Los Angeles don't want them. May be a way to soften the blow to San Diegans and make them more likely to continue to support the team? California's Team.

[IceCap]

Kind of silly to rebrand a team as "California" now. I don't mean to insult anyone with that, just saying. You have the 49ers, Rams, and Raiders (for the time being, at least). All of whom have more success in-state than the Chargers. 

 

As for leaving the Chargers name in San Diego? I don't see it. The team was founded as the Los Angeles Chargers, and the Chargers have considered Los Angeles as their "secondary market" for years. Moving the Chargers name to Los Angeles isn't even in the same ballpark as moving the Brown name to Baltimore. The Chargers will be the Chargers in LA, and it won't be an issue.

 

EDIT- @Ferdinand Cesarano summing up the history angle perfectly, as always.

[TBGKon]

Would it be a bad thing if the Rams and Chargers shared blue, gold, and white but in different uses?

 

- Chargers blue primary, white secondary, yellow tertiary.  Use the color rush set as inspiration.

- Rams yellow primary (even a yellow home jersey), navy secondary, white tertiary

[IceCap]

9 minutes ago, AstroBull21 said:

Would it be a bad thing if the Rams and Chargers shared blue, gold, and white but in different uses?

 

- Chargers blue primary, white secondary, yellow tertiary.  Use the color rush set as inspiration.

- Rams yellow primary (even a yellow home jersey), navy secondary, white tertiary

I could see the Chargers go powder blue while the Rams eventually go to royal and athletic gold in 2019.

 

Chargers- powder blue, white, athletic gold.

Rams- royal blue, athletic gold, white. 

[DustDevil61]

Maybe it was mandated by The Commissioner himself as part of this "LA Compromise:" "All right Stan, you and your Rams get first dibs on Los Angeles, but the Chargers get to be the blue and yellow team if they move there too!"

[JWhiz96]

46 minutes ago, AstroBull21 said:

Would it be a bad thing if the Rams and Chargers shared blue, gold, and white but in different uses?

 

- Chargers blue primary, white secondary, yellow tertiary.  Use the color rush set as inspiration.

- Rams yellow primary (even a yellow home jersey), navy secondary, white tertiary

Athletic gold as the primary for the Rams is an interesting take. I would love to see a team wear yellow tops consistently in the NFL, as it's a rare sight (I believe the last teams to wear yellow tops were the Packers and/or the aforementioned Rams sometime ago). However, when I (and many others) think of the Rams, I think of them as a blue-first team, whether it be navy or royal. I think royal as the primary is the route the Rams should take, with a yellow alt.

 

I might be in the minority on this one, but I like the Chargers being a navy-first team. I like how they limit the use of powder blue so the look doesn't become stale.

[OnWis97]

2 hours ago, Waffles said:

The Chargers have now been in San Diego for eight years longer than the Browns were in Cleveland before their move to Baltimore - why wouldn't the way that was handled have set a precedent for keeping the Chargers name in San Diego?

That stat absolutely floors me.  It also shows how long ago the Browns moved Baltimore was awarded the expansion Ravens and the Browns decided to take a three-year hiatus (i.e, how old I am since it seems recent).

 

2 hours ago, hawk36 said:

I'd love for that. My only thoughts though are:

 

1. Unlike the Browns, the Chargers were in Los Angles before they were in San Diego so there is a history to the Los Angeles Chargers

2. If the Chargers leave, I don't see another NFL team coming to San Diego for a very, very, long time if ever again.

I think this about covers it.  With #1, people also think, rightly or wrongly, in terms of "state lines" so even history-haters may be OK with keeping the history intact since they are moving within state (I've heard the same argument about the Raiders original move from Jazz/Hornets/Lakers/T-Wolves history swappers).  And the Cleveland Deal included a guarantee that the Browns would be replaced.  So there was no way the history was going to be dormant.  At my most cynical I think you could add a #3: that "Cleveland's a blue collar town that loves its Browns and San Diego's a sunny place where people are "meh" about their Chargers."

 

And as pointed out, the Cleveland Deal was never intended to be a "rule" or "precedent."  It was (playing into my #3) a PR move meant to mitigate the anger that a place like Cleveland was losing an institution like the Browns.  But most importantly, the only thing worse than the Cleveland Deal (besides the Hornets mess) would be to keep a team's history dormant indefinitely, possibly forever.

 

1 hour ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

The fact that people don't understand that changing the fact of history to suit one's preferences is a very, very bad thing to do really saddens me.  I know that I get too worked up about this; but every mention of the Cleveland Browns pisses me off.  The Browns' contribution to the disrespect of history makes that team the most hated in all of sports for me.  

 

 

No.  You get just the right amount of worked up about this.

[hawk36]

1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

Kind of silly to rebrand a team as "California" now. I don't mean to insult anyone with that, just saying. You have the 49ers, Rams, and Raiders (for the time being, at least). All of whom have more success in-state than the Chargers.

Right, I just meant more rebrand as California since:

 

1. Los Angeles is the Rams, first, second, and third. LA Chargers I think would be worse than the old Clippers in terms of being the ugly step child. In fact the Raiders may be even more popular than the Rams in Los Angeles.

2. California would include San Diego whereas Los Angeles wouldn't. So, you keep a connection open to San Diego.

 

Probably wouldn't happen but I think it's worth at least taking a look at if you are the Chargers.

[IceCap]

It's just weird to brand yourself as California's team when there are three other teams in the state. Even if the Raiders move to Las Vegas. The two remaining (49ers and Rams) have deeper roots in the state than the Chargers do. 

 

The Chargers going with "Los Angeles" may not be the best identity given the love affair with the Rams, but that's the card Spanos dealt himself when he sat on the LA market for too long and let the Rams just move in. 

 

Besides, LA loves a winner. If the Chargers can win? LA will embrace them. Doubly if the Rams falter.