Jump to content

CONFIRMED BREAKING new Third Jerseys!


Hoss

Recommended Posts

Posted

My point is the opposite of the bold part: Bad branding can be related to the final quality of the product -- because ultimately the same people are in charge of both things. This is basically what I do for a living and I can tell you generally (not always) the good products come with good branding. The same people approve both.

 

As for the Jags, the "people responsible" are the owner and team president. Creative agencies don't give final approval.

 

Is it impossible to win if you can't get your uniforms right? No. But it's a statement about basic competence at the top of the organization. And FWIW the team does get other things right that do suggest they're well-run -- fan experience and even HarborCenter. But the idea that uniforms/branding don't mean anything is way off.

 

Since you conveniently and completely ignored my examples of horrid jerseys that are associated with dynasties, what about the opposite?

 

What about good branding? What about:

 

Cubs

Red Sox

Maple Leafs

Chi Bears

Jets (football)

Raiders (irrelevant since what, 1980? or the whipping they got in 1990?)

Reds

Indians

Eagles

Dodgers--especially if you look back to Brooklyn

Knicks

 

How many more do we need?

 

Good teams are good teams, irrespective of uniforms and/or branding.

 

PS I'll add the Rags to that list.

Posted

Just passing through, but somehow it appears this thread has turned into jerseys=wins......the enthusiasm is appreciated on this end...... But Please please just start the season so at least the quarrels on here have some sort of relevance :)

Posted

My point is the opposite of the bold part: Bad branding can be related to the final quality of the product -- because ultimately the same people are in charge of both things. This is basically what I do for a living and I can tell you generally (not always) the good products come with good branding. The same people approve both.

 

As for the Jags, the "people responsible" are the owner and team president. Creative agencies don't give final approval.

 

Is it impossible to win if you can't get your uniforms right? No. But it's a statement about basic competence at the top of the organization. And FWIW the team does get other things right that do suggest they're well-run -- fan experience and even HarborCenter. But the idea that uniforms/branding don't mean anything is way off.

 

What about the idea that uniform quality is so subjective? I can't believe you think such a subjective thing is seriously related to the quality of the organization's decision makers. I've said before that I think yellow/gold uniforms, by default, tend to be pretty ugly. Even a simple uniform which would have you jumping for joy, I'd probably find unappealing. Whose opinion is the correct one by which to judge the decision makers involved?

 

Since you conveniently and completely ignored my examples of horrid jerseys that are associated with dynasties, what about the opposite?

 

What about good branding? What about:

 

Cubs

Red Sox

Maple Leafs

Chi Bears

Jets (football)

Raiders (irrelevant since what, 1980? or the whipping they got in 1990?)

Reds

Indians

Eagles

Dodgers--especially if you look back to Brooklyn

Knicks

 

How many more do we need?

 

Good teams are good teams, irrespective of uniforms and/or branding.

 

PS I'll add the Rags to that list.

 

You're obviously misreading those teams' records. If a team makes a good branding decision, how can we expect them to not make good hockey decisions? I mean if they're getting the simple things right, surely they must be getting the complicated things right too!

Posted

Has anyone seen the new C & A patches? I scrolled thru and didn't see mention of it.

Yeah we saw 'em. Most of us thought they were cool, too.

BSSvS6TCQAAdSIo.jpg

Robviously said they were going to be our downfall this season, though.

Posted

Yeah we saw 'em. Most of us thought they were cool, too.

BSSvS6TCQAAdSIo.jpg

Robviously said they were going to be our downfall this season, though.

Thanks. I think they're sweet looking.

Posted

Some controversy about it. The "C" and "A" are only supposed to be approximately 3 inches tall. With the Sabres logos on them they are over the 3 inches. But technically it's only the actual C and A that need to be under 3 inches.

Posted

Yeah we saw 'em. Most of us thought they were cool, too.

 

Robviously said they were going to be our downfall this season, though.

 

I hope for his sake he hasn't seen the USA jerseys for Sochi :lol:

Posted

Some controversy about it. The "C" and "A" are only supposed to be approximately 3 inches tall. With the Sabres logos on them they are over the 3 inches. But technically it's only the actual C and A that need to be under 3 inches.

 

The Sabres and more than three inches — the concept is throwing me off.

Posted

Some controversy about it. The "C" and "A" are only supposed to be approximately 3 inches tall. With the Sabres logos on them they are over the 3 inches. But technically it's only the actual C and A that need to be under 3 inches.

 

Suck it NHL.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...