Cleveland Indians become the Cleveland Guardians

[infrared41]

1 hour ago, gosioux76 said:

But — and this is a serious question — are there really that many cases where a team's look is directly associated with failure?

 

 

IMO, no. Of all the arguments in favor or against a uniform on these here boards, the "they wore these when they were bad/good" argument is about the silliest. For example, the Browns could have won 5 straight Super Bowls in their previous set and I still would have thought it was one of the worst looks in the league. Winning wouldn't have changed a thing about those awful uniforms. Moving to baseball, the Dodgers could lose 100 games a season for the next 10 years and they'd still have one of the best looks in all of sports. The only thing that should matter with a uniform is whether or not it looks good. Period. You know what people associate with winning or losing? Winning or losing.

[The_Admiral]

I think a winning/losing legacy can swing middle-of-the-pack uniforms one way or the other, but has no effect on the extremes. Case in point, the Patriots, whose 2000-2019 uniforms were never great in and of themselves, but the run they had in them makes me look more favorably upon them such that their more traditional uniforms now look like a clear downgrade. Conversely, the mid-'90s Brewers had uniforms that were not the best but not without merit, but the team's incompetence of that era stains them to the point that there's no real appetite for any throwbacks to that stuff outside of completists and contrarians. 

[Ridleylash]

If it looks really friggin' nice and would replace a set that is just worse than it, it's an aesthetic improvement and that's all I care about. I want teams to look their best aesthetically, not just cling to a look for too long because "we won in it" or dump a perfectly-fine look because "we lost in it".

 

Hell, most expansion teams in any sport start off as being bad and have to build up. Stuff like the Golden Knights being Cup Finalists in their first season are historically notable for a reason. A design can fail or succeed independently of team record, and I'd rather a team look their best instead of ignoring stuff that's just so much better because "we sucked then". Well, you don't suck now, so you can redefine that look's legacy! It's a perfect chance to redefine something as opposed to reinforcing the narrative.

 

Should any team stop striving for change and evolution of their brands just because they win in a certain look? Because if that was the case, sports designers would see a pretty strong drop in jobs from the major leagues, and sports branding would start to stagnate.

 

The Wings, Hawks, Rangers and such of the world have worn their uniforms through dark, dark periods in franchise history and nobody clamors for those uniforms to be dumped because they're all iconic uniforms. Rangers fans literally rebelled against a uniform change that was more minor than a simple text swap on the front, and even that has it's detractors.

[infrared41]

20 minutes ago, the admiral said:

Case in point, the Patriots, whose 2000-2019 uniforms were never great

 

That set will always be my idea of what a committee meeting would look like if it were a football uniform - good ideas ruined by too many people having input.

[gosioux76]

2 minutes ago, infrared41 said:

 

That set will always be my idea of what a committee meeting would look like if it were a football uniform - good ideas ruined by too many people having input.

I agree that they weren't necessarily flawless classics. Yet, at the time they seemed so refreshing after the brief Flying-Elvis-on-the-shoulders Patriots uniforms that preceded them. It's certainly a design that benefited from replacing something worse. 

[infrared41]

1 minute ago, gosioux76 said:

I agree that they weren't necessarily flawless classics. Yet, at the time they seemed so refreshing after the brief Flying-Elvis-on-the-shoulders Patriots uniforms that preceded them. It's certainly a design that benefited from replacing something worse. 

 

It was a few unnecessary elements away from being a very solid look. It wasn't terrible, there was just too much going on with it.

[The_Admiral]

The side panels and/or the silver shoulder hoops had to go. 

[CS85]

Welp, this was about the Cleveland *Indians.

[infrared41]

It will drift back to the Clevelands at some point.

[AstroCree]

This will probably go the way of the Washington thread if we don't get any news soon. 

[infrared41]

4 minutes ago, insert name said:

This will probably go the way of the Washington thread if we don't get any news soon. 

 

There isn't going to be any news for at least a year.

[DEAD!]

1 hour ago, infrared41 said:

 

IMO, no. Of all the arguments in favor or against a uniform on these here boards, the "they wore these when they were bad/good" argument is about the silliest. For example, the Browns could have won 5 straight Super Bowls in their previous set and I still would have thought it was one of the worst looks in the league. Winning wouldn't have changed a thing about those awful uniforms. Moving to baseball, the Dodgers could lose 100 games a season for the next 10 years and they'd still have one of the best looks in all of sports. The only thing that should matter with a uniform is whether or not it looks good. Period. You know what people associate with winning or losing? Winning or losing.

 

I raised the question about the Denver Broncos about whether they would have won their three Super Bowls with the orange crush jerseys. Chances are, they probably would have.

I do think, however for those of us that are old enough, that we forget about the "perception" of the Denver Broncos before the redesign. It WAS more known for this:

 

 

Aesthetically, they look better then than now, but sometimes, it's not always about what looks better. I mean, there are so many teams with classic looks that have had really bad years. 

 

[infrared41]

11 minutes ago, DEAD! said:

it's not always about what looks better.

 

Yes it is. 

[DEAD!]

2 minutes ago, infrared41 said:

 

Yes it is. 

No it's not... 

[SFGiants58]

22 minutes ago, infrared41 said:

 

There isn't going to be any news for at least a year.

There’ll be flair-ups during the season, undoubtedly. Heck, if the team starts wearing their navy jersey (the “Cleveland” jersey) for every home game, we’ll know something is very up.

[-Akronite-]

2 hours ago, infrared41 said:

 

IMO, no. Of all the arguments in favor or against a uniform on these here boards, the "they wore these when they were bad/good" argument is about the silliest. For example, the Browns could have won 5 straight Super Bowls in their previous set and I still would have thought it was one of the worst looks in the league. Winning wouldn't have changed a thing about those awful uniforms. Moving to baseball, the Dodgers could lose 100 games a season for the next 10 years and they'd still have one of the best looks in all of sports. The only thing that should matter with a uniform is whether or not it looks good. Period. You know what people associate with winning or losing? Winning or losing.

 

I agree the "they wore them when they were bad" argument is absolutely stupid as it prioritizes superstition over aesthetic. It presumes that teams can't become good later in the same look, or that a new uniform will have any effect on whether the team succeeds in the future.

 

"They wore it when they were good," while not a strong argument, is at least rooted in the nostalgia and positive associations that are necessary in good sports branding. Harkening to glory days has its place, but it can't be ahead of sound design.

[infrared41]

18 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

There’ll be flair-ups during the season, undoubtedly. Heck, if the team starts wearing their navy jersey (the “Cleveland” jersey) for every home game, we’ll know something is very up.

 

Announcing the name change was a pretty good indication that something is already up. Wearing the Cleveland jerseys seems like it would be natural step in the process. How would wearing those jerseys indicate anything more than that?

[infrared41]

33 minutes ago, DEAD! said:

No it's not... 

 

OK, what else is it about?

[DEAD!]

11 minutes ago, infrared41 said:

 

OK, what else is it about?

 I'm just playing along.... 

[Digby]

7 hours ago, infrared41 said:

 

IMO, no. Of all the arguments in favor or against a uniform on these here boards, the "they wore these when they were bad/good" argument is about the silliest. For example, the Browns could have won 5 straight Super Bowls in their previous set and I still would have thought it was one of the worst looks in the league. Winning wouldn't have changed a thing about those awful uniforms. Moving to baseball, the Dodgers could lose 100 games a season for the next 10 years and they'd still have one of the best looks in all of sports. The only thing that should matter with a uniform is whether or not it looks good. Period. You know what people associate with winning or losing? Winning or losing.

 

Oh boy. Hard disagree. Does Bucco Bruce have that reputation just because that many people hate creamsicles? What is the difference between brutally-dated 1995 Patriots and brutally-dated 2001 Patriots? Why are brand changes so often hitched to big personnel shifts or new stadia or city moves? Who decides what "looks good" means, and what happens when reasonable people disagree on it?