Adidas, get outta here you!

[RichardWitham]

If seeing "god damn" typed on a screen offends you, might I recommend getting off the Internet?

You have the right to be offended by whatever you want, but if we start censoring this board based on the personal religious values of what I am positive is a minority of people on this board, that's taking things way too far.

why not? we've already done that with radio......

Are you insinuating that only a minority of people are offended by "nappy-headed hos"?

yes. because when imus said it, he was BEING PAID to be contrivercial, and was mandated to be given a warning and a second chance as of the terms of his deal he signed just after the new year. he should NOT have been fired, and CBS breached the contract

[Chazberg]

Steering this back on topic, the general consensus is that we're hot and bothered because Adidas (I think their corporate preference is "adidas") slapped their stupid non-flower logo on Gilbert Arenas when it otherwise wouldn't have been there, right?

I'm hoping this isn't a harbinger of things to come. You can't even glance at an NFL uniform without being slapped in the face with Reebok. I'd hate to see Adidas branding actually appear on the NBA uniform next season.

I agree, but I'm pretty sure that what from I usually hear, Stern is pretty adamant about keeping the logos off the uniform. That's one area I admire him. I really wish the NFL would at least downplay the friggin logos, maybe like MLB does, with a smaller one on just one sleeve. Or maybe just have the one pants logo. It's bad enough that the damn thing overwhelmes the team logos on jerseys like Atlanta's and Seattle's, but then you have all the other vectors on gloves, wristbands, sleeves, shoes and all that crap. Not to mention the nonstop commercials. If I were commish, I'd burn the NFL Equipment logo at the stake, go back to the traditional shield and take the logos off the sleeves. And mandate a certain sleeve length, to alleviate issues like Chris Hovan....

[Jezus_Ghoti]

Have we had a legitimate censorship discussion on these boards? (I assume the answer is yes and I just missed it.)

It sucks when people get offended. Of course we should try to minimize that. But, when people who have made their religious beliefs clear many times on these boards (Phil) start changing messages to be in tune with their beliefs, that worries me a little bit. You might even say it offends me (it doesn't, but it could -- I'm just trying to illustrate a point). Luckily Phil is a stand-up dude and has earned the right to moderate.

I'm not gonna bitch and moan about this. Clearly this is not a big deal either way. Frankly, I wouldn't ever put "g_d d_mn" in my own subject title because I don't think it's ever necessary and I like to think that I'm sensitive to the beliefs of others. However, because of my own personal beliefs, I will always fight for the right of others to say whatever they want.

To sum up, I'm just wondering what the exact policy here is regarding censorship. Seems like we could reach a point where something more significant was censored and it opened up a big can of worms.

You have the right to be offended by whatever you want, but if we start censoring this board based on the personal religious values of what I am positive is a minority of people on this board, that's taking things way too far.

I totally agree. Because they're a minority, offending them isn't as big a deal. I mean, if they comprised 51% of the board, then we might have to stop and think about it, but seriously, it's taking things way too far when you start considering the well-being of a minority group. It's not like Old School Fool had other ways to express his thoughts.

I'll just address this quickly: Phil, I appreciate your sarcasm, but you seriously distorted what I said. I'm talking about censorship, not consideration. Of course we should consider the needs/wants/values of minorities. Of course. Censorsing others based on those needs/wants/values is a completely different beast.

[KJTALBOT]

Those evil respected journalists. Putting advertising on products they make that we enjoy and purchase. Oh, wait. What's wrong with that again? Just because some respected journalist Paul Lukas has made it his obsession to cry like a little respected journalist whenever he sees a shoe company logo, you sheep don't need to follow. He made up a clever word, logo creep. OOOhhh. Get over it. Would you rather live back in the 70's and 80's when you couldn't find quality uniforms and hats for most teams? This is America. It's called capitalism and business. Grow up!

Mod Edit: What is it about the logo creep issue that brings out the colourful language?

[Phil]

Have we had a legitimate censorship discussion on these boards? (I assume the answer is yes and I just missed it.)

It sucks when people get offended. Of course we should try to minimize that. But, when people who have made their religious beliefs clear many times on these boards (Phil) start changing messages to be in tune with their beliefs, that worries me a little bit. You might even say it offends me (it doesn't, but it could -- I'm just trying to illustrate a point). Luckily Phil is a stand-up dude and has earned the right to moderate.

I'm not gonna bitch and moan about this. Clearly this is not a big deal either way. Frankly, I wouldn't ever put "g_d d_mn" in my own subject title because I don't think it's ever necessary and I like to think that I'm sensitive to the beliefs of others. However, because of my own personal beliefs, I will always fight for the right of others to say whatever they want.

To sum up, I'm just wondering what the exact policy here is regarding censorship. Seems like we could reach a point where something more significant was censored and it opened up a big can of worms.

You have the right to be offended by whatever you want, but if we start censoring this board based on the personal religious values of what I am positive is a minority of people on this board, that's taking things way too far.

I totally agree. Because they're a minority, offending them isn't as big a deal. I mean, if they comprised 51% of the board, then we might have to stop and think about it, but seriously, it's taking things way too far when you start considering the well-being of a minority group. It's not like Old School Fool had other ways to express his thoughts.

I'll just address this quickly: Phil, I appreciate your sarcasm, but you seriously distorted what I said. I'm talking about censorship, not consideration. Of course we should consider the needs/wants/values of minorities. Of course. Censorsing others based on those needs/wants/values is a completely different beast.

Yes, I did distort your statement somewhat - it's a slippery slope, though, which is the point I was trying to make.

As for the topic title, I changed it on account of the language used, not the sentiment expressed. If someone wants to make a religious statement that is not in line with mine, as long as they're doing so within the right forum and using appropriate language, more power to them.

This topic title failed to fulfilled that second criterion, which is why it was modified. Rest assured, I am not here to force any views of mine on anyone.

[zig]

16+, why? I mean kids play hockey at young ages and you are allowed to check from an early age. I know that many people don't pay attention to ratings but 16+ is ridiculous for hockey.

[LimeGuy]

Adidas is just as bad as Nike when it comes to ruining tradition, milking their brand and whoring themselves out.

Ruining tradition?

The whole concept of tradition is that someone had an idea, it became popular, and turned into a mainstay. The idea that you can't change "tradition" is like saying that any civilization other than ancient Egypt sucks.

That two word statement just bothers me. Badly.

[pcgd]

I think its funny that on a board where we discuss the finer points of sports MARKETING that there is an uproar about the marketing of the company that manufactures the uniforms for the NBA.

Professional sports is a business. It's been that way since an owner owned a team and a player was paid for their services. Its snowballed as the times have gone on and the more money that was to be made, the more people got their hands involved.

I know you guys don't need a history lesson. You understand it?s a business and that everyone is out to make money. The owners, the players, the manufactures, the companies that have advertisements around the court, the companies that name the stadiums. We aren't going to ever go back to the days where the tailor around the corner from the stadium was happy to provide the uniforms for a team for the right to say "Proud sponsor of our local basketball team" in their phone book ads.

Its how it is today. And if you are a marketer or in advertising, you understand and applaud the logo placement. No, it doesn't need to be there, but product placement and logo identity is one of the most important things for an international business. Think the swoosh. Think the Golden Arches. These are two of the most recognizable icons in business and in turn, two of the most successful business in history. They didn't get to be that recognizable because they only put the logo where it belongs.

I respect the NBA for leaving the product logo off the uniform. But isn't it a little hypocritical for them to hold out on the manufacture logo when they throw their own logo onto every piece of clothing from the jersey, to the shorts, to the socks the players wear?

I'm perfectly ok with the advertising for the game and in real life. Sure, the logo was placed there in Photoshop, but lets be honest, he might not have been even wearing that uniform for that particular shot. I don't ever want to see the Swedish hockey league uniforms in an NBA game, but a team color manufacture logo is hardly the end of the world. And its not going to open a can of worms. Considering the smallest of the "Major" professional sports (MLS) is just NOW putting sponsor logos on uniforms front and center in a sport that has used a sponsor logo on the chest for 30 years, tells me that we're a long way from having a Bank One logo on a Chicago Bears jersey.

[powersurge]

I think its funny that on a board where we discuss the finer points of sports MARKETING that there is an uproar about the marketing of the company that manufactures the uniforms for the NBA.

Professional sports is a business. It's been that way since an owner owned a team and a player was paid for their services. Its snowballed as the times have gone on and the more money that was to be made, the more people got their hands involved.

I know you guys don't need a history lesson. You understand it?s a business and that everyone is out to make money. The owners, the players, the manufactures, the companies that have advertisements around the court, the companies that name the stadiums. We aren't going to ever go back to the days where the tailor around the corner from the stadium was happy to provide the uniforms for a team for the right to say "Proud sponsor of our local basketball team" in their phone book ads.

Its how it is today. And if you are a marketer or in advertising, you understand and applaud the logo placement. No, it doesn't need to be there, but product placement and logo identity is one of the most important things for an international business. Think the swoosh. Think the Golden Arches. These are two of the most recognizable icons in business and in turn, two of the most successful business in history. They didn't get to be that recognizable because they only put the logo where it belongs.

I respect the NBA for leaving the product logo off the uniform. But isn't it a little hypocritical for them to hold out on the manufacture logo when they throw their own logo onto every piece of clothing from the jersey, to the shorts, to the socks the players wear?

I'm perfectly ok with the advertising for the game and in real life. Sure, the logo was placed there in Photoshop, but lets be honest, he might not have been even wearing that uniform for that particular shot. I don't ever want to see the Swedish hockey league uniforms in an NBA game, but a team color manufacture logo is hardly the end of the world. And its not going to open a can of worms. Considering the smallest of the "Major" professional sports (MLS) is just NOW putting sponsor logos on uniforms front and center in a sport that has used a sponsor logo on the chest for 30 years, tells me that we're a long way from having a Bank One logo on a Chicago Bears jersey.

very well put.