• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Ice_Cap last won the day on July 16

Ice_Cap had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

7,217 Excellent


About Ice_Cap

  • Rank
    mission to civilise
  • Birthday 07/22/1987

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Tampa, FL

Contact Methods

Recent Profile Visitors

69,546 profile views
  1. Finally, Nike has vanquished the scourge of seams. Halle-fricken-lujah.
  2. "Association Edition"? "Crispy Whites"? "Icon Edition"? Really? Really? "Home Uniform" isn't good enough anymore? For 's sake.
  3. Sign me the up!
  4. Depends on if whoever buys them thinks a NHL team is more profitable than filling Toyota Centre dates with concerts or boat shows or whatever.
  5. As for the decade I grew up in... The 90s were a time of experimentation. The thing about experiments is that they don't always work. You need to learn to let the failures go. A lot of good came out of the 90s. A lot of bad did too.
  6. The Hawks have the worst look in basketball, and it's not even close. The Pacers aren't anything special, but at least the current look seems like it fits the name. The Old Navy pinstriped unis were too old school for a team with a name like "Pacers." The Grizzlies could maybe stand to update their look, but it's fine for what it is. It's firmly middle of the road.
  7. I don't mind the 2003 logo as a part of the Falcons' visual history. It's certainly dated, but not every team can be the Yankees. It's neat that you have a few team that play around with their look now and then and experiment with trends. My problem with the 2003 look is that it's stayed around far beyond its best-by date. The Falcons desperately need to return to a more traditional look, at least for the time being. The 03 look is fine as a snapshot of what sports aesthetics were at the turn of the century/mid 2000s, but it's not good enough to be a full-time look in perpetuity.
  8. I really like the old Falcons logo, but the 1997-2002 look isn't my favourite. I prefer the 1978-1989 look(s). With a preference for the 87-89 version. That being said? I'll take the 97-02 version over the current look any day of the week. I remember thinking the current logo was a huge improvement back when it debuted in 2003. Looking back though? It, and the uniforms it was introduced with, are incredibly dated.
  9. Someone asked him about that. He was apparently a Rams fan, but saw some Redskins uniforms from the 30s he liked? Or something. He never provided an answer.
  10. I never got the love for the navy and copper Oilers. Nor do I understand the desire to get the Oilers out of royal blue and into navy.
  11. Often because it seems like you or other designers are. Stuff like Nike claiming the same mass produced template represents the "iconic jaws of Husky Stadium" and "the horns of a razorback" for Washington and Arkansas stand out. Or how Nike claimed that Syracuse, a team for a school in Upstate NY, had vertically stretched numbers to represent New York City's tall buildings. Or how the Timberwolves claim the A sans crossbar in their wordmark represents a Viking rune for wolves. When in reality that rune means oxen. As does some dweeb claiming a striping pattern used since the 1940s represents UCLA's "past, present, and future." No, UCLA chose that striping pattern back then for one reason. Someone thought it looked good. And I really don't get why you see that as a bad thing. Why do the Dodgers have red front numbers on a primarily blue and white uniform? It looks good. Why do the Blackhawks have different striping patterns on their home and road looks? It looks good. Why do the Yankees wear pinstripes? It looks good. Sometimes there's a deeper meaning to things. The Philadelphia Eagles chose their mascot to reflect FDR's NRA organisation meant to combat the depression for example. Design companies really just embarrass themselves by trying to imply meaning to EVERYTHING though. It does come up like you're all making stuff up when the claims seem ludicrous under the tiniest bit of scrutiny. What's so wrong with saying "we made the Browns' orange brighter because we thought it contrasted better with brown than the older shade"? That seems like a perfectly fine explanation. The real explanation of "it represents the passion of the Dawg Pound" is just ridiculous. In order to properly pull off the "everything has meaning" you need to be both a philosopher and historian in addition to designer. And from what I've seen? Very few in your profession qualify as either. Let alone both.
  12. Not just being a Nike problem doesn't mean it isn't a Nike problem.
  13. I'm sure the teams are complacent in all of this. That being said? Nike can't shut up about their own brilliance. So not being able or willing to replicate one of the oldest and most wide-spread football design elements has to count against them.
  14. So now the blame falls squarely on Nike for the Jets and Colts right? No more Swooshketeers riding in to defend their favourite shoe company?