shstpt1 Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 They didn’t like the look because it was the Yankees doing something different, not really the fact that it was a white bill in a game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont care Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 2 hours ago, shstpt1 said: They didn’t like the look because it was the Yankees doing something different, not really the fact that it was a white bill in a game Those on any other team would get the same reaction. White bill caps just look bad in every application. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJD7 Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 I would love to see a team try a white bill or crown for a cap, personally. In fact, if the Yankees didn’t have pinstripes or weren’t so steeped in tradition (I know, that’s a big if), I think navy & white would be a great scheme to employ a white brim or crown. Some teams that come to mind as great candidates for a white brim are the Nationals, Angels, Reds, and White Sox. There are plenty of teams that would look great with a white crown cap, as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstroCree Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 12 hours ago, Old School Fool said: Let's all remember the time the Yankees wore their white brim BP hat in 2013. It was for charity but still, it was very weird and people didn't like the look. and they wore them during away games too. The hatred of those caps were enormous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bosrs1 Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 On 8/5/2021 at 3:32 PM, ManillaToad said: Throwbacks always look so stupid with an advertisement on them lmao Except it's not an ad, it's a mfg's mark. All uniforms have them. Majestic's were just less conspicuous, but they were there too. It's the way of the world now. And it clearly hasn't hurt sales. The Chicago caps are sold out everywhere and the uniforms are going fast. I'd say this is the most popular uniform released by MLB in recent memory. Nostalgia for that movie is very high to say nothing of the era it's meant to replicate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManillaToad Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 1 hour ago, bosrs1 said: Except it's not an ad, it's a mfg's mark. All uniforms have them. Majestic's were just less conspicuous, but they were there too. It's the way of the world now. And it clearly hasn't hurt sales. The Chicago caps are sold out everywhere and the uniforms are going fast. I'd say this is the most popular uniform released by MLB in recent memory. Nostalgia for that movie is very high to say nothing of the era it's meant to replicate. Oh I didn't realize nike makes a lot of money. In that case I'm glad their advertisement is on the front and clashes with every jersey design in the majors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bosrs1 Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 26 minutes ago, ManillaToad said: Oh I didn't realize nike makes a lot of money. In that case I'm glad their advertisement is on the front and clashes with every jersey design in the majors I mean I don't think anyone is happy about it, but it's standard now. MLB was unusual in that the MFG mark wasn't front and center all these years like it's been for some time on NBA, NHL and NFL uniforms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 On 8/7/2021 at 7:23 PM, Anubis2051 said: My only problem with angels in red and gold is its a bit...demonic. I honestly don't even like the red all that much. Angels should be blue... Actually, red has been the conventional color associated with angels for hundreds of years. Seraphim, at least. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManillaToad Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 12 minutes ago, bosrs1 said: I mean I don't think anyone is happy about it, but it's standard now. MLB was unusual in that the MFG mark wasn't front and center all these years like it's been for some time on NBA, NHL and NFL uniforms. Yeah exactly, MLB had it going good then they decided to make all of their designs worse, which is why I made fun of those terrible throwbacks. nike sucks and I will trash them whenever the opportunity presents itself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSU151 Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 13 minutes ago, bosrs1 said: I mean I don't think anyone is happy about it, but it's standard now. MLB was unusual in that the MFG mark wasn't front and center all these years like it's been for some time on NBA, NHL and NFL uniforms. The manufacturer logo has long been on the sleeves of NFL uniforms, like baseball. NHL manufacturer logos have been on the back neck or back hem as long as I can remember. Smart is believing half of what you hear. Genius is knowing which half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 16 minutes ago, bosrs1 said: I mean I don't think anyone is happy about it, but it's standard now. MLB was unusual in that the MFG mark wasn't front and center all these years like it's been for some time on NBA, NHL and NFL uniforms. But it’s not. The manufacturers’ logos are on the sleeves of NFL uniforms, the back of NHL jerseys, and wasn’t anywhere at all on NBA jerseys until just a couple years ago. manudacturer logos on the front of a major-league pro sports jersey is most definitely not standard. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont care Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 28 minutes ago, bosrs1 said: I mean I don't think anyone is happy about it, but it's standard now. MLB was unusual in that the MFG mark wasn't front and center all these years like it's been for some time on NBA, NHL and NFL uniforms. You can call them manufacturers logos but that isn’t the case considering these companies don’t actually make the uniforms. But are instead they are just slapping their ad on them after being contracted through a 3rd party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bosrs1 Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 31 minutes ago, dont care said: You can call them manufacturers logos but that isn’t the case considering these companies don’t actually make the uniforms. But are instead they are just slapping their ad on them after being contracted through a 3rd party. Um, are you suggesting Nike isn't making the MLB uniforms? If they're made by a third party contractor working for Nike, they're made by Nike. Any suggestion otherwise ignores how third party contract work, works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSU151 Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 13 minutes ago, bosrs1 said: Um, are you suggesting Nike isn't making the MLB uniforms? If they're made by a third party contractor working for Nike, they're made by Nike. Any suggestion otherwise ignores how third party contract work, works. The Packers unis were made by Ripon for years and then slapped with a Reebok or Nike logo on them because of the league contract. Everyone knew the Packers unis weren't typical Reebok or Nike unis. Raiders had a similar thing for a long time (but I don't think it was Ripon). Majestic (now owned by Fanatics) made the 2020-21 MLB unis with a Nike logo on them, because of the league contract. Smart is believing half of what you hear. Genius is knowing which half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont care Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 41 minutes ago, bosrs1 said: Um, are you suggesting Nike isn't making the MLB uniforms? If they're made by a third party contractor working for Nike, they're made by Nike. Any suggestion otherwise ignores how third party contract work, works. They aren’t made by Nike/adidas ect. It’s an advertisement nothing more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted August 10, 2021 Share Posted August 10, 2021 5 hours ago, bosrs1 said: Except it's not an ad, it's a mfg's mark. All uniforms have them. Majestic's were just less conspicuous, but they were there too. It's the way of the world now. And it clearly hasn't hurt sales. The Chicago caps are sold out everywhere and the uniforms are going fast. I'd say this is the most popular uniform released by MLB in recent memory. Nostalgia for that movie is very high to say nothing of the era it's meant to replicate. Nike is paying to have their logo on the jerseys. It's an advertisement no matter how anyone tries to spin it. I don't blame them - they're not doing anything different than their predecessors did, other than offer a sweeter deal to MLB to purchase space on the front of the jersey vs the sleeve. "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadSeed84 Posted August 10, 2021 Share Posted August 10, 2021 Nike is the publisher, and that's why their logo goes on the jersey. Its like how video games have a publisher & developer. But only one logo is going to be on the videogame cover. Also, its funny how you guys won't also complain about the new era logo on the side (which looks goofier to me, especially on the whitesox pinstriped hat, also why the hell are they only selling that in the 5950 hat, but the alt hat in every hat model) , or hell the MLB logo on the back, plus in addition to stuff that wouldn't be accurate no matter who made the uniforms (sleeve length). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted August 10, 2021 Share Posted August 10, 2021 2 minutes ago, EddieJ1984 said: Nike is the publisher, and that's why their logo goes on the jersey. Its like how video games have a publisher & developer. But only one logo is going to be on the videogame cover. This is not even close to an apples to apples comparison. 2 minutes ago, EddieJ1984 said: Also, its funny how you guys won't also complain about the new era logo on the side (which looks goofier to me, especially on the whitesox pinstriped hat, also why the hell are they only selling that in the 5950 hat, but the alt hat in every hat model) , or hell the MLB logo on the back, plus in addition to stuff that wouldn't be accurate no matter who made the uniforms (sleeve length). We're not talking about the New Era logo, and there was plenty of complaining about that advertisement too. I'm indifferent to league logos - I can see arguments on both sides for that one - but that's a whole other discussion. "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadSeed84 Posted August 10, 2021 Share Posted August 10, 2021 Well yea, I mean ideally there should be no Nike swoosh on the jersey. But sadly that was MLB's doing since they offered up the front of the jersey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amazinbaseball Posted August 10, 2021 Share Posted August 10, 2021 On 8/9/2021 at 2:56 PM, bosrs1 said: Except it's not an ad, it's a mfg's mark. All uniforms have them. Majestic's were just less conspicuous, but they were there too. It's the way of the world now. And it clearly hasn't hurt sales. The Chicago caps are sold out everywhere and the uniforms are going fast. I'd say this is the most popular uniform released by MLB in recent memory. Nostalgia for that movie is very high to say nothing of the era it's meant to replicate. It's an ad. Does every piece of clothing you own have a visible maker's mark? No. Did uniforms prior to the 80's have them? No. The reason Nike, like Majestic, Rawlings, Russel, etc before them, is because it creates exposure for their brand. Nike paid more in their uniform deal to MLB for the right to have their logo more visible on the chest rather than the sleeve. Why would that matter if it was just a simple manufacturer's mark? It's all branding. It's not even fair to say it's a maker's mark on the current Nike uniforms because they're not even the ones making them. Fanatics took over the Majestic factory and is pumping them out for Nike. The uniforms are the same as the Majestic flex base template that existed since the 2016 season (though this will change next season) with a Nike logo slapped on them. The hats shouldn't have company logos on them. The uniforms shouldn't have company logos on them. It might be cynical to say that everything is about money but in sports everything is about money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.