2024 NFL Changes

[rfraser85]

3 hours ago, Old School Fool said:

 

This is why I sort of roll my eyes at some of the posts around here when people get mad at what the fans want. I know that "Icy" and "Fire" are played out descriptions but the younger folks love the new uniform stuff going around and youth demographic is what drives sports no matter what. I can think a design is trash but I'm not gonna get too upset at teams for trying to tap into getting more eyes and sales on them and I'm certainly not gonna be mad at another fan for having a taste that isn't mine because they're younger minded than I am. I'm 33 but even I'm falling out of what's "cool" these days and I hate it but it is what it is. 

That’s why I try to find positives with new uniforms. If people weren’t complaining about new fashion trends, they would complain about everyone using one template. I just wish the opinions of other age groups (I’m late thirties) weren’t just dismissed as “old and outdated”. 

[Silver_Star]

Two people do not have any imagination.

Imagine purple helmets with black jerseys! Those look so, SWWWEEETTT!!!

[rfraser85]

At this point teams likely won’t be releasing new uniform elements. I wonder if any new combinations of existing uniforms will debut this season. One I’d like to see for the Seahawks is navy/green/green/navy. I feel like that would be the best look with the green jersey given what the Seahawks currently have.

[PrimalCookie]

7 hours ago, GFB said:

People shouldn’t be embarrassed to love a uniform from their youth that was marketed directly for them. For the culture and trends of the time, the Madden 04 Falcons uniforms were as cool as and well-designed.

 

Unfortunately, templates were updated and shoehorning the design onto different uniform cuts became awkward, excessive piping went out of style, the uniform stuck around too long when the team started to get less-adventurous with the combinations in the Ryan years. 

 

Whether you grew up in the softball baseball looks from the 70s or 80s, the 90s NBA or NHL looks, or piping messes of the 00s… you were the target demographic! You should like them.

I joined this board as an 11 year old in 2016*, and if you think I wasn't defending the Nikefied Bucs, Jags, Browns, and more (usually with the phrase "if you just ignore [insert one egregiously bad thing, like alarm clock numbers or two tone helmets] it's actually a solid look..." you would be sorely mistaken. Hell, I still think those sets could've been salvaged, and that from the neck down that was the best the Jags have ever looked. Since then my taste has gotten a bit more traditional (probably a consequence of being on here lol), but I'll still argue hard in favor of the 2018-23 Jets or the modern Dolphins, for instance.

 

*shoot, did I just admit to breaking the rules? Surely the statute of limitations is up on that 

[SportsFan12]

On 6/29/2024 at 8:25 PM, FiddySicks said:

Titans original look but in reverse. They used to wear the white pants only with the navy jersey, and the navy pants with the white jersey. Then they added the powder blue jersey, then pants, then started pairing them all over the place. Ruined the look imo. 

I feel like the Titans' brand was never really good enough to be ruined. The light blue jerseys/pants added some life to that set if anything. The only thing made worse by the mixing and matching was when they started pairing the navy pants with the navy jersey.

 

 

^This was a solid look though. Never cared for the reverse (white over navy). Columbia pants worked way better with the white jerseys.

 

 

[SportsFan12]

On 6/29/2024 at 3:01 PM, Ark said:

I do like this color combo, as well as black pants on the road. But the piping is definitely ugly. Back in the Standard Definition era it was easier to ignore the piping

 

 

 

This color combo is why I was okay with the now-retired gradient uniform. The Falcons used to be a black and red team and are now a 90% black 10% red team. I also miss the red jersey numbers on the white jerseys like this set had.

[WSU151]

These unis continue to look awful. Helmet needs better stripes, jerseys need shoulder numbers, socks need stripes.  They chased a bunch of collegiate trends and none of it looks good.

 

 

[Ark]

1 hour ago, SportsFan12 said:

This color combo is why I was okay with the now-retired gradient uniform. The Falcons used to be a black and red team and are now a 90% black 10% red team. I also miss the red jersey numbers on the white jerseys like this set had.

 

They used to be a silver team as well which I really miss.

[MCM0313]

13 minutes ago, Ark said:

 

They used to be a silver team as well which I really miss.

SAME. They used to be black, red, silver, white. Now they’re black and white with red accents and a chrome facemask. 

[Carolingian Steamroller]

1 hour ago, SportsFan12 said:

This color combo is why I was okay with the now-retired gradient uniform. The Falcons used to be a black and red team and are now a 90% black 10% red team. I also miss the red jersey numbers on the white jerseys like this set had.

 

This goes back to the Falcons red helmets era. The Matt Ryan era uniforms reversed the look from the 70's from red over black to black over red, which maintained much of the color balance while ALSO harkening to the 80's all red look. I don't know if they ever could have pulled off adding silver pants for a black/red/silver/red combo (it might have felt a little too UGA) but it would be something to see.

[PurpleHayes]

Interesting...from PFT. The part I underlined is concerning, which may mean Nike will start rebranding teams far more often...

 

NFL apparel partner Nike is dealing with major financial issues

The NFL had a bad week, losing $14 billion in court. One of its top partners had it worse. By two.

 

On Friday, Nike saw $28 billion in shareholder value disappear, as the stock plummeted by nearly 20 percent in one day. The drop happened after Nike announced that it expects sales to decline in the coming fiscal year.

 

The company’s stock has been steadily dropping since November 2021, from more than $177 per share to $75.65 at closing on Friday.

As noted by CNBC.com it was the worst day for Nike shares since it went public in December 1980.

 

Nike also has laid off two percent of its workforce, trimming $2 billion from the payroll.

 

Since 2012, Nike has served as the NFL’s exclusive apparel provider. It’s the only corporate logo that appears on the player uniform, and the company has had a hand in steering pro football toward the umpteen uniform combinations that some college programs have.

 

Currently, Nike is focused on bigger things than how many different helmets, jerseys, and pants can be forced onto a given football franchise. CEO John Donahoe could be out, among other significant changes at the top of the company, which has harmed its bottom line by focusing too much on established brands, not coming up with new styles, and pissing off retail partners by selling directly to consumers — which in turn opened shelf space for competitors.

 

Nike’s deal with the NFL runs through 2028. By then, the NFL might avoid its $14 billion loss via future court rulings. Whether Nike turns it around remains to be seen.

[rfraser85]

3 minutes ago, PurpleHayes said:

Interesting...from PFT. The part I underlined is concerning, which may mean Nike will start rebranding teams far more often...

 

NFL apparel partner Nike is dealing with major financial issues

The NFL had a bad week, losing $14 billion in court. One of its top partners had it worse. By two.

 

On Friday, Nike saw $28 billion in shareholder value disappear, as the stock plummeted by nearly 20 percent in one day. The drop happened after Nike announced that it expects sales to decline in the coming fiscal year.

 

The company’s stock has been steadily dropping since November 2021, from more than $177 per share to $75.65 at closing on Friday.

As noted by CNBC.com it was the worst day for Nike shares since it went public in December 1980.

 

Nike also has laid off two percent of its workforce, trimming $2 billion from the payroll.

 

Since 2012, Nike has served as the NFL’s exclusive apparel provider. It’s the only corporate logo that appears on the player uniform, and the company has had a hand in steering pro football toward the umpteen uniform combinations that some college programs have.

 

Currently, Nike is focused on bigger things than how many different helmets, jerseys, and pants can be forced onto a given football franchise. CEO John Donahoe could be out, among other significant changes at the top of the company, which has harmed its bottom line by focusing too much on established brands, not coming up with new styles, and pissing off retail partners by selling directly to consumers — which in turn opened shelf space for competitors.

 

Nike’s deal with the NFL runs through 2028. By then, the NFL might avoid its $14 billion loss via future court rulings. Whether Nike turns it around remains to be seen.

 

That is interesting, but it doesn't necessarily mean new styles for NFL jerseys. The issue with Nike could be that it's not coming up with new styles for its original clothing lines. MLB, the NFL, and especially the NBA have seen enough new uniforms that I don't think the author meant new styles for pro sports teams.

 

Out of the three items listed as damaging the bottom line, the retail partners would be the most damaging to me. Online sales may be more cost-effective, but Nike is still selling a physical product, which is more conveniently purchased at a physical location.

[jerrylawless3]

37 minutes ago, PurpleHayes said:

Nike also has laid off two percent of its workforce, trimming $2 billion from the payroll.

How big is their workforce that 2% of it accounts for $2,000,000,000?

[GFB]

18 hours ago, PrimalCookie said:

I joined this board as an 11 year old in 2016*, and if you think I wasn't defending the Nikefied Bucs, Jags, Browns, and more (usually with the phrase "if you just ignore [insert one egregiously bad thing, like alarm clock numbers or two tone helmets] it's actually a solid look..." you would be sorely mistaken. Hell, I still think those sets could've been salvaged, and that from the neck down that was the best the Jags have ever looked. Since then my taste has gotten a bit more traditional (probably a consequence of being on here lol), but I'll still argue hard in favor of the 2018-23 Jets or the modern Dolphins, for instance.

 

*shoot, did I just admit to breaking the rules? Surely the statute of limitations is up on that 

 

Taste maturing is a very normal thing... few people have good sensibilities about anything when they're a teen and I'll always be jealous of the cool ones that do. 

 

It's also important to make the distinction that I think uniforms like the Bengals, Cardinals or Falcons were fairly well-designed compared to some of its other Reebok contemporaries at the time and that's why their shelf lives were much longer than:

 

 

 

I would compare it to how the mid-90s Timberwolves, Sonics, or Pistons are beloved for what they were and – looking back – had some good design work attached to them... Not always the best iconic look for their respective franchises, but it's cool and you see the appeal in hindsight.  But with 90s designs like the Hawks or Rockets, maybe those would be more purely nostalgia-driven more of trends-for-trends sake.

[aawagner011]

Regarding Nike, I’ve wondered if it could be harmful to their brand to hold the rights to the big 3 American sports. They are paying big bucks all at the same time to the NFL, NBA, and MLB. I don’t remember a time when a single brand held rights to all three at once. That’s a lot of capital tied up in licensing rights. We have seen how it can lead to financial problems for other companies. Under Armour forfeited the MLB deal, which is how Nike came to acquire it. They also dumped a ton of collegiate sponsorships. If any company could pull off all 3 at one time, Nike is the brand, but I could see how it could put a strain on them.

[raz]

Drop the lowest-selling one and sign up colleges again. 

[MCM0313]

3 hours ago, GFB said:

 

Taste maturing is a very normal thing... few people have good sensibilities about anything when they're a teen and I'll always be jealous of the cool ones that do. 

 

It's also important to make the distinction that I think uniforms like the Bengals, Cardinals or Falcons were fairly well-designed compared to some of its other Reebok contemporaries at the time and that's why their shelf lives were much longer than:

 

 

 

I would compare it to how the mid-90s Timberwolves, Sonics, or Pistons are beloved for what they were and – looking back – had some good design work attached to them... Not always the best iconic look for their respective franchises, but it's cool and you see the appeal in hindsight.  But with 90s designs like the Hawks or Rockets, maybe those would be more purely nostalgia-driven more of trends-for-trends sake.

I would say every NBA uniform you mentioned is better than every 2002-05 NFL redesign. MAYBE you could make a case for, say, the Rockets (worst of that NBA batch) to be on the same level as the Falcons (best of that NFL batch). Maybe. 

[BroncoBilly]

10 hours ago, WSU151 said:

These unis continue to look awful. Helmet needs better stripes, jerseys need shoulder numbers, socks need stripes.  They chased a bunch of collegiate trends and none of it looks good.

 

 

And you're using a picture of a lineman to prove your point? Lol.  It's hard to pull off a good look with any uniform as a lineman. The Broncos new uniforms have some elements that I would have liked to seen done differently, but overall, I think they're very solid.

[PurpleHayes]

Jets logo creator sues team, seeks payment for use of design

When the Jets unveiled their redesigned uniforms with a throwback logo in April, they recognized former employe Jim Pons, who designed the logo that has been brought back this year. Now Pons is saying the Jets need to pay up for using his design.

 

Pons designed the logo, which features an airplane design attached to the capital J in JETS, in 1978, when he worked as the team’s film and video director. The team used the logo for 20 years and is now bringing it back, but Pons has filed a lawsuit seeking unspecified damages, the cancelation of the Jets’ trademark of his logo and a ruling that the Jets can’t use the logo without his consent and compensation, according to TMZ.com.

 

The Jets say the logo is theirs and Pons has no claim to it.

 

“We are aware of the complaint,” the Jets said in a statement to the New York Post. “The mark in question has been registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office for nearly 50 years. The mark has been used continuously in numerous iterations since that time. We find this claim baseless and without merit.”

 

When the Jets announced this offseason that the logo was coming back, Pons was excited, telling the team’s website, “I had no idea they were even thinking about it, nor did I know that it was that popular with the Jets fans. They told me the fans demanded we go back to the old logo, to my logo. So really, that’s wonderful. I’m very happy about that, very proud of that.”

[WSU151]

9 hours ago, BroncoBilly said:

And you're using a picture of a lineman to prove your point? Lol.  It's hard to pull off a good look with any uniform as a lineman. The Broncos new uniforms have some elements that I would have liked to seen done differently, but overall, I think they're very solid.

 

This looks better than the new uniforms. TV numbers, contrasting pants, a stripe that goes to the front of the helmet, and non-white socks make a huge difference. No one has been able to explain why the new helmet stripe is on the back 40% of the helmet.