USMNT to break out thirds against mexico?

[JQK]

I don't quite understand. England uses the three lions from the Coat of Arms of England as a crest, Australia uses its national crest, Spain and Portugal use elements of their national flag, The Netherlands wears orange kits in honor of William of Orange, etc.

Where exactly does the rattlesnake appear in the official crest of the United States of America? It doesn't. Therefore, comparisons to the situations that exist with the branding of the English, Australian, Spanish and Portuguese national teams don't make sense. As for the Dutch national team's use of orange in its kit, I have no problem with the U.S. national team incorporating colors from our flag - red included.

This is our national team, and our crest/identity should be a reflection of symbols bearing a great deal of national pride.

Most Americans have no idea that the rattlesnake was utilized as a symbol of honor during our nation's Revolutionary period, thus raising the issue of whether a significant amount of pride can be invested in a mark that few people know about. Further, said symbol has long since been supplanted by a host of other widely-recognized and accepted images, most notably the bald eagle and stars-and-stripes motifs.

Is your issue the fact that the logo/identity was Nike created? I, myself, would prefer if the crest had come from more "honorable" intentions than making a buck, but it doesn't change the fact that it is an appropriate identity for the US (in my opinion, of course). I wouldn't discount or do away with a logo, simply because it came from Nike.

My issue is that the primary reason Nike chose to utilize the rattlesnake imagery and "Don't Tread On Me" phrase had little - if anything - to do with pride in this comparitively little-known example of our nation's rich Revolutionary heritage. Rather, it was seized upon by Nike because their marketing personnel thought that it would strike consumers as "edgy", "hip" and "rad".

I understand your reasons for disliking the mark. You see it as a Nike corruption of a legitimate American symbol, thinking it was little known, and that they could fool the youngsters into thinking it was a "hip, new, rad" design made just by Nike.

But for those of us that actually know and understand the meaning behind the rattlesnake, it is a great, great mark, and it fits better than what the USMNT uses now as their crest.

[Gothamite]

And that, as I said before, is an education problem. Easily remedied.

[STL FANATIC]

Sometimes these things actually serve as portals for more knowledge.

That was definitely the case with me. I was one of the people that knew nothing of the rattlesnake image until Nike released this campaign.

But after they did, I read up as much as I could on it, and now it's one of my favorite symbols of...anything. I love it. Someday I'd like to get my hands on a Gadsden flag, and should I ever go through with getting a tattoo, the rattlesnake has no made it into my personal crest.

I love everything about the mark and what it represents. Whatever the motives, it's a great design and can serve as a gateway for more knowledge.

You have to remember, that although these corporations seek what will make them money, there's still trained designers behind these designs, and they still think about what types of designs make sense, including the historical background.

[Brian in Boston]

As for the reasons why Nike chose it, I still fail to see the relevance.

The fact that it was adopted for no other reason than to generate corporate profit as part of a merchandising campaign targeting a certain demographic with "edgy", "rad" and "hip" graphics bastardizes the very history behind the symbol and slogan. That's the relevance.

The DTOM crest is better than the miscolored stars and stripes currently in use...

In your opinion. Which is fine. You're welcome to it, just as I am welcome to my opinion that Nike's "Don't Tread On Me" campaign bastardizes the meaning behind the symbol and slogan appropriated.

For what it is worth, I've long advocated a recoloring - at minimum - of the current US Soccer crest, so that it more accurately reflects the flag upon which it is based. That said, I don't think either the current US Soccer crest or Nike's DTOM badge are anything to write home about.

Bottom line? For what it is worth, I'd like to see a team representing this country take the field sporting a unique national team crest on its uniform that was solely designed to symbolize our nation, as opposed to having been designed as part of some athleticwear manufacturer's grand plan to pimp merchandise.

[murtaugh]

Bottom line? For what it is worth, I'd like to see a team representing this country take the field sporting a unique national team crest on its uniform that was solely designed to symbolize our nation, as opposed to having been designed as part of some athleticwear manufacturer's grand plan to pimp merchandise.

Hombre, this is the United States and it's 2009. Nothing is created in professional sports without the input/direction of marketers and athletic manufacturers.

That said, the badge would need some alteration to become the main shirt crest for the US, but the concept is sound and unique, Nike or no. The problem would come if it's too successful, as Nike owns the mark, which could undermine future sponsorship negotiations.

[Gothamite]

As for the reasons why Nike chose it, I still fail to see the relevance.

The fact that it was adopted for no other reason than to generate corporate profit as part of a merchandising campaign targeting a certain demographic with "edgy", "rad" and "hip" graphics bastardizes the very history behind the symbol and slogan. That's the relevance.

"No other reason"? US Soccer didn't appreciate the nod to American history? The designer involved didn't enjoy reviving a cherished symbol? US Soccer didn't say "We need some different national iconography, but let's avoid the tired eagle"? We don't know any of that.

I'm all about the Nike-hate, but that's a hard statement to support. You viewed it as crass merchandising. Fine. Your opinion. But it really doesn't behoove us to speak towards the intent of others.

[Brian in Boston]

I'm all about the Nike-hate, but that's a hard statement to support.

If you honestly believe that the folks at Nike generated the rattlesnake logo and "DTOM" campaign out of the goodness of their hearts, to primarily benefit the USMNT, and to revive a cherished symbol... well, God bless you. You are a more trusting soul than I.

You viewed it as crass merchandising.

Yes... yes, I did. Still do.

Fine.

Thanks for the approval.

Your opinion.

I'm well aware of that. I said as much.

But it really doesn't behoove us to speak towards the intent of others.

How about I determine what behooves me and you determine what behooves you? We're both adults and, speaking for myself, I know that I'm more than capable of policing myself in that regard. Sound like a plan? Terrific.

As for our opinions about the relative merits of Nike's "DTOM" logo as an official badge for the USMNT, we'll have to agree to disagree. Which was my simple intent from the very beginning: just voicing my opinion.

[Gothamite]

I'm all about the Nike-hate, but that's a hard statement to support.

If you honestly believe that the folks at Nike generated the rattlesnake logo and "DTOM" campaign out of the goodness of their hearts, to primarily benefit the USMNT, and to revive a cherished symbol... well, God bless you. You are a more trusting soul than I.

Name a modern logo that isn't created for merchandising reasons. I don't see why this one should be singled out.

Besides, I've already said that I'm not disputing that marketing was the primary reason behind it, but the only reason? That's when we leave opinion behind and get into the "Objection, Your Honor, assumes facts not in evidence" portion of the evening.

[STL FANATIC]

Yeah. Once again, I designer is responsible for this mark.

I have no doubt in my mind that he dug into history to come up with the mark and is proud of the historical significance it holds. He also did a wonderful job in giving that historical significance a chance to shine by making it into an incredibly marketable logo/campaign.

[tajmccall]

Wow really, squabbling over the designer's intent?

The entire idea is for people to like it. If people like it they will buy it. Some will buy it either way, but if you want a red kit then go for it.

We'd have very little to talk about if these companies weren't trying to 'generate more revenue.'

[Sodboy13]

Looks like white jerseys under the warmups. Brian In Boston can sleep well tonight.

[FiddySicks]

Are my eyes going crazy, or do I see light blue horizontal stripes?

[chestnutz]

Your eyes are going crazy, those are just the regular homes (I presume)

[FiddySicks]

Your eyes are going crazy, those are just the regular homes (I presume)

Yeah the more I see it, the more I think it's just the difference in jersey material.

[dgthree]

i must be crazy because i see horizontal stripes too. Thin ones that look blue/grey and then thick ones whch look grey to me. I definitely see horizontal stripes though, and it makes no sense for it be different material, especially how they are on the jersey.

[dgthree]

just showed these in the commercial, unless these are the normal ones... last i saw they weren't.

couldn't get it to post the picture

[illini1]

Are my eyes going crazy, or do I see light blue horizontal stripes?

I'm pretty sure there is actually a very faint blue stripe.

[chestnutz]

Those have been their jerseys for a long time, nothing new.

[DGivens87]

The stripes actually alternate between white and a very, very light gray. I'm rockin' mine as I type this.

[Mingjai]

The stripes actually alternate between white and a very, very light gray. I'm rockin' mine as I type this.

Sweet. I'm rocking my Clint Dempsey anthracite one as I read this! Speaking of which, when I first saw this topic, I had visions of the alternate being the same as the anthracite ones, but with the red and the anthracite switched. That would be a complete disaster.

Dos a cero!