Skip to content

A Closer Look at the New Reebok Logo

At least 80% of corporate logo changes (including but not limited to those in the sports world) don’t mean jack. They’re usually some combination of (a) an easy way to generate some media coverage without actually doing anything; (b) an easy way to make your product(s) look “new and improved” without actually changing them; (c) a new management team marking its territory; (d) leftover money in the marketing budget getting spent before someone repurposes it for another department; and (e) a way to throw some work to the ad agency owned by the CFO’s son-in-law.

But Reebok’s new logo, which Phil briefly mentioned in yesterday’s Ticker, is actually significant, because it signals a genuinely new direction for the company. As you can see in the video above, Reebok plans to step away from outfitting “elite athletes” and will instead emphasize everyday fitness.

I’m all in favor of fitness (I’m a daily exerciser myself), although I don’t give a shit who makes my gear. Everyone knows workout attire is all pretty much the same, so I just buy whatever’s on clearance — or at least that’s what I did eight or nine years ago, which was the last time I needed to buy any gear.

The bigger issue, at least from a Uni Watch perspective, is what Reebok’s new direction means for the uni-verse. First and foremost, what does it mean for the NHL, which is outfitted by Reebok? According to this report, “rumors have circulated” that the NHL’s uniform contract could be taken over by Reebok’s parent company, Adidas. Imagine what that could mean for the red and blue lines, which are currently (and very annoyingly) Reebok-branded — we could end up with a line being branded by a company whose visual signature is three lines. Ugh.

While I’m just speculating (i.e., I have no hard evidence or inside info to back up what I’m about to say), I suspect the real story here is that Reebok has largely been eclipsed by Under Armour. Think about it: Under Armour’s increased presence in the uni-verse pretty well coincides with Reebok’s decline.

Anyway, what about the new “delta” logo? Well, you certainly have to give them credit for uniqueness:

Okay, so maybe it isn’t so unique after all. But hey, I’m sure the CFO’s son-in-law could whip something up after lunch.

The description of logo in the video shown above is even worse than the logo itself, especially when Reebok exec Matt O’Toole manages to keep a straight face while reading the following script:

Our new brand mark is not a logo. It’s a symbol, it’s a beacon for all of those around the world who want to live a fit and healthy lifestyle. Ultimately, our new delta symbol is a symbol for a way of life.

Honestly, how do these people sleep at night after saying shit like that? As I’ve noted before, there’s still one major uniform outfitter that remains largely immune from all this corporatespeak bullshit: Majestic. They may not be “cool,” and most fans probably couldn’t pick their logo from a lineup, but at least they’re not a lifestyle brand, so they don’t engage in all this embarrassing corporate nonsense. They just make uniforms. (Well, at least until Nike or Under Armour outbid them for the MLB contract, which is bound to happen eventually.)

+ + + + +

Bucs update: The Tampa Bay Bucs were supposed to unveil their new uniforms this Wednesday afternoon. But in a surprise move, they released the following photo at 9am Eastern today:

More photos will supposedly be available at 2pm Eastern. I’ll post a separate entry then.

+ + + + +


Unmasking the commenters: DenverGregg, Mark in Shiga, Jet, Graf Zeppelin, The Jeff, DC Connie, terriblehuman, Dumb Guy, boxcarvibe, Oakville Endive, name redacted, Padday — if you read Uni Watch’s comments section, you’re probably familiar with these pseudonyms, which belong to some of the site’s most frequent and articulate commenters.

Who the hell are these people? I’d like to find out, and I think it would be fun for everyone else in the Uni Watch community to find out as well. So if you’re a frequent commenter on the site (including but not limited to those whose screen names I just rattled off) and are desperate for some attention would like to give us a peek behind the internet’s curtain of anonymity, send me a photo of yourself along with some basic info. I envision something roughly like the following:

Mr. Stirrups: Hi. I live in Brooklyn, where I spend way too much time obsessing over two cats (who deserve the attention) and one local baseball team (which probably doesn’t). I’m about to hit a milestone birthday but nobody thinks I look that old, which just goes to show the anti-aging benefits of being really, really immature. Been reading Uni Watch ever since I, uh, invented it. I comment a lot because it’s, you know, my site, so I tend to engage with it a lot. The reason for my screen name is pretty obvious from this photo — I love stirrups. Always have, ever since I was a kid. My pet uni peeve: a certain color that shall not be named.

If you want to reveal your real name, you can, but that’s not required. But if you want to participate in this, I’m going to insist that you provide a photo of yourself. I realize you might not want your boss to know how much time you spend on Uni Watch (especially since he might then search your computer and discover how much time you also spend watching internet porn), so if you don’t want the photo to include your face, just crop it, or wear a bag over your head, or whatever. The photo doesn’t have to reveal your identity, but it does have to be a photo of you.

Oh, and for the handful of you who are honest enough to post comments under your real name instead of resorting to a pseudonym (hi, Chance!), you’re welcome to participate in this as well.

Maybe we’ll do something similar later on for frequent Ticker contributors. For now, though, I want to stick to commenters — I hope a bunch of you will tell us a bit about yourselves. Send photos and info here.

+ + + + +

’Skins Watch: The Cleveland Plain Dealer says it’s time to retire Chief Wahoo (thanks, Phil). ”¦ Meanwhile, the Indians may be de-emphasizing Wahoo in a lot of their branding, but Rob Ullman reports that Wahoo still has a big presence on T-shirts being sold at Old Navy. … There’s Wahoo’s possible phase-out and then there’s Wahoo Closeouts (from Drew Schmitt). ”¦ Dale Earnhardt Jr. thinks the ’Skins should keep their name (from Yusuke Toyoda).

Baseball News: Cardinals OF Peter Bourjos was wearing striped stirrups yesterday (screen shot by Paulie Sumner). … Speaking of the Cards, we’ve mentioned several times now that they’re wearing their red BP jerseys for Grapefruit League games this season, instead of wearing their game jerseys as they’d done in the past. I had assumed this was strictly to goose BP jersey sales, but it turns out that skipper Mike Matheny instituted the move as a way of making the players “earn” their game jerseys. Sounds like Matheny missed his calling as a football coach (from Tony Carney). ”¦ When Daisuke Matsuzaka pitched for the Mets toward the end of last season, he wore socks emblazoned with a swoosh and his uni number. Those socks, thankfully, were not in evidence during his 2014 Grapefruit League debut yesterday. … Love this shot of former Expos SS Chris Speier in full uniform and cross-country skis, presumably at Olympic Stadium (big thanks to Michael Clary).

NFL News: Here’s an interesting Falcons cheerleading outfit from 1970 (from Bill Schaefer). … Scott Norwood jokes never get old (from Harrison Hamm). ”¦ “This weekend I was at a mall in Albany and spotted a rack of bumper NFL stickers at a sports memorabilia shop,” says Michael Giordano. “They had all 32 teams, but the Jacksonville sticker showed the prototype helmet logo that was never used. I found it amazing that they had these saved for 19 years!”

College Football News: Some idiot has demonstrated that you can make every college football team look ridiculous if you just make the logos really, really big.

Hockey News: The Heriage Classic was yesterday, with the Senators and Canucks both wearing excellent throwback uniforms, although Mike McBride was upset to see that several of the Ottawa players didn’t have laces in their collars. “Makes the whole outdoor game thing feel unimportant,” he says.

Soccer News: Did you know there’s a sport that combines soccer and golf? “Oh, the hose!” says Terence Kearns. … Burnley will wear a special centennial throwback for the last game of the season (from Jonathon Binet). … FIFA will now allow players to wear religious headscarves but has banned messages on undershirts.

NBA News: This is fascinating: Prior to every Thunder game, a pastor, rabbi, or other religious official leads the arena in a prayer. The really interesting part is that this custom was taken from the Hornets, during their brief post-Katrina stopover in OKC. Recommended reading. ”¦ Sleeved Spanish-language uniforms yesterday for the Bulls and Knicks, and boy does that pattern on the back look like pajamas.

College Hoops News: Good article on how Nike sweetened Wichita State’s deal after the school reached the Final Four last year (thanks, Phil). … South Carolina G Sindarius Thornwell wore gold shoes on Saturday (from Jeremy Baker).

Grab Bag: Reprinted from Friday’s comments: Good news out of Boston, where the local transit authority tried to sell corporate naming rights to local subway stations but found no takers. ”¦ “At this rate, soon there won’t be anything at the U. of Maryland that’s not covered with the state flag,” says Yusuke Toyoda. … I’ve been seeing these “PL$” check-cashing storefronts springing up all over Brooklyn lately. I know check-cashing and payday loan outlets are basically evil (or at least prey on the circumstances brought about by other evils), but I confess that I always respond positively when I see my initials and a dollar sign, especially when rendered in my favorite color scheme. … Here are all the dresses worn by Best Actress Oscar winners since 1929 (from Charlie Kranz). … And speaking of the Oscars, our own LI Phil Hecken nailed 21 out of his 24 picks.

Comments (116)

    I don’t mind Majestic, but I’m not a fan of the BP jerseys. The different colored “pits” ruin what could be a decent jersey.

    BTW, when is Majestic’s contract up with MLB?

    I wasn’t advocating for (or against) Majestic’s design templates.

    I was simply saying they’re not a lifestyle brand. They don’t make sneakers, they don’t have dedicated retail stores, they don’t run idiotic commercials, they don’t engage in corporatespeak nonsense. They simply make uniforms.

    New Era used to fit this description too. But then they transformed themselves from sports headwear manufacturer to lifestyle brand. Their dignity quotient is now down around zero.

    Paul, the Adidas spikes you are wearing in the picture are classic! Love them!

    Not sure about majestic but I know the reebok nhl deal only has one more season left and expires after the 2014 – 2015 season. I’m not in marketing but wouldn’t it make more sense for ccm another brand owned by reebok / adidas that actually makes hockey gear to take over the agreement???

    There was an article in the Toronto star that mentions bauer going after the new agreement but I would put my money on under armour to be honest. they seem to want to break into the big time pro sports and this fits the bill.

    Nike sold Bauer in 2008, they only thing I’ve seen them do recently in Hockey is the international team jerseys for the Olympics.

    Paul, stupid question maybe, but do you find certain brands of athletic gear, especially shoes, fit your foot better than others? For me, New Balance and adidas seem to feel better to my foot than Nike or Puma to use some big brands.

    Feet are very particular — and some are even more particular than others. (Case in point: I have bunions.) So I’m sure we all have certain footwear types or brands that fit us better than others.

    As Dr. Scholl (a real guy) once said: When your feet hurt, you hurt all over.

    Took me a long time to find the running shoes that best fit me. I replace mine three or four times a year, and now when I do I won’t even bother looking at another brand.

    I notice it more in skates. Once you find a brand to your liking you will see guys usually stick with that forever.

    Yea, I understand and agree with the Majestic point. To me, New Era crossed over as soon as they started making MLB caps in non-team colors.

    Then what about Majestic’s neon fashion jerseys throughout the 90’s….left chest chinese characters for teams….etc.

    Majestic’s marketing may not be as big as the other uniform outfitters but they play in the same pool as far as producing the fashion apparel, retail stores, commercials, and they have plenty of “corporatespeak” too.

    Oh and Paul, that Brooklyn hat you sport in your pic is AWESOME. I may have to get one myself. Love that cap.

    Paul, your opener is simply not accurate. In my experience, the VAST number of corporate logo changes happen because of a change in corporate direction and/or reaching a certain milestone (15, 20, 25, 40-year, whatever)… that results in a change in the org’s overall direction. i.e., the identity simply doesn’t embody the org as it once did. (Think: a residential builder with a ‘house’ logo. The co. transitions into a commercial builder over 20 years… a house doesn’t represent them anymore, obviously.)

    So, here’s the weight I’d put on each of your (perhaps purposefully snarky) comments:

    “At least 80% of corporate logo changes (including but not limited to those in the sports world) don’t mean jack. They’re usually some combination of:

    (a) an easy way to generate some media coverage without actually doing anything
    [2-5% – And which media, specifically, cover logo changes? Especially orgs with little to no news value? Corps simply do not change their logos to generate “news”. Ball teams, maybe, but even then that’s still pretty simplistic thinking… they want to sell more stuff.]

    (b) an easy way to make your product(s) look “new and improved” without actually changing them
    [10-20% – in most cases this only applies to consumer goods.]

    (c) a new management team marking its territory
    [20-25% – happens a fair amount. Mostly, though, it’s because they’re brought in, they see that the logo doesn’t reflect the overall corporate brand, and they seek to update it.]

    (d) leftover money in the marketing budget getting spent before someone repurposes it for another department
    [0% – absolutely a throwaway comment, no marketing dept. worth its salt would toss money out like that on a rebrand — esp. considering the impact the rollout causes across the organization.]

    (e) a way to throw some work to the ad agency owned by the CFO’s son-in-law”
    [3% – maybe, I suppose in the big NYC agencies where there’s some nepotism from large orgs to the agencies, but another throwaway, frankly.]

    In my opinion, 3 out of every 4 times, it’s because of a change in corporate direction.

    Oh, please. Let’s take some very recent examples:

    1) The Tampa Bay Bucs have a new logo. It signifies exactly NOTHING in terms of practicalities. Same team, same “direction.” They’re just fishing for some attention.

    2) Visa — the credit card — has a new logo. It signifies exactly NOTHING in terms of practicalities. Same business, same approach.

    3) Black and Decker has a new logo. It signifies exactly NOTHING in terms of practicalities. Same business, same product line, same approach. (Really shitty logo redesign, too.)

    Shall I go on?

    The Reebok logo redesign may suck, but at least there’s a reason for it — they’re truly going in a new direction.

    Tampa Bay — wants to sell more stuff. Plus, one could argue that old identity smacked of “90s” design style. It really was becoming a dated look (particularly the ship). As nice of a change as it was originally (with the pewter), it had become dated and needed to be cleaned up. But, they want to sell more $$. Not because they wanted media coverage.

    Visa — I’m not sure why they’d change. Probably just a freshening up.

    Black & Decker — change in direction, perhaps, to sell more to the consumer. I hate the new logo, but it’s definitely more consumer-y, and less geared toward a construction worker.

    You can go on and on, but it’s simply your opinion. It’s not very well thought out, especially considering the millions of businesses. They don’t change logos for the hell of it, in most instances.

    Tampa Bay – wants to sell more stuff.

    I’m fairly certain every business in the history of ever has “want[ed] to sell more stuff.” If that, in and of itself, is sufficient rationale for a logo redesign, then I guess every logo should be redesigned every five minutes. In any case, it doesn’t exactly qualify as “a new direction.”

    “Freshening up”? You’re just making my point that these redesigns are meaningless.

    They don’t change logos for the hell of it,

    I didn’t say they did it for the hell of it. Doing something as a play for media attention and/or as a way to imply “new and improved”-ness without actually improving anything, for example, are both calculated ploys. I just don’t think they’re very meaningful or honorable ploys.

    Paul, in regard to logos being redisegned every five minutes–soccer teams do almost exactly that with their jerseys. A new design every year (unheard of in traditional American sports) simply to sell more shirts. It comes along with all of the “new direction” rhetoric but it’s pretty clearly just to boost sales.

    Face it, the overall premise of your “five reasons” is off base and simply your own opinion. The Reebok example is representative of most logo changes.

    Frankly, in 20 years of doing this very thing… I’ve NOT ONCE had an organization change it’s logo because of any of the five reasons you’ve postulated. That’s hundreds of logo changes. If it was a new manager “marking her territory”… it’s because of the reason I stated, the brand just didn’t represent the organization anymore.

    The media attention premise only works for huge industry (like a Visa) or sports teams. Because NO MEDIA cover local mom ‘n pop company logo changes (or even mid-size organizations). It’s just not newsworthy.

    And apparently Visa changed because they changed their brand positioning and added a new tagline — straight from their announcement:
    “For decades, Visa, the global digital payments network, has been driven by a set of ideals anchored in our vision of being the “best way to pay and be paid.” This has expanded in recent years to include “for everyone, everywhere.” By evolving our famous tagline – “It’s everywhere you want to be” – the company is recommitting to these ideals and vision for consumers, merchants, governments, financial institutions and employees with a unified message tailored to each audience. With a new tagline, as well as a refreshed brand logo, Visa is introducing a new visual identity for one of the most recognized and powerful brands in the world.”

    Now, that’s a pretty meaningless statement above, I realize. However, it’s not likely any of your 5 points had anything to do with it. (#3 maybe being the most likely.) Maybe they did it to get rid of the outdated swooshy swipe? Who knows? Maybe they did it because they were Super Bowl sponsors? I dunno. Though, a freshening up is not necessarily “meaningless.”

    The biggest issue I have is the sweeping generalization you make. You point to three massive organizations. And one could argue on each that you’re “Top 5” isn’t relevant. Or, maybe they are in this case — who knows?

    Yet, there are millions more out there, large and small. And, based on my experience across nearly every major industry (and 13 years of academic study) your five key points… are not representative of the reasons for change. It’s simply not a “calculated ploy,” nor is it disingenuous, or some other mildly negative reasoning as you state.

    MOST of the time a new logo represents a new (valid) direction for the organization. And for most, that change is certainly not undertaken lightly.

    Paul, in regard to logos being redisegned every five minutes—soccer teams do almost exactly that with their jerseys. A new design every year (unheard of in traditional American sports) simply to sell more shirts. It comes along with all of the “new direction” rhetoric but it’s pretty clearly just to boost sales.

    Actually, Patrick, I’d say that the soccer teams are actually much more honest about it. They put expiration dates on their jerseys when they unveil them. Everybody knows they’re just temporary, knows exactly when they’re going to be replaced with a new design and therefore there’s no reason to employ the “new direction” rhetoric to justify them at an unveiling.

    PS, straight from the Black + Decker press release:
    “The brand would need to be fundamentally human, to reflect BLACK + DECKER’s ability to transform a daunting task into a feeling of accomplishment. It would need to be simple, evoking a past and future of intuitive, human-centric design, while still being meaningfully different and modern.”

    i.e., more consumer-y. :)

    I might also add that it probably had something to do with Stanley changing it’s logo (and direction) to be more consumer-friendly.

    We can argue over motivation for logo change, but I do agree with ScottyM that reasons (d) and (e) don’t reflect reality. Logo changes are expensive and time-consuming. You can’t do it with “leftover” money, and even if you could, you wouldn’t.

    Once you’ve gone through the exploration, reviews/revisions, blown them out for all 100,000,000 uses and combinations and created a style guide, you’re way over budget, a full quarter behind schedule and not that happy with the end product.

    And then you have something like The Gap where you freak out over the initial backlash and end up going back to the old logo, and that’s hundreds of thousands of dollars in labor and opportunity cost down the drain.

    As self-serving as identity changes seem, no one really likes doing them – the companies the designers or the bean counters for all the parties involved. The reasons maybe bullshit (likely an exec trying to make his mark) but it doesn’t happen for the hell of it.

    i think what Paul means is that certain companies who are going “in a new direction” are really, regardless of corporate-speak ideology, still selling the same exact products as before, and producing for/servicing the same exact customers as before, whereas Reebok really is changing for a new audience, or focusing on a select subset of their original clientele. Or so it seems.

    I really don’t see Adidas’s take over of NHL jerseys as anything more than a name change, and I’m sure it will still be the same jersey fabric/look. But I really do like what they did when they made national team/European club jerseys in the 1980s:

    I think (D) and (E) can be true in many situations. Six Flags parks creates new logos for their rides because their marketing teams at each respective park have the extra money they don’t want to lose in the new budget year. (Not the big coasters but the smaller rides Six Flags corporate doesn’t advertise for in their national advertising platform.) And I have no doubt that some of those marketing teams work with creative boutiques ran by people who used to work in Six Flags marketing departments. It happens all over the amusement industry.

    I’m glad those Ottawa players took the laces out. I think laces detract from a hockey uniform.

    Now if only they could’ve worn WHITE…

    Also, they played with the roof of BC Place closed, so it wasn’t really an “outdoor” game anyway – just a game played in a larger-than-normal venue.

    It was raining, which is normal for B.C. this time of year. Rain on an ice surface is EXTREMELY dangerous for skating of any kind.

    I thought the Heritage Classic was a total eye sore. Too much maroon and too much off white. I was getting dizzy watching the game.

    To the contrary I thought the uniforms looked great. Now if only Brian Engblom didn’t complain about them every few minutes that (1) they were so similar players were making bad passes because they couldn’t tell one team from the other and (2) that he couldn’t see the numbers. Maybe it’s time for Mr. Englbom’s yearly vision screening?

    Imagine what that could mean for the red and blue lines, which are currently (and very annoyingly) Reebok-branded – we could end up with a line being branded by a company whose visual signature is three lines

    I wonder if an Adidas branded red/blue line would have the Adidas wordmark on the wall like the Reebok one, or if the line itself would simply be 3 lines instead? Or both?

    In the CF news section of the ticker I like his concept of adding the Great Lakes to the jersey of Michigan, other than that everything else looks insane.

    Ugh. While I’m not sure I want to see it, any idea what the back looks like? Or, for that matter, any numbers other than 2?

    The numbers look like the digits on a digital clock. I wish they went a more “piratey” route.

    They remind me of the bamboo-looking faux-Asian fonts that terrible Chinese and Japanese takeout places use. Appropriate for an organization as dysfunctional as Tampa Bay’s.

    Hard to say for sure from one number, but I think they’re trying to mimic a cut gem. You know, treasure, because that’s what pirates look for when they’re not raping & pillaging.

    From the Bucs’ page: “Custom name and number fonts feature beveled edges inspired by historical Buccaneer blade carvings, echoing the modern industrial design inspiration.”

    (entered this while barfing)

    It’s a great look if you like arena football uniforms.

    It’s like they said, “Well, I hear from fans who want the to go back to the creamsicle, but then I also hear from fans who like the red and pewter, and someone told me black was cool. So let’s put them all together in one concept and make everyone happy!”

    Wow. These are getting worse every time a new one is released. I hope Cleveland politely declines the opportunity to work with this design team once it sees what they have to offer.

    Well… it’s a downgrade from the previous, but I like it. The number font could be better (we need to see more than just the 2 to really judge though), and I wish it had orange topped red socks, but other than that… not bad.

    Settle down, everyone. Give some credit to the Buccaneers for originality. We all knew after the Seahawks that NFL uniform design was evolving. I think this uni looks sharp. Trust me, in 5-10 years, this will look as common and tame as the the initial “modernized” looks like Atlanta and Arizona look now.

    Give some credit to the Buccaneers for originality. We all knew after the Seahawks that NFL uniform design was evolving.

    Neither of these sentences has even the slightest bearing on the design’s quality.

    The Jags’ two-tone helmet has “originality” too, but it sucks. And just because “we all knew” things were “evolving,” that doesn’t mean they’re evolving in a good direction.

    I’m not saying I hate the Bucs’ new design. But I’d like to see a higher standard of discussion than the one you’re trying to establish here.

    I find it a bit harsh that you singled out this comment for rebuke. In general, you’re accusing Dave of failing to do something that he never really claimed he was trying to do (critiquing the quality, or for that matter claiming that originality or evolution were inherently good things). What he is saying though is that these early reactions from commenters are, well, reactionary and that we should maybe consider that this initial conservatism has a tendency to abate given time and perspective (in this case the perspective of an aesthetic landscape in the NFL that is, whether we like it or not, ‘evolving’). Meanwhile, the guys making the facetious, not to mention cheap, “it looks like a [insert (obviously) inferior football league here] uniform” comments are keeping to a ‘higher standard of discussion’?

    The Seahawks actually improved their look, with going with a bluer blue and adding elements that broke up their monochrome in a clean way.

    The new Tampa Bay uni is a mishmash of clashing colors and design elements.

    Thanks, Padday. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and comments, especially on their own blog. But you are correct, my post was more about the nature of these impulsive reaction posts than a breakdown of what makes a uniform great. Uniform design and color is completely subjective anyway. As a Seattle fan, I love the “snot green” that our moderator has historically made the but of nasty comments and April Fools Day jokes because that green is ours. We own it, and believe me, we embrace it.

    So before I pass judgement on something simply because it’s different or unseen to this point, I want to see the dark version, see it on field, see it on TV in the sun and in a night game.

    And Paul, your point about the Jags? We all had a whole year of seeing how much that sucks, so I can appreciate shots being taken. While it may be unfair to claim a uniform will grow on you, lets just give it some time to see if it does.

    On further review, nothing says fearsome pirate like the number font used on my clock radio in 1977.

    What is it with Florida teams and wanting to look futuristic/edgy? You look at the Marlins and the Dolphins and Jaguars, but in actuality they look stupid. I mean seriously, WTF?

    have you been to Florida? common sense flies out the window when you cross the state line

    They’re just trying to compliment the other corner of the country. The extreme Northwest gave us Oregon & the Seahawks, so the extreme Southeast has the Bucs & Jaguars. It makes perfect sense.

    The other 2 corners are also complimentary, but it’s by having a bunch of teams in relatively small geographic areas. New York York has 2 or 3 teams in every league, and so does SoCal.

    Just when you thought corporate committee designed clown outfits couldn’t get more buffoonish, someone comes up with a worse one.

    are the pants/socks/shoulder of the jersey black or more pewter like the helmet? You can really notice a difference when looking at the toe of his shoe in the photo.

    Wasn’t it St. David’s day on March 1st? The daffodil is worn on Dydd Gwyl Dewi by the Welsh.

    Don’t really know why the Bucs needed to change things up as they had hit the ball out of the park on the last design.

    Reebok introduced the delta logo a couple of years ago, right after they affiliated themselves with Crossfit. They put it on all their shirts, shoes, shorts, etc. that they were selling to the Crossfit community. I’m pretty sure that “sport of fitness” is copyrighted; looks like Reebok thinks that this is the future.

    Are the Bucs taking uniform ideas from the long defunct Tampa Bay Mutiny? Yoke on shoulders. Weird digital lettering. They just need a little bat logo somewhere.

    I have a feeling the Bucs redesign is going to follow the same road as the Seahawks did. We’ll all hate it at first, but we’ll get used to it and eventually it won’t look so bad.

    That being said, I do like the uniform designaside from the number font.

    The Jersey reminds me of the late 90s Buffalo Bills two tone color schemes.

    The numbers are weird at best, and look inspired by a digital alarm clock, and I’m imagining a designer at Nike trying to pull an all nighter to make the deadline for the uniform unveiling, and waking up late in a panic over not being finished, and looking at his alarm clock and saying “hey wait a minute”….

    Eh, I *liked* the Seahawks redesign from the start. It was such an obvious improvement from the gun metal gray.

    Though I’m going to believe that your digital clock theory is true.

    Are the shoulders of the Bucs uni black or pewter? They look black, but the press release says they’re pewter. It’s going to look even more shitty if the only pewter in the uniform is on the helmet.

    To me, everything in the pictures looks like a matte black. Even the helmet. So maybe it’s the lighting of the pictures, or maybe the shade of pewter is just darker, but it doesn’t look like the color they previously had.

    Either way, it looks like shit.

    I’ve been told by a team source that all the dark elements are pewter.

    This will supposedly be more apparent in the additional photos that will be released this afternoon.

    Bucs new uniforms are too XFLish. The shoulders look pretty cool..but the number font really does nothing for it. A more conventional font would help. Too much change for changes sake. And it looked like it was designed by a 12 year old gamer.

    Majestic is part of the VF Corp which also includes Nmany clothing companies some of which are Nrth Face, Nautica, Timberland and Lee jeans. They make lots of retail Majestic goods for sale at national chains.

    I need to offer a mea culpa on a previous post that Paul called me on. My apologies to those of you who were subject to me “r—k” post, and I mean it. #neveragain

    Paul,looks like some nice leather you are flashing on the field. What brand and era? Got a good backstory on your trusty glove?

    Rawlings, early ’90s (I think). No major story, but I sure do love it.

    One thing about being left-handed is that there aren’t many lefty gloves available at most sporting goods shops, so you can try on literally every lefty glove in the joint…

    I’m not an overtly religious person. I’ve tried, but… well whatever, this isn’t where I’m going to get into it. That said, as an Oklahoma City person, I LOVE the invocation. Yes, I grew up here and with that, probably share MOST of the same values of the people here. I enjoy the invocation for the “community” aspect of it. It represents the MAJORITY of the fans (no, certainly not all) coming together in good spirits, to share something. Yeah, my thoughts on it are corny as heck, but I enjoy that feeling of good sports and that most of us are there to be happy and have a good time. It gives us a chance to recognize that, whether we’re truly reaching out to anyone’s specific God or not. I don’t know everyone’s opinion in the crowd, of course not, but I think it’s less a matter of not fighting a losing battle, more just one of respecting other people’s opportunity to practice what they believe in. A group of thousands of strangers letting people be, in a peaceful manner. I could be wrong, but that’s what I like to think.

    I don’t know if it’s been mentioned already, but that “new” Reebok logo has been around for over 3 years. They started using it when they signed on the sponsor the Crossfit Games.

    Shout out to Michael Giordano for finding the Jags bumper sticker. I live in Albany, and im thinking you probably found that at the “SportsZone” in Colonie Center. The place is filled with things like this. I always end up being in there for hours. If anyone is ever in Albany I would def hit it up!

Comments are closed.