2013 NFL uniform/logo changes

[BlueSky]

The difference is that proceeds from your FDNY ballcap went to... the FDNY.

If the Jaguars really want to "honor" the military with their admittedly-military inspired uniforms, then they'll donate a portion of all jersey sales to military causes.

If they don't do that, it's not a "tribute". It's exploitation.

So obviously the Dolphins must make considerable contributions to marine conservation efforts? The Bears to the World Wildlife Fund? The Saints to the Catholic Church? The Chiefs to Native Americans? Or are they all just exploiting too?

Makes as much sense as what you just said.

[IceCap]

The difference is that proceeds from your FDNY ballcap went to... the FDNY.

If the Jaguars really want to "honor" the military with their admittedly-military inspired uniforms, then they'll donate a portion of all jersey sales to military causes.

If they don't do that, it's not a "tribute". It's exploitation.

So obviously the Dolphins must make considerable contributions to marine conservation efforts? The Bears to the World Wildlife Fund? The Saints to the Catholic Church? The Chiefs to Native Americans? Or are they all just exploiting too?

Because the name Jaguars naturally lends itself to a military theme, right?

The Winnipeg Jets use the roundel of the RCAF as part of their logo, and unlike the Jaguars their name lends itself to a military theme. Whereas the Jags don't donate to the US Army for essentially ripping off and exploiting paying homage to their black and gold brand the Jets actually payed the RCAF for the right to use their roundel.

[DirtyDuval]

The difference is that proceeds from your FDNY ballcap went to... the FDNY.

If the Jaguars really want to "honor" the military with their admittedly-military inspired uniforms, then they'll donate a portion of all jersey sales to military causes.

If they don't do that, it's not a "tribute". It's exploitation.

The Jags do not have "Army, Navy, Air Force or Marines" referenced anywhere on their jersey (it is a safe guess). It is only rumored to have "military inspired design elements" which we haven't even seen yet...not the same thing. By the way...the Jags do regularly donate to the "Wounded Warrior Project"...which by the way is head quartered in Jacksonville FL.

This could go on forever. We get it, you don't like sport uniforms with military design elements. Putting a crest/badge on the chest doesn't make it a military uniform. It is almost laughable some of the excuses/reasoning some of you people are using to support your arguement against a uniform no one has seen in full yet.

[BlueSky]

The difference is that proceeds from your FDNY ballcap went to... the FDNY.

If the Jaguars really want to "honor" the military with their admittedly-military inspired uniforms, then they'll donate a portion of all jersey sales to military causes.

If they don't do that, it's not a "tribute". It's exploitation.

So obviously the Dolphins must make considerable contributions to marine conservation efforts? The Bears to the World Wildlife Fund? The Saints to the Catholic Church? The Chiefs to Native Americans? Or are they all just exploiting too?

Because the name Jaguars naturally lends itself to a military theme, right?

The Winnipeg Jets use the roundel of the RCAF as part of their logo, and unlike the Jaguars their name lends itself to a military theme. Whereas the Jags don't donate to the US Army for essentially ripping off and exploiting paying homage to their black and gold brand the Jets actually payed the RCAF for the right to use their roundel.

And is Winnipeg giving money to the RCAF?

Besides, we haven't even seen the Jaguars' uniforms yet and already you guys have tried and convicted them of shamelessly exploiting the U.S. military. You guys are a riot.

[IceCap]

The difference is that proceeds from your FDNY ballcap went to... the FDNY.

If the Jaguars really want to "honor" the military with their admittedly-military inspired uniforms, then they'll donate a portion of all jersey sales to military causes.

If they don't do that, it's not a "tribute". It's exploitation.

So obviously the Dolphins must make considerable contributions to marine conservation efforts? The Bears to the World Wildlife Fund? The Saints to the Catholic Church? The Chiefs to Native Americans? Or are they all just exploiting too?

Because the name Jaguars naturally lends itself to a military theme, right?

The Winnipeg Jets use the roundel of the RCAF as part of their logo, and unlike the Jaguars their name lends itself to a military theme. Whereas the Jags don't donate to the US Army for essentially ripping off and exploiting paying homage to their black and gold brand the Jets actually payed the RCAF for the right to use their roundel.

And is Winnipeg giving money to the RCAF?

I said as much in the post you quoted.

http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/17w-17e/nr-sp/index-eng.asp?id=12098

Besides, we haven't even seen the Jaguars' uniforms yet and already you guys have tried and convicted them of shamelessly exploiting the U.S. military. You guys are a riot.

That primarily black and gold Jags badge is very US Army-like.

[Old School Fool]

I'm tired of seeing exploitation claims on here.

A good gesture is a good gesture, guys.

[BlueSky]

The difference is that proceeds from your FDNY ballcap went to... the FDNY.

If the Jaguars really want to "honor" the military with their admittedly-military inspired uniforms, then they'll donate a portion of all jersey sales to military causes.

If they don't do that, it's not a "tribute". It's exploitation.

So obviously the Dolphins must make considerable contributions to marine conservation efforts? The Bears to the World Wildlife Fund? The Saints to the Catholic Church? The Chiefs to Native Americans? Or are they all just exploiting too?

Because the name Jaguars naturally lends itself to a military theme, right?

The Winnipeg Jets use the roundel of the RCAF as part of their logo, and unlike the Jaguars their name lends itself to a military theme. Whereas the Jags don't donate to the US Army for essentially ripping off and exploiting paying homage to their black and gold brand the Jets actually payed the RCAF for the right to use their roundel.

And is Winnipeg giving money to the RCAF?

I said as much in the post you quoted.

http://www.rcaf-arc....ng.asp?id=12098

Besides, we haven't even seen the Jaguars' uniforms yet and already you guys have tried and convicted them of shamelessly exploiting the U.S. military. You guys are a riot.

That primarily black and gold Jags badge is very US Army-like.

Gothamite suggested ongoing support (proceeds from jersey sales) whereas your post stated they paid a fee for use of the roundel. Two different things.

As for the badge, you're reaching. Unless you'll next lambast the Raiders for ripping off the U.S. Interstate system.

Those are pretty close, man. The Raiders need to start fixing potholes.

Do you guys really suggest that any design inspiration deserves financial compensation? Because if so, a LOT of money will need to change hands.

[phutmasterflex]

I'm tired of seeing exploitation claims on here.

A good gesture is a good gesture, guys.

But to play devil's advocate, how do you know that it's a good gesture and there's no motive to increase merchandise sales by tugging on the emotions of fans?

I honestly think that you can't have one without the other. Both tributes and exploitation both evoke on the emotions of people and it gets a certain reaction. With those emotions, sometimes people want to buy flag-inspired merchandise to feel patriotic. Sellers know that this could happen, so they produce more merchandise for it.

I really think it's a little bit of both. Not every case is like this so I don't want to generalize. But I just don't think that all the time we can really separate the two

[Silver_Star]

The difference is that proceeds from your FDNY ballcap went to... the FDNY.

If the Jaguars really want to "honor" the military with their admittedly-military inspired uniforms, then they'll donate a portion of all jersey sales to military causes.

If they don't do that, it's not a "tribute". It's exploitation.

So obviously the Dolphins must make considerable contributions to marine conservation efforts? The Bears to the World Wildlife Fund? The Saints to the Catholic Church? The Chiefs to Native Americans? Or are they all just exploiting too?

Because the name Jaguars naturally lends itself to a military theme, right?

The Winnipeg Jets use the roundel of the RCAF as part of their logo, and unlike the Jaguars their name lends itself to a military theme. Whereas the Jags don't donate to the US Army for essentially ripping off and exploiting paying homage to their black and gold brand the Jets actually payed the RCAF for the right to use their roundel.

And is Winnipeg giving money to the RCAF?

I said as much in the post you quoted.

http://www.rcaf-arc....ng.asp?id=12098

Besides, we haven't even seen the Jaguars' uniforms yet and already you guys have tried and convicted them of shamelessly exploiting the U.S. military. You guys are a riot.

That primarily black and gold Jags badge is very US Army-like.

Gothamite suggested ongoing support (proceeds from jersey sales) whereas your post stated they paid a fee for use of the roundel. Two different things.

As for the badge, you're reaching. Unless you'll next lambast the Raiders for ripping off the U.S. Interstate system.

Those are pretty close, man. The Raiders need to start fixing potholes.

Do you guys really suggest that any design inspiration deserves financial compensation? Because if so, a LOT of money will need to change hands.

No. The Raiders used a complementary royal shield that is used on everything else. It's not like the Raiders rip off a damn highway shield for god sakes. I know it's a joke, but sometimes jokes like this are just :censored:ing stupid.

Back on topic

Dolphins look better with white facemask. The aqua facemask was not clean at all.

[BlueSky]

I'm tired of seeing exploitation claims on here.

A good gesture is a good gesture, guys.

But to play devil's advocate, how do you know that it's a good gesture and there's no motive to increase merchandise sales by tugging on the emotions of fans?

I honestly think that you can't have one without the other. Both tributes and exploitation both evoke on the emotions of people and it gets a certain reaction. With those emotions, sometimes people want to buy flag-inspired merchandise to feel patriotic. Sellers know that this could happen, so they produce more merchandise for it.

I really think it's a little bit of both. Not every case is like this so I don't want to generalize. But I just don't think that all the time we can really separate the two

Like this?

That's much more of a pisser IMO because of it's a clear violation of the U.S. Flag Code:

==

(i) The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever. It should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard. Advertising signs should not be fastened to a staff or halyard from which the flag is flown.

==

Then you have people wrapping themselves in the flag, making shirts out of it...that's way more offensive than a military-inspired football uni.

@ Silver_Star, it was simply hyperbole, an absurd extension of the absurd logic Ice Cap is trying to use, that's all. If you thought it was stupid...

...oh well, can't please everyone.

Do you actually have a Silver Star btw? If so, thank you for your service. If not, watch out for Gothamite and Ice Cap...

[IceCap]

The difference is that proceeds from your FDNY ballcap went to... the FDNY.

If the Jaguars really want to "honor" the military with their admittedly-military inspired uniforms, then they'll donate a portion of all jersey sales to military causes.

If they don't do that, it's not a "tribute". It's exploitation.

So obviously the Dolphins must make considerable contributions to marine conservation efforts? The Bears to the World Wildlife Fund? The Saints to the Catholic Church? The Chiefs to Native Americans? Or are they all just exploiting too?

Because the name Jaguars naturally lends itself to a military theme, right?

The Winnipeg Jets use the roundel of the RCAF as part of their logo, and unlike the Jaguars their name lends itself to a military theme. Whereas the Jags don't donate to the US Army for essentially ripping off and exploiting paying homage to their black and gold brand the Jets actually payed the RCAF for the right to use their roundel.

And is Winnipeg giving money to the RCAF?

I said as much in the post you quoted.

http://www.rcaf-arc....ng.asp?id=12098

Besides, we haven't even seen the Jaguars' uniforms yet and already you guys have tried and convicted them of shamelessly exploiting the U.S. military. You guys are a riot.

That primarily black and gold Jags badge is very US Army-like.

Gothamite suggested ongoing support (proceeds from jersey sales) whereas your post stated they paid a fee for use of the roundel. Two different things.

Not really, when you get right down to it.

Gothamite claimed it was disingenuous to "honour" the military when you're not actually giving to military causes. And I agree. It's easy to say you're honouring someone when you're really just using their iconography to move your own merchandise.

The Jets, on the other hand....

"For using the roundel in their logo design the [Jets have] promised $1 million over the next 10 years to the Soldier On Fund, the Military Families Fund, and Air Force Heritage."

....have contributed to military causes for the right to use the roundel in their logo. I'm not saying the Jets aren't using the RCAF roundel to cause a desired reaction among potential customers, but at least they're paying the RCAF back for using their symbolism in such a manner. The Jags are looking to exploit similar feelings in the US towards the US Army without actually financially compensating the military. Which is where it stops being an homage and tribute and starts being exploitation, in my opinion.

Do you guys really suggest that any design inspiration deserves financial compensation? Because if so, a LOT of money will need to change hands.

No one's saying the Jags have to pay the US Army for the right to use their JAGS shield logo. It's merely US Army inspired, not a design lifted from the Army. That being said, it would be the right thing to do, to pay back the US Army for using design motifs synonymous with them to move the merchandise of a sports team.

And really that last point ties into another issue here. The incredibly blatant nature of it all. The Winnipeg Jets? Jets are either slow and lumbering (commercial) or sleek and fast (military). The latter is what you want associated with your sports team, so the military connection, payments to the military aside, makes sense.

The Jaguars, on the other hand, are named after a big cat with no connection to the Jacksonville region, a name only chosen because of alliteration. What's the military connection here? There is none, which makes the military theme seem more random, and thus exploitative.

[Gothamite]

Good point - the Jets have earned the right to use military iconography.

The Jags? We don't yet know that they have.

[tBBP]

Okay—how about an actual servicember chime in here? (Well, former, but...still.)

I personally don't have all that much of an issue with military inspiration, depending on the application AND (read this next part very closely)...its explicit purpose. Like the San Diego Padres' cammie alt jerseys...I'm pretty sure they wear those, and that they were designed, as a direct tribute to (or said another way, to honor) the many Sailors and Marines stationed out there. Now I have zero idea as to how they divert revenue from those jersey/cap sales, so I can't speak to that...but that, to me at least, is a tasteful and respectful application of a military theme with regards to its explicit purpose.

As far as military inspiration in general, it's all around us, everywhere—especially in urban fashion (or have y'all not noticed how en vogue shoulder epaulets have been on button-up shirts the past few years? ). It even pops up from time to time in sports design. In regards to the Jaguars, all I've seen so far is Khan mentioning the upcoming uniforms have a "military theme"—to what extent, however, is the big wild card here. And to be completely real, since by all accounts Khan pretty much gave the folks at Nike free reign on this, that there may be the primary source of skepticism for many of us, just based off recent unveils they've put put lately. All that said, though, what I've NOT seen Khan say is that this new military-themed set, to whatever degree it is, was done as a direct tribute to/to honor the military servicemembers out there at NAS Jacksonville. That piece of the pie right there, explicit intention, is where I draw my line in sand in regards to exploitation or not. And since the Jaguars haven't yet gone on record as saying as much, I'll hold off on applying that line of logic/criticism. (All that may change after next Tuesday, however—that is, after the Creamatrix has been restored from its inevitable cataclysmic system crash. )

-------------------------------------------------------

EDIT + TL;DR: basically what Cap and Goth already said above.

[BlueSky]

FWIW my dad was career Army and fought in both WWII and Korea. I spent several years in the Naval Reserve. No problem with military-inspired unis or fashion. And as DirtyDuval noted the Jags do support and contribute to military causes.

[tBBP]

Well then, that'll be cookie points in the Jags' favor, won't it?

[JagAaron33]

So you guys just forget that the Patriots are red, white, and blue and based on Revolutionary War soldiers, right?

This is a pretty huge military area. NAS Mayport is the second most valuable above-water ship asset on the eastern seaboard. There is a submarine base less than an hour up the interstate. There is an army base about an hour west of town. There are many former and retired military folks that live in the area. The military makes up a large part of the economy. So do public servants like police and firefighters, as there is a pretty huge fire training and police training school in the area too.

So it does make sense to kind of honor that with the uniform design. Khan is about making the Jaguars more relevant to Jacksonville. The last good uniform design was the first one. The piping that has been present over the past years is just stupid. Even though jerseys were probably being sold, it wasn't a good jersey, I think we can all acknowledge that. There have been fan polls conducted and heavy research put into this. Khan has come to know the area and the people and wants to put out something unique and special. More power to him.

I'm excited about Tuesday.

[TheOldRoman]

The difference is that proceeds from your FDNY ballcap went to... the FDNY.

If the Jaguars really want to "honor" the military with their admittedly-military inspired uniforms, then they'll donate a portion of all jersey sales to military causes.

If they don't do that, it's not a "tribute". It's exploitation.

As I said, the military has some strong imagery. I don't think there's anything wrong with borrowing some of the powerful imagery that isn't specifically related to combat. Using a shield or puting names on the front because the military does it is entirely different than wearing camo uniforms or stars and stripes hats. I don't think it's exploitation, I think it's just taking inspiration from something and incorporating it just because it's powerful. Nobody is going to see the new Jaguars' uniforms and think they look like Marines. Nobody is going to wear Jags jerseys on Independence Day because they're patriotic. I think I would have much more problem with these if they were paying a half-assed tribute than if they were just taking inspiration.

That being said, it makes no sense at all for the Jaguars, especially when the name lend itself to so much other strong imagery.

[LourdOfTheFly]

Based upon everything we've "seen" and heard, the Jags are going to look a lot more like the military from an Alien movie or Gears of War than US troops.

[OnWis97]

The difference is that proceeds from your FDNY ballcap went to... the FDNY.

If the Jaguars really want to "honor" the military with their admittedly-military inspired uniforms, then they'll donate a portion of all jersey sales to military causes.

If they don't do that, it's not a "tribute". It's exploitation.

The Jags do not have "Army, Navy, Air Force or Marines" referenced anywhere on their jersey (it is a safe guess). It is only rumored to have "military inspired design elements" which we haven't even seen yet...not the same thing. By the way...the Jags do regularly donate to the "Wounded Warrior Project"...which by the way is head quartered in Jacksonville FL.

This could go on forever. We get it, you don't like sport uniforms with military design elements. Putting a crest/badge on the chest doesn't make it a military uniform. It is almost laughable some of the excuses/reasoning some of you people are using to support your arguement against a uniform no one has seen in full yet.

Interesting point. While I don't like the idea of saying "our team is going to have a military look", I should slow down on my outrage until i get a sense of the degree of "inspiration". Subtle inspiration (like the Jag facing the inside instead of the outside of the body) is pretty benign.

I'll just admit it: I don't like having nationalism thrown about so much. I don't think that just because you can sing "God Bless America" between every inning that you should. I don't think just because you could have a team wear camo every day that you should. There has to be a line between a nice tribute and a constant pandering presence. For example, I think playing the National Anthem at every single game is watering it down. It's as much something you have to "wait through" as the line for hot dogs. I personally think the Padres have crossed that line (my line, anyway) by wearing the camo every week. I'd prefer they don't. Maybe every Memorial Day or something would suffice. All that said, what we are certain of for the Jaguars is not necessarily in our faces. As I said, how they face the head on the "JAGS" patch is benign. I hate the patch and the "nicknamization" of it, but really for general reasons and not for any reasons related to the military inspiration. After all, the military wears "uniforms" much as teams do, and if that's a feature the Jags like, so be it. They are not the first team to stick a logo on the jersey front. As for the proposed "last name on front", that, just to my taste, is crossing a line. To me it's a bit more "trying to be military" than "military-inspired". Also, even if it has nothing to do with the military, it's just stupid for a football jersey; "It's all about the name on the front of the jersey...D'oh."

Anyhow, yes, we ought to wait until we see the entire uniform before deciding whether it's "too" military-inspired. But if we did that, this wouldn't be the internet, would it?

[BlueSky]

So we have this right...it's Jags on the 23rd then Dolphins & Vikes on the 25th. Right? Is there anyone else known to be making major changes this season? Any potential for surprises?