Saturday Open Thread

Those are so much better than their current ones.

[quote comment=”136431″]Those are so much better than their current ones.[/quote]
Thats about all that needs to be said on the subject. Team owners just don’t Get It sometimes.

Those unis are just about perfect. Incredible.

looks like the Texas Rangers wore their batting practice jerseys last night (against the Mariners too, what are the odds?)

link

[quote comment=”136433″]Those unis are just about perfect. Incredible.[/quote]

I don’t know if I’d say “perfect.” They still have that Reebok logo on the sleeve! Get rid of that and we can talk perfect.

While those are after all BP’s, I am a big fan of them getting back to using that script “Rangers”
The more of that we see, the better, just not with the pit stain jerseys.

Now those “gang” hats by New Era are being pulled.

link

Well at least the Bills looked nice last night to bad the same can’t be said for the titans.

It sickens me that the Bills jersey that is exquisite on the quarterback looks so bad on the linemen in all of their grotesque armpit-showing sleevelessness.

Oh, and I must add that the standing red bison on a white background is without question the best helmet the Bills have ever had.

[quote comment=”136440″]Well at least the Bills looked nice last night to bad the same can’t be said for the titans.[/quote]

You mean “The Flaming Thumbtacks?”

Why would they wear them during a preseason game?

It is way too easy to create jokes for the new NFL armpit look. Just take the “plumbers crack” jokes and change from a plumber to a NFL lineman or other appropriate player position.

[quote comment=”136444″]Why would they wear them during a preseason game?[/quote]

Good question. I was wondering that myself.

Also, Jamie Moyer and his Liberty Bell stirrups got shellacked last night by the Padres. I swear, I’m not watching the Phillies anymore.

Those unis are incredible. I really wish they would go full time to those. Their current unis are seriously so bad. They don’t even match up.

[quote comment=”136444″]Why would they wear them during a preseason game?[/quote]
To sell more of them!! They can only wear alternates twice in a regular season, this way they can wear more! I believe the Bengels are wearing their orange alts once in the preseason also.

BTW – I know that the Lightning’s icefest is going on right now…anyone found photos of the official unveiling of the new logo and uniforms?!?!?

link > link

[quote comment=”136448″][quote comment=”136444″]Why would they wear them during a preseason game?[/quote]
To sell more of them!! They can only wear alternates twice in a regular season, this way they can wear more! I believe the Bengels are wearing their orange alts once in the preseason also.

BTW – I know that the Lightning’s icefest is going on right now…anyone found photos of the official unveiling of the new logo and uniforms?!?!?[/quote]

Yeah but how many people buy the jersey just cuz that’s what they wear twice during the regular season? If they wanted to sell more you would hope they would just put more on display in the pro shop and around the stadium and not wear them in a meaningless preseason game

I love those unis. The only thing that’d make them better is they went back to the OJ era helmets.

[quote comment=”136433″]Those unis are just about perfect. Incredible.[/quote]

They would be perfect if the striping wasn’t so inconsistant. Why doesn’t the helmet stripe match the pants stripe and why doesn’t the sock stripe match the sleeve stripe?

[quote comment=”136450″][quote comment=”136448″][quote comment=”136444″]Why would they wear them during a preseason game?[/quote]
To sell more of them!! They can only wear alternates twice in a regular season, this way they can wear more! I believe the Bengels are wearing their orange alts once in the preseason also.

BTW – I know that the Lightning’s icefest is going on right now…anyone found photos of the official unveiling of the new logo and uniforms?!?!?[/quote]

Yeah but how many people buy the jersey just cuz that’s what they wear twice during the regular season? If they wanted to sell more you would hope they would just put more on display in the pro shop and around the stadium and not wear them in a meaningless preseason game[/quote]

I don’t disagree with you at all…but I know that some people will see it on TV and go…”That’s cool” and go buy one…

I know it still doesn’t actually explain why you would wear them during a preseason game…I agree its kinda stupid…Maybe its an anniversary of the bills last winning season? Maybe Marv Levy forgot those aren’t the real jerseys anymore?

[quote comment=”136452″][quote comment=”136433″]Those unis are just about perfect. Incredible.[/quote]

They would be perfect if the striping wasn’t so inconsistant. Why doesn’t the helmet stripe match the pants stripe and why doesn’t the sock stripe match the sleeve stripe?[/quote]

I don’t understand why they have to.

[quote comment=”136448″][quote comment=”136444″]Why would they wear them during a preseason game?[/quote]
To sell more of them!! They can only wear alternates twice in a regular season, this way they can wear more! I believe the Bengels are wearing their orange alts once in the preseason also.

BTW – I know that the Lightning’s icefest is going on right now…anyone found photos of the official unveiling of the new logo and uniforms?!?!?[/quote]

I was wondering the same thing. Where do they draw the line between a throwback and an alternate?

Don’t get me wrong. I know the “clinical”, if you will, definitions of alts and throwbacks. But the Bills wear those unis so much, they don’t really seem like throwbacks so much anymore. The effect has been dampened. Detroit and the Negro league throwbacks are similar in that regard, although I love any time the bigs pay homage to the Negro leagues.

And, yes, Cincinnati is wearing the orange. they also wore white at home against the Saints, which only served to give New Orleans an opportunity to wear the black uni-tard look.

[quote comment=”136453″][quote comment=”136450″][quote comment=”136448″][quote comment=”136444″]Why would they wear them during a preseason game?[/quote]
To sell more of them!! They can only wear alternates twice in a regular season, this way they can wear more! I believe the Bengels are wearing their orange alts once in the preseason also.

BTW – I know that the Lightning’s icefest is going on right now…anyone found photos of the official unveiling of the new logo and uniforms?!?!?[/quote]

Yeah but how many people buy the jersey just cuz that’s what they wear twice during the regular season? If they wanted to sell more you would hope they would just put more on display in the pro shop and around the stadium and not wear them in a meaningless preseason game[/quote]

I don’t disagree with you at all…but I know that some people will see it on TV and go…”That’s cool” and go buy one…

I know it still doesn’t actually explain why you would wear them during a preseason game…I agree its kinda stupid…Maybe its an anniversary of the bills last winning season? Maybe Marv Levy forgot those aren’t the real jerseys anymore?[/quote]

I doubt Marv Levy has anything to do with what they wear, but he does need to retire and go live in Florida or something.

[quote comment=”136432″][quote comment=”136431″]Those are so much better than their current ones.[/quote]
Thats about all that needs to be said on the subject. Team owners just don’t Get It sometimes.[/quote]

Amen to that. I’ll never understand why when teams hit upon a great uniform, like these Buffalo ones or the classic Charger’s powder blues, why they just can’t leave well enough alone. It worked for the Yankees and the Red Wings.

the lightning jerseys are up on the team website

[quote comment=”136458″]the lightning jerseys are up on the team website[/quote]

Wow. link.

Those Bills jerseys are just a sight for sore eyes, even with the lineman cut. Nice to see link available on eBay.

[quote comment=”136457″][quote comment=”136432″][quote comment=”136431″]Those are so much better than their current ones.[/quote]
Thats about all that needs to be said on the subject. Team owners just don’t Get It sometimes.[/quote]

Amen to that. I’ll never understand why when teams hit upon a great uniform, like these Buffalo ones or the classic Charger’s powder blues, why they just can’t leave well enough alone. It worked for the Yankees and the Red Wings.[/quote]
Why? $$$$$

anybody watch the mets game lastnight. all of them had los on the jerseys so it it said los mets. sorry no pics

[quote comment=”136464″]anybody watch the mets game lastnight. all of them had los on the jerseys so it it said los mets. sorry no pics[/quote]
Yes I saw that, I believe it was Hispanic night @ Shea so thats why they had that[quote comment=”136438″]Now those “gang” hats by New Era are being pulled.

link

Does anyone know exactly which hats they are?
I was just wondering

I like the new logo…gave it a little edge…

I’m VERY unsure about those sleeves…and wheres the picture of the back? or the numbers?

According to the article the Road (and only the road) version will have the players number on the FRONT…

And since I seem to have forgotten to click the QOUTE button…I was speaking of the new Tampa Bay Lightning jerseys…

[quote comment=”136465″][quote comment=”136464″]anybody watch the mets game lastnight. all of them had los on the jerseys so it it said los mets. sorry no pics[/quote]
Yes I saw that, I believe it was Hispanic night @ Shea so thats why they had that[quote comment=”136438″]Now those “gang” hats by New Era are being pulled.

link

Does anyone know exactly which hats they are?
I was just wondering[/quote]

Yea…it was either in the comments or maybe the ticker in the last day or two. They were a set of hats that used gang symbols/colors. See article link

my local single A team is wearing pink jerseys on september 1st for breast cancer awareness..

and on the lightning uniforms..i kinda like them

yeah the lightning uniforms isnt supposed to be a link..but the link is to the article about the pink jerseys

[quote comment=”136436″][quote comment=”136433″]Those unis are just about perfect. Incredible.[/quote]

I don’t know if I’d say “perfect.” They still have that Reebok logo on the sleeve! Get rid of that and we can talk perfect.[/quote]
So you mean to tell me that if you manufactured something that you wanted to make money off of, you wouldn’t put your logo on it? Especially if that logo is universally recognized? I understand that it’s annoying when the logo overpowers the jersey, but the fact is that Reebok is the one that manufactures and produces the jerseys, so there is absolutely nothing wrong with their logo being on it.

[quote comment=”136458″]the lightning jerseys are up on the team website[/quote]

I’ve always thought the logo bears a strong resemblance to this: link

[quote comment=”136465″][quote comment=”136464″]anybody watch the mets game lastnight. all of them had los on the jerseys so it it said los mets. sorry no pics[/quote]
Yes I saw that, I believe it was Hispanic night @ Shea so thats why they had that[quote comment=”136438″]Now those “gang” hats by New Era are being pulled.

link

Does anyone know exactly which hats they are?
I was just wondering[/quote]

This shows all three. They are pretty obvious in their gang symbolism (from Left to right in the photo) of the Bloods, Latin Kings, and Crips. If you read the article, a nine-year old kid figured it out.

link

Two notes from last night’s Pats/Panthers game:

1. Carolina’s rookie LB Jon Beason. The 5 on the back of his helmet was peeling off in the first quarter.

2. Quarterbacks from both teams had green dots on the backs of their helmets. What’s the story?

how about this for a concept for the new thrashers logos..

thrashers logos…

[quote comment=”136474″][quote comment=”136465″][quote comment=”136464″]anybody watch the mets game lastnight. all of them had los on the jerseys so it it said los mets. sorry no pics[/quote]
Yes I saw that, I believe it was Hispanic night @ Shea so thats why they had that[quote comment=”136438″]Now those “gang” hats by New Era are being pulled.

link

Does anyone know exactly which hats they are?
I was just wondering[/quote]

This shows all three. They are pretty obvious in their gang symbolism (from Left to right in the photo) of the Bloods, Latin Kings, and Crips. If you read the article, a nine-year old kid figured it out.

link

And who was the genius that thought these were a good idea?

[quote comment=”136472″][quote comment=”136436″][quote comment=”136433″]Those unis are just about perfect. Incredible.[/quote]

I don’t know if I’d say “perfect.” They still have that Reebok logo on the sleeve! Get rid of that and we can talk perfect.[/quote]
So you mean to tell me that if you manufactured something that you wanted to make money off of, you wouldn’t put your logo on it? Especially if that logo is universally recognized? I understand that it’s annoying when the logo overpowers the jersey, but the fact is that Reebok is the one that manufactures and produces the jerseys, so there is absolutely nothing wrong with their logo being on it.[/quote]

Uh oh, not a smart thing to say on this site.

[quote comment=”136475″]Two notes from last night’s Pats/Panthers game:

1. Carolina’s rookie LB Jon Beason. The 5 on the back of his helmet was peeling off in the first quarter.

2. Quarterbacks from both teams had green dots on the backs of their helmets. What’s the story?[/quote]
Ref: #2 – The radio…I believe Paul devoted an entire blog entry to these after the first preseason game or two….

wow look at these uniform concepts…

[quote comment=”136472″][quote comment=”136436″][quote comment=”136433″]Those unis are just about perfect. Incredible.[/quote]

I don’t know if I’d say “perfect.” They still have that Reebok logo on the sleeve! Get rid of that and we can talk perfect.[/quote]
So you mean to tell me that if you manufactured something that you wanted to make money off of, you wouldn’t put your logo on it? Especially if that logo is universally recognized? I understand that it’s annoying when the logo overpowers the jersey, but the fact is that Reebok is the one that manufactures and produces the jerseys, so there is absolutely nothing wrong with their logo being on it.[/quote]

Hmmm, I’m looking at this cool No Mas T-shirt I’m wearing, and it doesn’t say No Mas on the outside (just on the inner collar). And the shorts I’m wearing, which I think I got a few years ago at Old Navy, don’t say Old Navy on them (except, again, on an inner tag). And this cool stingy-brim hat I’ll be wearing to my friend’s birthday party tonight doesn’t have the manufacturer’s name on it (execpt, yet again, on the inside). So I guess those three manufacturers really missed the fucking boat, right?

More importantly: The Bills’ uniforms already represent a brand — the BILLS’ BRAND. That’s what a uniform is for. The Reebok logo just clutters and distracts from that mission.

Look: The notion that corporate logos are self-justifying simply because “they’re the one who manufactured it” is — and always has been — utter crap.

For the Lightning sweater… Hey no side paneling, or apron. The collar sticking up a mile is obnoxious, but they all do that now. I weep for the lack of arm & waist stripes, but what else is new. I’m ok with the logo updates and the shoulder patches look good.

[quote comment=”136483″]For the Lightning sweater… Hey no side paneling, or apron. The collar sticking up a mile is obnoxious, but they all do that now. I weep for the lack of arm & waist stripes, but what else is new. I’m ok with the logo updates and the shoulder patches look good.[/quote]

Are we sure there aren’t any side paneling…the article states they are keeping their traditional “under arm striping” but we can’t see it in those pictures…

I understand that it doesnt have the huge contrasting colors with the piping up and down the jersey (that it seems every other team is going to), but there is definatly something that we can’t see there…

Lightning jerseys — Well, I’d like to see more, but I think the jerseys themselves look decent. I’m glad they kept it simple.

As far as the logo goes, I absolutely hate the word mark above the lightning bolt. The words are unnecessary, the font is hideous, the tails on the T and the B look cheesy… Perhaps it’ll grow on me, or perhaps its that everything else looks good, so the lettering stands out as terrible to me.

Jerseys: A Logo: C- Logo w/o words: B+

[quote comment=”136482″][quote comment=”136472″][quote comment=”136436″][quote comment=”136433″]Those unis are just about perfect. Incredible.[/quote]

I don’t know if I’d say “perfect.” They still have that Reebok logo on the sleeve! Get rid of that and we can talk perfect.[/quote]
So you mean to tell me that if you manufactured something that you wanted to make money off of, you wouldn’t put your logo on it? Especially if that logo is universally recognized? I understand that it’s annoying when the logo overpowers the jersey, but the fact is that Reebok is the one that manufactures and produces the jerseys, so there is absolutely nothing wrong with their logo being on it.[/quote]

Hmmm, I’m looking at this cool No Mas T-shirt I’m wearing, and it doesn’t say No Mas on the outside (just on the inner collar). And the shorts I’m wearing, which I think I got a few years ago at Old Navy, don’t say Old Navy on them (except, again, on an inner tag). And this cool stingy-brim hat I’ll be wearing to my friend’s birthday party tonight doesn’t have the manufacturer’s name on it (execpt, yet again, on the inside). So I guess those three manufacturers really missed the fucking boat, right?

More importantly: The Bills’ uniforms already represent a brand — the BILLS’ BRAND. That’s what a uniform is for. The Reebok logo just clutters and distracts from that mission.

Look: The notion that corporate logos are self-justifying simply because “they’re the one who manufactured it” is — and always has been — utter crap.[/quote]

right, but if Old Navy and No Mas were going to put you on TV for 12 hours a week and millions of people would be watching don’t you think they might include a little logo somewhere to advertise their brand? i understand the appeal of clean unis, but it would be bad business for Reebok not to logo thier NFL equipment.

being the official outfitter of the NFL brings billions to Reebok. i wish corporate logos were not so ubiquitous in sports, but it makes sense and it far from “utter crap.”

[quote comment=”136486″][quote comment=”136483″]For the Lightning sweater… Hey no side paneling, or apron. The collar sticking up a mile is obnoxious, but they all do that now. I weep for the lack of arm & waist stripes, but what else is new. I’m ok with the logo updates and the shoulder patches look good.[/quote]

Are we sure there aren’t any side paneling…the article states they are keeping their traditional “under arm striping” but we can’t see it in those pictures…

I understand that it doesnt have the huge contrasting colors with the piping up and down the jersey (that it seems every other team is going to), but there is definatly something that we can’t see there…[/quote]

Joe – Found it courtesy of NHLlogos.blogspot.com. They kept the diamond-shaped striped panel under the arm. That’s it. link

[quote comment=”136489″][quote comment=”136486″][quote comment=”136483″]For the Lightning sweater… Hey no side paneling, or apron. The collar sticking up a mile is obnoxious, but they all do that now. I weep for the lack of arm & waist stripes, but what else is new. I’m ok with the logo updates and the shoulder patches look good.[/quote]

Are we sure there aren’t any side paneling…the article states they are keeping their traditional “under arm striping” but we can’t see it in those pictures…

I understand that it doesnt have the huge contrasting colors with the piping up and down the jersey (that it seems every other team is going to), but there is definatly something that we can’t see there…[/quote]

Joe – Found it courtesy of NHLlogos.blogspot.com. They kept the diamond-shaped striped panel under the arm. That’s it. link[/quote]

Thanks…I thought thats all it was…but I’m still sceptical that we can’t see the whole jersey…

Are they gonna change the number/nameplate font to match the new lettering? You don’t happen to have a picture with numbers do ya?

I would really like the Niners to go back to the Montana-era look. As for our other local team, the Ray-duhz will NEVER update their look. EVER.

[quote comment=”136491″]I would really like the Niners to go back to the Montana-era look. As for our other local team, the Ray-duhz will NEVER update their look. EVER.[/quote]

Never say Never…Al Davis won’t be alive that much longer…a weaker owner could (and will probably) bend to the will of the Reebok!

[quote comment=”136488″]right, but if Old Navy and No Mas were going to put you on TV for 12 hours a week and millions of people would be watching don’t you think they might include a little logo somewhere to advertise their brand?[/quote]

Just because they might WANT to do so doesn’t mean it would be the right thing to do. It’s not the right thing for Reebok to do either.

[quote comment=”136488″]i understand the appeal of clean unis, but it would be bad business for Reebok not to logo thier NFL equipment.[/quote]

The notion that “it’s just business,” and that this rationale can self-justifyingly excuse any coprorate marketing move, is bullshit. Why not plaster the word “REEBOK” in giant letters on the jersey? Wouldn’t that be even “better” business? Isn’t it “bad business” that they haven’t done this already?

This rationale is offensive. It implies that everything and every space in our culture is for sale, that every cultural interaction can be reduced to a monetary transaction. And as my hypothetical in the previous paragraph implies, once you start there’s no ceiling. Why not take a billion dollars from a company and rename your state “Visa Presents Colorado”? Why not rename the seat of your city “The Pepsi City Hall”? Hey, it’s just business!

[quote comment=”136488″]being the official outfitter of the NFL brings billions to Reebok.[/quote]

Exactly. They get all the merch revenue anyway (it’s not as if you can choose to buy a NON-Reebok NFL jersey). So why the fuck do they need to slap their logo all over the field on top of that? Thank you for making my point.

whats up with marshawn lynch’s 2 different colored gloves? I mean i know its the preseason but I don’t think I would even break this look out for an intramural game. When McGrady had different colored shoes a few years ago for the all star game I thought that looked dumb and that was in a game that the players blatantly screw around in. Get your on field fashion sense together

link

No hoody for Angry Homeless Man? What?

[quote comment=”136488″][quote comment=”136482″][quote comment=”136472″][quote comment=”136436″][quote comment=”136433″]Those unis are just about perfect. Incredible.[/quote]

I don’t know if I’d say “perfect.” They still have that Reebok logo on the sleeve! Get rid of that and we can talk perfect.[/quote]
So you mean to tell me that if you manufactured something that you wanted to make money off of, you wouldn’t put your logo on it? Especially if that logo is universally recognized? I understand that it’s annoying when the logo overpowers the jersey, but the fact is that Reebok is the one that manufactures and produces the jerseys, so there is absolutely nothing wrong with their logo being on it.[/quote]

Hmmm, I’m looking at this cool No Mas T-shirt I’m wearing, and it doesn’t say No Mas on the outside (just on the inner collar). And the shorts I’m wearing, which I think I got a few years ago at Old Navy, don’t say Old Navy on them (except, again, on an inner tag). And this cool stingy-brim hat I’ll be wearing to my friend’s birthday party tonight doesn’t have the manufacturer’s name on it (execpt, yet again, on the inside). So I guess those three manufacturers really missed the fucking boat, right?

More importantly: The Bills’ uniforms already represent a brand — the BILLS’ BRAND. That’s what a uniform is for. The Reebok logo just clutters and distracts from that mission.

Look: The notion that corporate logos are self-justifying simply because “they’re the one who manufactured it” is — and always has been — utter crap.[/quote]

right, but if Old Navy and No Mas were going to put you on TV for 12 hours a week and millions of people would be watching don’t you think they might include a little logo somewhere to advertise their brand? i understand the appeal of clean unis, but it would be bad business for Reebok not to logo thier NFL equipment.

being the official outfitter of the NFL brings billions to Reebok. i wish corporate logos were not so ubiquitous in sports, but it makes sense and it far from “utter crap.”[/quote]

It’s “utter crap” when it breaks the simplicity that gives some uniforms their charm. Reebok and NFL logos on Oakland Raider uniforms look like utter crap.

Those Lightning jerseys aren’t bad, but still have a practice jersey feel (especially the road–maybe the front numbers will help). Need to see them on the players before a final grade tho. Would it kill them to put in some stripes or something along the bottom? I thought the point of not tucking them in was to keep those details.

With the RBK EDGE uniforms being publicized as “uniform system” would it kill teams to introduce the entire look jerseys, breezers, socks and not just the jersey

The Bills uniforms look great. they should wear them all the time. They are so much better the their current uniforms

“The Pepsi City Hall”

Didn’t CitiBank already beat us to it link?

[quote comment=”136462″][quote comment=”136457″][quote comment=”136432″][quote comment=”136431″]Those are so much better than their current ones.[/quote]
Thats about all that needs to be said on the subject. Team owners just don’t Get It sometimes.[/quote]

Amen to that. I’ll never understand why when teams hit upon a great uniform, like these Buffalo ones or the classic Charger’s powder blues, why they just can’t leave well enough alone. It worked for the Yankees and the Red Wings.[/quote]
Why? $$$$$[/quote]

Not always. The Chargers and Bills uniforms were remnants of losing teams and “updating” them can help change the perception (at least with the fans) and the players often want it.

But I hate the red Bills helmets. Anyone recall the story behind them – something like Joe Ferguson had problems making them out in games with the Pats, Dolphins, Colts, Jets?

[quote comment=”136476″]how about this for a concept for the new thrashers logos..

thrashers logos…[/quote]

These are BRILLIANT. They have to be used like now.

As for the jersey concepts you posted, they’re a touch hit-and-miss. The only one on the first page I like is the Penguins alt. I think the Bruins and Rangers got it much more right than that, you can’t save the Sabres short of going old school, and the Habs just look all sorts of wrong. KC I never liked the idea anyway, and hope that any new team there will pick a better team logo/name/color set. Dallas they did a very nice job with, Toronto… um, no. I like the Canucks update, but I LOVE what they did for the Senators. That should have been the way they went with the new jerseys, instead of what happened. I hate the orange for the Sharks, but they kept the horizontal shoulder stripe that I REALLY, REALLY wish Tampa Bay kept. That and the lack of a waist stripe are my two biggest problems with the real new ones. Lightning/Blues/Avalanche… blugh. But they got the Hurricanes DEAD RIGHT there. Shame the real Hurricanes didn’t think like that. I even like the overused idea of a black alt. (though on another site someone mocked up a Hurricanes jersey in Whaler colors, and it was fantastic.) Detroit’s mockup was just bad, and the Isles, I have one major problem (besides the hideous alt). There should be four stripes, not three.

[quote comment=”136488″][quote comment=”136482″][quote comment=”136472″][quote comment=”136436″][quote comment=”136433″]Those unis are just about perfect. Incredible.[/quote]

I don’t know if I’d say “perfect.” They still have that Reebok logo on the sleeve! Get rid of that and we can talk perfect.[/quote]
So you mean to tell me that if you manufactured something that you wanted to make money off of, you wouldn’t put your logo on it? Especially if that logo is universally recognized? I understand that it’s annoying when the logo overpowers the jersey, but the fact is that Reebok is the one that manufactures and produces the jerseys, so there is absolutely nothing wrong with their logo being on it.[/quote]

Hmmm, I’m looking at this cool No Mas T-shirt I’m wearing, and it doesn’t say No Mas on the outside (just on the inner collar). And the shorts I’m wearing, which I think I got a few years ago at Old Navy, don’t say Old Navy on them (except, again, on an inner tag). And this cool stingy-brim hat I’ll be wearing to my friend’s birthday party tonight doesn’t have the manufacturer’s name on it (execpt, yet again, on the inside). So I guess those three manufacturers really missed the fucking boat, right?

More importantly: The Bills’ uniforms already represent a brand — the BILLS’ BRAND. That’s what a uniform is for. The Reebok logo just clutters and distracts from that mission.

Look: The notion that corporate logos are self-justifying simply because “they’re the one who manufactured it” is — and always has been — utter crap.[/quote]

right, but if Old Navy and No Mas were going to put you on TV for 12 hours a week and millions of people would be watching don’t you think they might include a little logo somewhere to advertise their brand? i understand the appeal of clean unis, but it would be bad business for Reebok not to logo thier NFL equipment.

being the official outfitter of the NFL brings billions to Reebok. i wish corporate logos were not so ubiquitous in sports, but it makes sense and it far from “utter crap.”[/quote]

No, because if someone wants the authentic jersey reebok will make the money from the sale regardless of if the name is on the outside.

[quote comment=”136493″][quote comment=”136488″]right, but if Old Navy and No Mas were going to put you on TV for 12 hours a week and millions of people would be watching don’t you think they might include a little logo somewhere to advertise their brand?[/quote]

Just because they might WANT to do so doesn’t mean it would be the right thing to do. It’s not the right thing for Reebok to do either.

[quote comment=”136488″]i understand the appeal of clean unis, but it would be bad business for Reebok not to logo thier NFL equipment.[/quote]

The notion that “it’s just business,” and that this rationale can self-justifyingly excuse any coprorate marketing move, is bullshit. Why not plaster the word “REEBOK” in giant letters on the jersey? Wouldn’t that be even “better” business? Isn’t it “bad business” that they haven’t done this already?

This rationale is offensive. It implies that everything and every space in our culture is for sale, that every cultural interaction can be reduced to a monetary transaction. And as my hypothetical in the previous paragraph implies, once you start there’s no ceiling. Why not take a billion dollars from a company and rename your state “Visa Presents Colorado”? Why not rename the seat of your city “The Pepsi City Hall”? Hey, it’s just business!

[quote comment=”136488″]being the official outfitter of the NFL brings billions to Reebok.[/quote]

Exactly. They get all the merch revenue anyway (it’s not as if you can choose to buy a NON-Reebok NFL jersey). So why the fuck do they need to slap their logo all over the field on top of that? Thank you for making my point.[/quote]

link

[quote comment=”136440″]Well at least the Bills looked nice last night to bad the same can’t be said for the titans.[/quote]

I really wish the Titans would wear their light blue pants with their white jerseys so that the top of their socks wouldn’t blend in with their pants.

back to the topic of number shadowing
The link went down to the right.

Better shot of the Bolts new jersey

Looks like the shoulder logo is the same as the old one. Which is a relief. I would have preferred they kept the old drop shadow on the front crest.

[quote comment=”136509″]

Better shot of the Bolts new jersey

Looks like the shoulder logo is the same as the old one. Which is a relief. I would have preferred they kept the old drop shadow on the front crest.[/quote]

wow those things look like they fit like a soccer jersey. I feel sorry for Joe Beer-gut-hockey-fan

how about this for a concept for the new thrashers logos..

thrashers logosÃ¢â‚¬Â¦

These are BRILLIANT. They have to be used like now.

As for the jersey concepts you posted, theyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re a touch hit-and-miss. The only one on the first page I like is the Penguins alt. I think the Bruins and Rangers got it much more right than that, you canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t save the Sabres short of going old school, and the Habs just look all sorts of wrong. KC I never liked the idea anyway, and hope that any new team there will pick a better team logo/name/color set. Dallas they did a very nice job with, TorontoÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ um, no. I like the Canucks update, but I LOVE what they did for the Senators. That should have been the way they went with the new jerseys, instead of what happened. I hate the orange for the Sharks, but they kept the horizontal shoulder stripe that I REALLY, REALLY wish Tampa Bay kept. That and the lack of a waist stripe are my two biggest problems with the real new ones. Lightning/Blues/AvalancheÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ blugh. But they got the Hurricanes DEAD RIGHT there. Shame the real Hurricanes didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t think like that. I even like the overused idea of a black alt. (though on another site someone mocked up a Hurricanes jersey in Whaler colors, and it was fantastic.) DetroitÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s mockup was just bad, and the Isles, I have one major problem (besides the hideous alt). There should be four stripes, not three.

dilbert179 i agree with you 100% on the sens and canes concepts..though i like the orange in the sharks concept..
how about these thrashers uniforms using those logos???

i liked the lightning jerseys until i found out they had that stupid ass front link

I agree with Chris F (post #19) but what do you mean by OJ era helmets? (Do you mean the canvas suspension interior and leather interior padded helmets.) OJ was one of the first to wear the ‘new’ helmet technology at the time, liquid (methyl alcohol) filled padding cells and air filled padding cells made by Riddell. His helmet interior was the prototype for the modern era helmets.

[quote comment=”136464″]anybody watch the mets game lastnight. all of them had los on the jerseys so it it said los mets. sorry no pics[/quote]

link

[quote comment=”136514″]i liked the lightning jerseys until i found out they had that stupid ass front link[/quote]

it looks like it’s only on the road whites, not the black homes.

[quote comment=”136503″][quote comment=”136462″][quote comment=”136457″][quote comment=”136432″][quote comment=”136431″]Those are so much better than their current ones.[/quote]
Thats about all that needs to be said on the subject. Team owners just don’t Get It sometimes.[/quote]

Amen to that. I’ll never understand why when teams hit upon a great uniform, like these Buffalo ones or the classic Charger’s powder blues, why they just can’t leave well enough alone. It worked for the Yankees and the Red Wings.[/quote]
Why? $$$$$[/quote]

Not always. The Chargers and Bills uniforms were remnants of losing teams and “updating” them can help change the perception (at least with the fans) and the players often want it.

But I hate the red Bills helmets. Anyone recall the story behind them – something like Joe Ferguson had problems making them out in games with the Pats, Dolphins, Colts, Jets?[/quote]

Actually, both teams won AFL Championships in the 60’s, which is the period their throwbacks are from.

[quote comment=”136482″][quote comment=”136472″][quote comment=”136436″][quote comment=”136433″]Those unis are just about perfect. Incredible.[/quote]

I don’t know if I’d say “perfect.” They still have that Reebok logo on the sleeve! Get rid of that and we can talk perfect.[/quote]
So you mean to tell me that if you manufactured something that you wanted to make money off of, you wouldn’t put your logo on it? Especially if that logo is universally recognized? I understand that it’s annoying when the logo overpowers the jersey, but the fact is that Reebok is the one that manufactures and produces the jerseys, so there is absolutely nothing wrong with their logo being on it.[/quote]

Hmmm, I’m looking at this cool No Mas T-shirt I’m wearing, and it doesn’t say No Mas on the outside (just on the inner collar). And the shorts I’m wearing, which I think I got a few years ago at Old Navy, don’t say Old Navy on them (except, again, on an inner tag). And this cool stingy-brim hat I’ll be wearing to my friend’s birthday party tonight doesn’t have the manufacturer’s name on it (execpt, yet again, on the inside). So I guess those three manufacturers really missed the fucking boat, right?

More importantly: The Bills’ uniforms already represent a brand — the BILLS’ BRAND. That’s what a uniform is for. The Reebok logo just clutters and distracts from that mission.

Look: The notion that corporate logos are self-justifying simply because “they’re the one who manufactured it” is — and always has been — utter crap.[/quote]

I’d agree … if I could just get this stinkin’ horse picture off my short sleeve collared shirt I’m wearing right now. :)

[quote comment=”136521″][quote comment=”136482″][quote comment=”136472″][quote comment=”136436″][quote comment=”136433″][/quote]

I’d agree … if I could just get this stinkin’ horse picture off my short sleeve collared shirt I’m wearing right now. :)[/quote]

I got one of those, too. It has some dude carrying some sort of stick while he’s riding a horse. My wife bought it for me. I think she wishes I was a cowboy or something!

[quote comment=”136482″][quote comment=”136472″][quote comment=”136436″][quote comment=”136433″]Those unis are just about perfect. Incredible.[/quote]

I don’t know if I’d say “perfect.” They still have that Reebok logo on the sleeve! Get rid of that and we can talk perfect.[/quote]
So you mean to tell me that if you manufactured something that you wanted to make money off of, you wouldn’t put your logo on it? Especially if that logo is universally recognized? I understand that it’s annoying when the logo overpowers the jersey, but the fact is that Reebok is the one that manufactures and produces the jerseys, so there is absolutely nothing wrong with their logo being on it.[/quote]

Hmmm, I’m looking at this cool No Mas T-shirt I’m wearing, and it doesn’t say No Mas on the outside (just on the inner collar). And the shorts I’m wearing, which I think I got a few years ago at Old Navy, don’t say Old Navy on them (except, again, on an inner tag). And this cool stingy-brim hat I’ll be wearing to my friend’s birthday party tonight doesn’t have the manufacturer’s name on it (execpt, yet again, on the inside). So I guess those three manufacturers really missed the fucking boat, right?

More importantly: The Bills’ uniforms already represent a brand — the BILLS’ BRAND. That’s what a uniform is for. The Reebok logo just clutters and distracts from that mission.

Look: The notion that corporate logos are self-justifying simply because “they’re the one who manufactured it” is — and always has been — utter crap.[/quote]

Called it.

[quote comment=”136493″][quote comment=”136488″]right, but if Old Navy and No Mas were going to put you on TV for 12 hours a week and millions of people would be watching don’t you think they might include a little logo somewhere to advertise their brand?[/quote]

Just because they might WANT to do so doesn’t mean it would be the right thing to do. It’s not the right thing for Reebok to do either.

[quote comment=”136488″]i understand the appeal of clean unis, but it would be bad business for Reebok not to logo thier NFL equipment.[/quote]

The notion that “it’s just business,” and that this rationale can self-justifyingly excuse any coprorate marketing move, is bullshit. Why not plaster the word “REEBOK” in giant letters on the jersey? Wouldn’t that be even “better” business? Isn’t it “bad business” that they haven’t done this already?

This rationale is offensive. It implies that everything and every space in our culture is for sale, that every cultural interaction can be reduced to a monetary transaction. And as my hypothetical in the previous paragraph implies, once you start there’s no ceiling. Why not take a billion dollars from a company and rename your state “Visa Presents Colorado”? Why not rename the seat of your city “The Pepsi City Hall”? Hey, it’s just business!

[quote comment=”136488″]being the official outfitter of the NFL brings billions to Reebok.[/quote]

Exactly. They get all the merch revenue anyway (it’s not as if you can choose to buy a NON-Reebok NFL jersey). So why the fuck do they need to slap their logo all over the field on top of that? Thank you for making my point.[/quote]

And called it.

[quote comment=”136493″][quote comment=”136488″]right, but if Old Navy and No Mas were going to put you on TV for 12 hours a week and millions of people would be watching don’t you think they might include a little logo somewhere to advertise their brand?[/quote]

Just because they might WANT to do so doesn’t mean it would be the right thing to do. It’s not the right thing for Reebok to do either.

[quote comment=”136488″]i understand the appeal of clean unis, but it would be bad business for Reebok not to logo thier NFL equipment.[/quote]

The notion that “it’s just business,” and that this rationale can self-justifyingly excuse any coprorate marketing move, is bullshit. Why not plaster the word “REEBOK” in giant letters on the jersey? Wouldn’t that be even “better” business? Isn’t it “bad business” that they haven’t done this already?

This rationale is offensive. It implies that everything and every space in our culture is for sale, that every cultural interaction can be reduced to a monetary transaction. And as my hypothetical in the previous paragraph implies, once you start there’s no ceiling. Why not take a billion dollars from a company and rename your state “Visa Presents Colorado”? Why not rename the seat of your city “The Pepsi City Hall”? Hey, it’s just business!

[quote comment=”136488″]being the official outfitter of the NFL brings billions to Reebok.[/quote]

Exactly. They get all the merch revenue anyway (it’s not as if you can choose to buy a NON-Reebok NFL jersey). So why the fuck do they need to slap their logo all over the field on top of that? Thank you for making my point.[/quote]

i don’t feel like i was backing your point, Paul. the ridiculous corporate bashing on this blog just gets a little tired sometimes. i was simply offering some rationale for the logoing.

it has a purpose whther you want to describe it as utter crap and back it up with extreme examples or not.

that’s all. no need for belligerence. sorry.

[quote comment=”136511″][quote comment=”136509″]

Better shot of the Bolts new jersey

Looks like the shoulder logo is the same as the old one. Which is a relief. I would have preferred they kept the old drop shadow on the front crest.[/quote]

wow those things look like they fit like a soccer jersey. I feel sorry for Joe Beer-gut-hockey-fan[/quote]

The premier replicas they are selling will have the cut of the sweaters from last year.

[quote comment=”136481″]wow look at these uniform concepts…

First off, let me state I am a HUGE fan of “old-time” tradition (I’m a Cub fan, for goodness sake). I mention this so I’m not (as badly) crucified when I say that:

I REALLY, REALLY like the 3-D look of the Toronto Maple Leaf on those concepts. It adds a touch of update that’s been needed for decades.

[quote comment=”136481″]wow look at these uniform concepts…

First off, let me state I am a HUGE fan of “old-time” tradition (I’m a Cub fan, for goodness sake). I mention this so I’m not (as badly) crucified when I say that:

I REALLY, REALLY like the 3-D look of the Toronto Maple Leaf on those concepts. It adds a touch of update that’s been needed for decades.

I’m with Jeremy and Greg on this one. I read this blog frequently though not religiously and Paul is coming across as a real ass with his comments. You can disagree without being disagreeable.

[quote comment=”136524″]the ridiculous corporate bashing on this blog just gets a little tired sometimes.[/quote]

Yeah, it’s really ridiculous of me to be pissed off at a business culture that has given us things like “The Tostitos Fiesta Bowl” and White Sox games that start at 7:11 (as a convenience store promo). Right, I’M the one who’s ridiculous.

Jesus fucking Christ…..

[quote comment=”136530″][quote comment=”136524″]the ridiculous corporate bashing on this blog just gets a little tired sometimes.[/quote]

Yeah, it’s really ridiculous of me to be pissed off at a business culture that has given us things like “The Tostitos Fiesta Bowl” and White Sox games that start at 7:11 (as a convenience store promo). Right, I’M the one who’s ridiculous.

Jesus fucking Christ…..[/quote]

Paul,

Please do not express our opinion on your blog.

[quote comment=”136531″][quote comment=”136530″][quote comment=”136524″]the ridiculous corporate bashing on this blog just gets a little tired sometimes.[/quote]

Yeah, it’s really ridiculous of me to be pissed off at a business culture that has given us things like “The Tostitos Fiesta Bowl” and White Sox games that start at 7:11 (as a convenience store promo). Right, I’M the one who’s ridiculous.

Jesus fucking Christ…..[/quote]

Paul,

Please do not express our opinion on your blog.[/quote]

Oops… meant “Your” opinion.

I totally agree with you. When will we get the Visa Uni Watch Blog?

Somebody needs to give Paul a hug

[quote comment=”136438″]Now those “gang” hats by New Era are being pulled.

link

A similar type of situation occurred in Cleveland earlier this summer. link

[quote comment=”136533″]Somebody needs to give Paul a hug[/quote]

OK, sorry I’ve been sounding so grouchy. Please understand that the passion I bring to this particular sub-topic is rooted in the same passion I bring to, say, my enthusiasm for striped socks. It’s all about my passion for uniforms. And while some of you may disagree, my feeling is that the profusion of corporate logos on uniforms is a severe threat to something I hold dear — it’s a first step toward sponsorship ads. So yes, I get angry about that.

I also get angry about arguments that basically say, “It’s called marketing, duh” or “It’s just business.” Yes, we KNOW it’s marketing — that’s not the issue. The issue is whether it’s appropriate, and whether it’s a good thing for uniforms, which is what this site is all about.

[quote comment=”136524″][quote comment=”136493″][quote comment=”136488″]right, but if Old Navy and No Mas were going to put you on TV for 12 hours a week and millions of people would be watching don’t you think they might include a little logo somewhere to advertise their brand?[/quote]