2024 NFL Changes

[BBTV]

2 hours ago, dont care said:

The swoosh is above the horn, not in it

 

That's literally my point.  The horn curves up, creating a perfect semi-framed space for the swoosh to live, making it essentially a logo.  If you change the swoosh to some other company's logo, it changes the look of the jersey in a way that's much bigger than way back in the day when sleeve advertisers switched between Russell, Puma, Wilson, et al, and their patches were just placed any old place.

 

Basically a reverse of this

 

The swoosh is framed, and looks like it's a team logo.

 

Worst offender:

[WSU151]

I have never confused a Nike swoosh for a team logo but ymmv

[SFGiants58]

The new Texans road kit is a lateral move from their previous set, I’d argue. The font is goofier, but not that crazy and the navy numbers are a bit much. I’ll have to see the whole set for better judgement.

[dont care]

1 hour ago, BBTV said:

 

That's literally my point.  The horn curves up, creating a perfect semi-framed space for the swoosh to live, making it essentially a logo.  If you change the swoosh to some other company's logo, it changes the look of the jersey in a way that's much bigger than way back in the day when sleeve advertisers switched between Russell, Puma, Wilson, et al, and their patches were just placed any old place.

 

Basically a reverse of this

 

The swoosh is framed, and looks like it's a team logo.

 

Worst offender:

Don’t know how putting a logo in a blank space is “framing” the logo when it isn’t being bordered by anything else but ok. They put it where every other manufacturer has put their logo as dictated by the NFL

[oldschoolvikings]

2 hours ago, BBTV said:

 

That's literally my point.  The horn curves up, creating a perfect semi-framed space for the swoosh to live, making it essentially a logo.  If you change the swoosh to some other company's logo, it changes the look of the jersey in a way that's much bigger than way back in the day when sleeve advertisers switched between Russell, Puma, Wilson, et al, and their patches were just placed any old place.

 

Basically a reverse of this

 

The swoosh is framed, and looks like it's a team logo.

 

Worst offender:

 

42 minutes ago, dont care said:

Don’t know how putting a logo in a blank space is “framing” the logo when it isn’t being bordered by anything else but ok. They put it where every other manufacturer has put their logo as dictated by the NFL

 
I think a few of us have made this point before and IMO it’s valid.  The Vikings curved stripe creates a small open space that sort of “cups” the swoosh.  You either see it or you don’t but I don’t think it’s a crazy stretch.  
 

And if you don’t think the Seahawks sleeve is specifically designed to showcase the Nike logo, I don’t know what to tell you. 

[MCM0313]

2 hours ago, chriscj1983 said:

 

I want to be extremely clear that if these shoulder horns extend across the back of these jerseys, it will be the exact opposite of 'cool'.

Eh. It would’ve worked better for the Jets than on these Texans jerseys. The horns are too curvy to look good being straight in the back. 
 

With NYJ, think of a white NOB box with black text on the green jersey, green with white text on the white jersey, white with green text on the black jersey (I know the actual black jerseys had green stripes but white would work better). It would also help if the sleeve (and pant) stripes had a thin outline in the color of the NOB text. 
 

Just kind of where my own mind went almost immediately after they unveiled those. Wouldn’t likely have been as good as what they will soon be wearing, though. 

[Brave-Bird 08]

It's just not doing it for me. I mean, it's fine. White "socks" and navy numbers just makes what used to be a vibrant, beautifully color-blocked modern classic road uniform something that is now drab in comparison. 

 

Bull horn motif > generic sleeve "slash" is a plus change 

 

Every other change is lateral to a minus change for me. 

 

Net meh.

[gosioux76]

58 minutes ago, dont care said:

Don’t know how putting a logo in a blank space is “framing” the logo when it isn’t being bordered by anything else but ok. They put it where every other manufacturer has put their logo as dictated by the NFL

 

That Seahawks example is a perfect illustration of a design element that serves no other purpose than to allow the Swoosh to stand out more than it would otherwise. 

 

It's worse, in my opinion, to have the logo be front-and-center on the chest, like it is with most college programs. But it's hard to deny that Nike has used the opportunity to create designs on the shortened sleeve caps that allow the Swoosh stand out even more. That's why you see it applied in contrasting team colors rather than sticking to an otherwise innocuous white logo. 

 

In a perfect world, the manufacturer's mark should be visible, but not an attraction unto itself. It's like a photo credit in a publication. But in these cases, it isn't so much an additional team logo, as @BBTV suggest, as it is a forced design element. The intent is clear -- to make the Nike logo a part of the design rather than a functional addendum to it. 

[damnyoutuesday]

2 hours ago, BBTV said:

 

That's literally my point.  The horn curves up, creating a perfect semi-framed space for the swoosh to live, making it essentially a logo.  If you change the swoosh to some other company's logo, it changes the look of the jersey in a way that's much bigger than way back in the day when sleeve advertisers switched between Russell, Puma, Wilson, et al, and their patches were just placed any old place.

 

Basically a reverse of this

 

The swoosh is framed, and looks like it's a team logo.

 

Worst offender:

I'd argue the Steelers moving their entire striping pattern down to accommodate the manufacturer logo is a worse offender than the Vikings

[dont care]

25 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

 
I think a few of us have made this point before and IMO it’s valid.  The Vikings curved stripe creates a small open space that sort of “cups” the swoosh.  You either see it or you don’t but I don’t think it’s a crazy stretch.  
 

And if you don’t think the Seahawks sleeve is specifically designed to showcase the Nike logo, I don’t know what to tell you. 

 

7 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

 

That Seahawks example is a perfect illustration of a design element that serves no other purpose than to allow the Swoosh to stand out more than it would otherwise. 

 

It's worse, in my opinion, to have the logo be front-and-center on the chest, like it is with most college programs. But it's hard to deny that Nike has used the opportunity to create designs on the shortened sleeve caps that allow the Swoosh stand out even more. That's why you see it applied in contrasting team colors rather than sticking to an otherwise innocuous white logo. 

 

In a perfect world, the manufacturer's mark should be visible, but not an attraction unto itself. It's like a photo credit in a publication. But in these cases, it isn't so much an additional team logo, as @BBTV suggest, as it is a forced design element. The intent is clear -- to make the Nike logo a part of the design rather than a functional addendum to it. 

did I say anything about the Seahawks? Clearly that was used to display the Nike logo. I don’t see it with the other examples, where there is no design element 3 inches in any direction of the logos. 

 

[HOOVER]

16 minutes ago, Brave-Bird 08 said:

It's just not doing it for me. I mean, it's fine. White "socks" and navy numbers just makes what used to be a vibrant, beautifully color-blocked modern classic road uniform something that is now drab in comparison. 

 

Bull horn motif > generic sleeve "slash" is a plus change 

 

Every other change is lateral to a minus change for me. 

 

Net meh.

Using "vibrant" and "Houston Texans uniforms" in the same conversation is a Texas-sized stretch.

[HOOVER]

5 hours ago, CS85 said:

 

 

 

 

1000000% agree with the Red facemask, but those socks are too much.  Save those for the Battle Red alt.

P.S.  Outstanding Photoshop work by designedbyfranco

[McCall]

1 minute ago, HOOVER said:

 

They literally wore red socks with the navy pants from the beginning of their existence. And looks light years better.

[gosioux76]

5 minutes ago, dont care said:

 

did I say anything about the Seahawks? Clearly that was used to display the Nike logo. I don’t see it with the other examples, where there is no design element 3 inches in any direction of the logos. 

 

I guess we all misread your post disputing the idea of creating space to "frame" a sponsor logo, in response an original post that used the Seahawks as one of the examples. 

 

My bad. 

[MrAstrodome]

17 minutes ago, MNtwins3 said:

I'd argue the Steelers moving their entire striping pattern down to accommodate the manufacturer logo is a worse offender than the Vikings

 

Or the Niners going from three strips to two. 

 

13 minutes ago, HOOVER said:

Using "vibrant" and "Houston Texans uniforms" in the same conversation is a Texas-sized stretch.

 

It was vibrant as it could be during the Toughening. I remember when the original got unveiled, my eyes lingered on the away way more then it did on the navy homes. 

 

10 minutes ago, McCall said:

They literally wore red socks with the navy pants from the beginning of their existence. And looks light years better.

 

Look at that combo. The red POPPED on there. And the all-white  version with the navy socks weren't to shabby either.

 

 

And Battle Red. There's a reason why I want them to the primary.

 

[gothedistance]

20 minutes ago, MrAstrodome said:

 

Or the Niners going from three strips to two. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And now they're back at three 

 

 

[oldschoolvikings]

40 minutes ago, dont care said:

 

I don’t see it with the other examples, where there is no design element 3 inches in any direction of the logos. 

 

 

 

Three inches?

 

[HOOVER]

1 hour ago, McCall said:

They literally wore red socks with the navy pants from the beginning of their existence. And looks light years better.

Yes, and they tied in with the Red numbers.  
 

No Red numbers, no Red socks.

 

Too unbalanced.

[dont care]

28 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

 

Three inches?

 

I exaggerated a little but regardless it’s no closer than any other stripe on a jersey and has been the standard for roughly 30 years. Y’all are trying to see something that simply isn’t there.

[BBTV]

1 hour ago, gosioux76 said:

to make the Nike logo a part of the design rather than a functional addendum to it. 

 

That's probably better wording than what I said. Nobody noticed if in the early '90s, Reggie White's Eagle sjersey was Russell, Randall's was Wilson, and then they mixed russell, Starter, and Puma in the midnight green era.  They were just logos slapped whereer tehyd' fit.  The jersey was desinged first and foremost to fit the team, and then the ads were tacked on.

 

Now the ads are integraded into the design, so switching them to another one would almost make it a different jersey.  It would be much more noticeable that it's a new logo than if it was just a patch placed wherever.   Titans is kind of another example, where the swoosh is the only red, which inherently makes it a design element, and not just a logo.  

 

I'd love the logo to be over the nameplate, but that doesn't work for obvoius reasons.  Or beloow the numbers on the back, but also, obvious reasons that won't work.  If they must sell ad space to Nike, maybe put it inside the number (towards the bottom) like they do in soccer?  It'd suck, but maybe suck less.