Jump to content

SCalderwood

Members
  • Posts

    463
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

3,041 profile views

SCalderwood's Achievements

733

Reputation

  1. I would say the Pistons are both boring and classic. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. But I'm also not against teams trying different things every now and then. And I do not put the Pistons into some untouchable category where I don't think they should be allowed to change anything at all. To me, they are not one of those "untouchable" team identities. I actually respect the Pistons a lot for keeping things as consistent as they generally have. They've maintained essentially the same colors, logos, and uniforms (except for silly alts, but that goes for every team these days) for nearly 20 years (along with some occasional tweaks). My biggest complaint about the Pistons is their navy and gray/chrome alternate identity thing, but I am against alternate identities and color schemes for all teams, not just the Pistons. I didn't particularly mind the Pistons' teal years. They were fun, they fit the era, and they looked good. I would not want them to be worn today, but they felt right for the time. I'm often against change for the sake of change, but I find their new court rather inoffensive. It could have been SO much gaudier, ugly, and worse. It just doesn't strike me as something to get too bothered about. To say that teams should never change just to "try something different," I can't agree with that. Finally, if you want to get really technical about keeping things classic and not changing just to try something different, I give you the court of the 1958 Detroit Pistons: If you are truly a proponent of classic looks and not changing just to "try something different," you should be happy that the Pistons are "returning" to their original unpainted court. After all, their red/blue court was just "trying something different" - they never needed a red/blue court. They could have just kept the above court forever.
  2. I'm actually okay with what the Pistons are doing. At this point, teams are getting so experimental that this looks relatively tame. I'm ok with the 313 logo... does it look "angry?" Yes, kind of, but I think that's the point. They managed to make 3 numbers look intimidating; I give them credit for that. The Pistons have a very boring and generic-looking set of logos, so I guess they're doing the best they can to somehow do something different. The superimposed logo thing doesn't bother me all that much; I don't think it looks amazing or anything but it doesn't look terrible and it's something different. The downplaying of red and the "unpainted paint" ... I find myself okay with that, too. I guess they're just going for that bare bones look, like a lot of other teams have in the past, and I don't think it looks that bad. Pretty much every team that has gone to that simplistic unpainted look has found their way back to color, anyway. I guess it's just the Pistons turn to try it. Probably what they realized is that if they did both the superimposed logo AND had red paint, it would look too cluttered, and would draw away from the attention of the superimposed logo. So if their heart was set on the superimposed logo, I think they were smart to make the actual court sort of plain.
  3. I think the whole point of the ad patch is for it to be a little obnoxious and draw attention to itself, just like any other ad in any other format. So even if there were logo versions that would blend in better, I'm not sure they'd want to use them, because "blending in" is not really the purpose of the ad; if anything, that is kind of what they're trying not to do.
  4. Ah, ok. Understood. To be fair though, the American league players were decked out in blue from head to toe. Maybe that's why the scorebug people thought it would have looked wrong to have the National League assigned blue on the scorebug, I agree though, I wish the league were more consistent with these league color assignments in general. I wonder how it would have looked with The AL wearing all red and the NL wearing all blue. I mean if they're gonna go monochrome, why not fully embrace those league colors.
  5. Maybe I'm missing something really obvious, but can you be more specific about what you think is so "frustrating" about this? I think it looks okay. What am I missing?
  6. I'll narrow that down further - they should have worn white, because the game was in Milwaukee.
  7. They definitely have the Donruss Diamond Kings vibe going on.
  8. For me, it's not so much about aesthetics as it is about the league's responsibility to demonstrate a certain level of consistency, as a professional organization. The color-vs.-color matchups seem very arbitrary - yes, they are planned well ahead of time, but how are decisions being made for what uniforms each team is wearing in what game? There doesn't seem to be any planning in that regard and it feels very random. Any organization lacking rhyme and reason in their decision-making just makes me take everything else they do less seriously, like they don't really have a grip on what they are doing.
  9. Maybe they took the concept of "reverse retro" a bit too literally, j/k.
  10. The way they have those logos squeezed into those wide rectangular boxes, not fitting vertically yet having so much extra space on the left and right, looks sort of awkward. I think they should just go with "CHI" and "DET," and if still they really want to keep a logo in the box, they should make it smaller and shove it towards the left.
  11. I'll take what you said a step further. I do hate the look. I think it looks bad in a vacuum, and I think it looks bad in the context of their identity and history. I don't think it would be okay as an alternate jersey, because if it was an alternate jersey, that would mean that they would have 2 purple jerseys where mainly the only difference is the side panel color, which to me would be even sillier than having the black side panels to begin with. Having said all of that, I have to admit something. I'm usually pretty anti-BFBS, but somewhat surprisingly (to myself), I found myself okay with the Lakers' black jerseys when they first came out. I think I was okay with them because 1) They branded them as "Hollywood Nights" jerseys, so it felt somewhat purposeful and not just "let's add black to try to look cool," 2) They did not alter any of their other jerseys to incorporate more black than they already did or let black otherwise creep into their identity, 3) I don't recall them overwearing that jersey, and 4) I genuinely thought they looked pretty good - strictly as an occasional alternate.
  12. I definitely agree with you there... "hey look, we made the V look like a net" logos/uniforms were stupid.. I don't ever want to see those again. The mid-late 90s logos/uniforms were pretty bad also... their identity was just the word CAVS with a ball going into a net. At least the Cavs seem to have realized this and have somewhat stuck with an actual cavalier theme/identity (and generally consistent color scheme) for nearly 20 years. I give them a lot of credit for that. With the exception of the black sleeved alternate, I actually think they've always looked really good since 2003, except for maybe CavFanatics and recent City jerseys (this year's suck). Yes they've made some changes here and there but they've managed to keep the same general theme and look continuing for a long time now, so good for them.
  13. I think the Black Jays look is the worst they've ever looked, but I still don't think it was that bad and I don't think it deserves hate. It did feel very appropriate for the 2000s. I actually don't think the blue jays have ever looked bad, but the late 90s/early 2000s look aged quickly and already looked dated by 2003. I remember when I first saw the Black Jays look in 2004, I thought it was refreshing and cool. I liked the logo, wordmarks, the shade of blue, and the blue jay itself. Light blue, black, white, and graphite is a great color scheme on its own, and when you see a picture of a blue jay, it actually makes a lot of sense. Having said that, there is no way I would still want them to be wearing that look today. But I'm glad that they went through the Black Jays phase, it was different and fun while it lasted. Ultimately though, it was too drab and that was it's main downfall, IMO. Things that I think could have made that set look better - -having a blue alternate to be worn at home -having a blue cap to be worn as a home cap... and possibly modifying the home jerseys to include more blue so as to match this cap -restricting the black alternate to road games, and not wearing it so much -restricting the black cap to road games -keeping the road wordmark consistent with the home wordmark... I think at some point they changed the road wordmark and numbers, and it looked out of place In other words, just figuring out some way to better way to balance the blue and black in that set could have made it look better, instead of letting the black completely dominate. That's really my only complaint. It's actually kind of the same problem that the Marlins have had for decades. I guess black jerseys and caps just sell better than bright blue (or orange) ones. That's the only explanation I can think of. As for the FSN scorebug... I think I may agree with you there. Or, at the very least, I can't think of one I like much better.
  14. Agreed... they have such a beautiful color scheme, and I remember fans - not just Charlotte fans, but pretty much all NBA fans - being so happy to see that classic purple and teal look again. Then, just a few years later, what did we get... "BUZZ CITY." "CHA." Black jersey. Mint jersey. I want exactly what you want, but that seems like reasonable request for like 15 years ago, not today. Nike's strategy seems to be to ignore the simplest, most elegant solution and instead come up with weird ugly convoluted designs and colors ... and then have the team wear them too often.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.