• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


WavePunter last won the day on August 2 2015

WavePunter had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

418 Excellent

About WavePunter

Recent Profile Visitors

3,355 profile views
  1. I agree on going slightly more yellow with the gold
  2. I like the current set.. A slight update to number font could help, but overall, I think it's one of baseball's more solid, unique looks
  3. OR.... teams use some common sense... if you're a primarily navy team playing against another primarily navy team, maybe don't wear your navy alts (or at least check w/ the home team first).. for these 3-4 game series, it can't be that hard to make a 2 min. phone call and discuss if/when the home team is wearing colored alts.. if so, choose the games they're not wearing similarly-colored jerseys to wear yours, or wear a secondary color if you must (like rangers at royals - if royals are wearing blue, rangers can wear red.. or royals are wearing powder, then the rangers can wear their blues, etc..) i'm in the camp that PRIMARIES are called PRIMARIES for a reason (and they should be white/grey).. your primaries should be worn the majority of the time (or at least half the time, at a minimum).. i also like alts, but they should generally be kept to a minimum, try to keep consistent design elements with the primaries, and hopefully be used for certain occasions (such as sunday afternoon home games)
  4. FIFY
  5. The dolphins throwbacks have similar striping and don't have to work the Nike swoosh into the stripes.. Plus, even on the cuts with the smallest sleeves, there's still plenty of room at the bottom where they could actually shift things down a bit and make even more swoosh room
  6. And technically it's a blue helmet.. According to the helmet manufacturers at least
  7. I'd even suggest they didn't need to eliminate the brown pants if they would just put stripes on them.. And I'll agree that they absolutely need a primary logo.. While I prefer the helmet remain logoless, they need something other than a solid orange helmet as a logo
  8. The Browns don't fit with the other 3 here.. They were currently wearing their classic set when they decided to redesign.. If they had gone back to it, there would've been no change, since they've worn essentially the same design for their entire existence.. Though I wouldn't be surprised if they do go back to that look (or at least something similar) as soon as the 5 years is up
  9. My little league team was the A's in 97 & 98, and we were forest green (and used the all green road hats).. So without knowing any specific date on the official switch, I knew it was at least before the late 90's
  10. Right.. I mentioned what the wolf was doing.. I never said the moon was pictured or featured in the logo.. I backed up Brandon's sentiment that the blue was necessary in evoking the nighttime feel, as its presence resembles a night sky with the North star.. If you change the background to white, it no longer feels like "sky" and also no longer feels like nighttime. Since you've clarified that wolves howl at night, it would support the premise
  11. So we can agree that it would make no sense for you to suggest that I claimed the logo included a moon..
  12. I never said there was a moon in the logo.. If there were, it would make more sense for it to be a light color (white/grey/yellow).. I said the logo evokes a nighttime feel, which would be explained by the darkness/blue-ness of the background, presence of a star, and howling wolf.. Wolves are known to howl at the moon, so I assumed it was fairly obvious that the wolf in the logo was likely howling at the moon.. If there was a moon in the logo, it wouldn't make any sense, since it would be behind the wolf.. It's tough to howl at something behind you..
  13. I agree.. The colors in the past were blue, black, green, white, with a grey wolf in the logo.. All they really did was replace the black with navy, which is essentially addition by subtraction.. They're basically becoming a "blue and green" team, even if they use two shades of blue, which are similar enough to allow for some subtlety, while being different enough to justify the use of both.. As Brandon said, the blues give a very "night time" feel to the logo (likely of the wolf howling at the moon -blue moon perhaps).. I actually think they could've gotten away with dropping the white or the grey, and settled on just one, but for the same reason, I don't mind the inclusion of either.. For the record, there are 5 teams with at least 4 non-white colors in their primary (celtics, grizzlies, timberwolves, thunder, and suns)
  14. I guess I'll throw my two cents in there.. Firstly, I've absolutely NEVER called it "philadelphia brand cream cheese", nor have I ever heard it.. Always just "philadelphia cream cheese" (you know, like the package actually says).. So, I'm not sure what made that such a great example, but it fell short.. Secondly, as stated, it seems you are conflating the terms "brand" and "name".. A name is simply a part of a brand, which is why you frequently hear the term "brand name".. The reason is because that is the name for that particular brand.. If the terms were interchangeable, people would just use the term "name" since it's the more common "everyday" term.. But they both hold value because they mean different things.. A brand is a perception or feeling, or sense of acknowledgment that surrounds a product.. It's a unifying set of expectations and consistencies commonly associated with a particular product.. I view it as a sort of ethereal or sublime intangible existence representative of a physical product.. An aspect of a brand is essentially a product's reputation.. If someone wants to change the reputation of their product, they need a new brand.. Not necessarily a new name, but a new identity.. The buccaneers are my quintessential example of this.. A franchise marred by futility completely rebranded and became immediate contenders, posting a record of .500 or better every year and making the playoffs in all but 1 season, leading up to a Super Bowl championship after only 6 years.. The teams logos, wordmarks, overall color scheme, visual appearance, uniform design, and even style of play and level of success all made a complete 180° at the same time.. That's about as "rebrand" as it gets.. Now, I'll also concede that there is a difference between rebrand and redesign, but I don't think size or magnitude really has as much to do with it as others have suggested.. The Miami Dolphins for example, have redesigned their uniforms.. They still feature an aqua dolphin on a coral (orange) sunburst, on a white helmet, with aqua jersey/white numbers/coral trim or white jersey/aqua numbers/coral trim, etc.. It's just a redesigned version of what already existed in several ways.. Aesthetically, I'd consider the dolphins a redesign (at least "on field", such as uniforms).. However, as people frequently point out that the logo evokes a cruise line or resort hotel feel, there are aspects of the organization that are clearly and markedly a "rebrand" (as confirmed by Brandon Moore, who made it clear that there was a big push to become a "luxury brand").. Other examples to me would be the Seahawks, Vikings, and more recent Buccaneers redesigns.. All were strictly uniform-based, and simply put a "new spin" on existing logos, colours, and design elements, without changing much about the public's perception of these franchises.. However, I would argue that the Rams going back to royal/yellow, even if they keep the same basic uniform design, that it would be a rebrand.. They're moving to a brand that's more in line with the warm, sunny LA weather and bright, vibrant LA/Hollywood scenery.. That's a very deliberate and conscious brand decision.. It's also shifting back to a more marketable brand in terms of fan support and retail opportunities, with the popularity of the throwback merchandise and historic colors.. It's a clear shift in brand identity.. I don't suppose any of this will sway anyone one way or the other, but I thought I'd share my opinions on the matter, and further hammer the point home that "brand" does not mean "name" in current or former vernacular.. Perhaps its recent rise in popularity and usage stems from the fact that more and more people are recognizing it as the most correct and accurate term to describe these things.. That doesn't mean it can't be misused or misappropriated, but it also doesn't mean that each use you disagree with is a misuse or misappropriation..
  15. It's blue.. Just really washed-out looking