Los Angeles NFL Brands Discussion

[hawk36]

But California also includes Baja California so you get the Mexican market

[Gothamite]

1 hour ago, AstroBull21 said:

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

 

 

YES.

 

[beast3]

48 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

YES.

 

 

If the Rams did wear a gold/yellow jersey at home, would the opponent wear a white or colored jersey? 

[hawk36]

23 minutes ago, beast3 said:

 

If the Rams did wear a gold/yellow jersey at home, would the opponent wear a white or colored jersey? 

Great question. In reality I'd say anything except for yellow, red or orange would work vs them but not sure what the NFL rules say.

[Around the Horn]

5 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

Great question. In reality I'd say anything except for yellow, red or orange would work vs them but not sure what the NFL rules say.

Well what does a team like the Heat wear against the Lakers?

[IceCap]

35 minutes ago, beast3 said:

 

If the Rams did wear a gold/yellow jersey at home, would the opponent wear a white or colored jersey? 

 

 

[TheOldRoman]

22 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

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.

 

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.

 

I don't think it's really that popular on this board. I made that mistake a while back, commenting on how there were so many people who inexplicably loved that set. Then, after talking it through with others, we determined that like 99% of the posts in favor of that set were from Infrared.

[IceCap]

On 2016-12-02 at 1:46 PM, OnWis97 said:

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.

 

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.

I don't think it's inconsistency. I think it just comes down to teams existing in their own context. 

The Maple Leafs have been blue and white for ninety-two of their hundred years of existence. That's their look. It works for them. The Lightning, on the other hand, had been black, blue, white, and silver up until relatively recently. People tend to give their current look a hard time not because blue and white looks back, but because it's infringing on the established look of another team. 

 

With the Padres? Navy and white works for the Yankees and Tigers because that's their establish look. The Padres though? They're not as established, and have a history with a unique colour scheme. What works for the Yankees and Tigers seems bland in the Padres' context.

[TheOldRoman]

On ‎12‎/‎3‎/‎2016 at 1:36 PM, Ice_Cap said:

I don't think it's inconsistency. I think it just comes down to teams existing in their own context. 

The Maple Leafs have been blue and white for ninety-two of their hundred years of existence. That's their look. It works for them. The Lightning, on the other hand, had been black, blue, white, and silver up until relatively recently. People tend to give their current look a hard time not because blue and white looks back, but because it's infringing on the established look of another team. 

 

With the Padres? Navy and white works for the Yankees and Tigers because that's their establish look. The Padres though? They're not as established, and have a history with a unique colour scheme. What works for the Yankees and Tigers seems bland in the Padres' context.

 

I agree, and at the risk of being attacked by a mob, I don't particularly care for either the Yankees or Tigers home uniforms. Bother are iconic and should never be changed, but if either were an expansion team starting fresh, I'd consider the designs and the lack of a tertiary color underwhelming.

[oldschoolvikings]

On 12/2/2016 at 6:18 PM, beast3 said:

 

If the Rams did wear a gold/yellow jersey at home, would the opponent wear a white or colored jersey? 

 

 

 

[masterchaoss]

Eh at that point I'd rather stick with blue even if it isn't unique. The main reason I personally like the idea of blue and white is that you get to see all the leagues colors instead of the road team just wearing white.

[Ben in LA]

6 hours ago, masterchaoss said:

Eh at that point I'd rather stick with blue even if it isn't unique. The main reason I personally like the idea of blue and white is that you get to see all the leagues colors instead of the road team just wearing white.

That the EXACT reason why the Rams went that route from 1964-72.

[Matito]

8 hours ago, masterchaoss said:

Eh at that point I'd rather stick with blue even if it isn't unique. The main reason I personally like the idea of blue and white is that you get to see all the leagues colors instead of the road team just wearing white.

In the 60s and 70s, that was important. There was no Internet, color TV wasn't everywhere, and even photography in newspapers and magazines weren't always in color. Fans wouldn't always know what other teams looked like, so it was a treat.

 

Nowadays, we have all those things to the point where there's a national marketing craze over Color Rush. It's hardly comparable, and a team wearing white at home to "show off other teams' colors" is completely unnecessary.

[CreamSoda]

When I used to play drop-in hockey, I hated when a yellow jersey played for the "white" side.   To me, a yellow jersey is plenty dark enough and stands out fine against a white jersey.

[BBTV]

On 12/4/2016 at 11:54 PM, oldschoolvikings said:

 

 

 

 

That looks like garbage. 

 

I do kinda like the uniform though. 

[colortv]

Fred Roggin, who is plugged in with the Rams (He insisted during the whole relocation saga last year that the Rams project was the favored more impressive project and had a sit down interview with Kroenke the day after the Rams were chosen) is reporting that Chargers to LA is almost a done deal, with no plans to rebrand:

 

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Chargers-Move-to-Los-Angeles-Almost-a-Done-Deal-405520466.html

[DustDevil61]

1 hour ago, colortv said:

Fred Roggin, who is plugged in with the Rams (He insisted during the whole relocation saga last year that the Rams project was the favored more impressive project and had a sit down interview with Kroenke the day after the Rams were chosen) is reporting that Chargers to LA is almost a done deal, with no plans to rebrand:

 

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Chargers-Move-to-Los-Angeles-Almost-a-Done-Deal-405520466.html

 

Los Angeles Clippers of Football of Carson

[hawk36]

14 hours ago, colortv said:

Fred Roggin, who is plugged in with the Rams (He insisted during the whole relocation saga last year that the Rams project was the favored more impressive project and had a sit down interview with Kroenke the day after the Rams were chosen) is reporting that Chargers to LA is almost a done deal, with no plans to rebrand:

 

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Chargers-Move-to-Los-Angeles-Almost-a-Done-Deal-405520466.html

[Mitch B]

Could the Rams and the Chargers both switch to royal blue and athletic gold while sharing the same home stadium?

[hawk36]

18 minutes ago, Mitch B said:

Could the Rams and the Chargers both switch to royal blue and athletic gold while sharing the same home stadium?

Just go back to the late 70s early 80s uniforms for both teams.