changes to mls logos

[Wgeddes122]

This is a quick post, i messed with 15 of the mls teams logos. I changed some names, changed some colors, and changed the logos. I went with things that I thought would be corrections and improvements to existing logos. I went with names that are more european, than american. hope you enjoy

[Wgeddes122]

here are the current logos for reference

[DTConcepts]

Toronto: Barely noticeable, unnecessary.

Orlando: Barely noticeable, unnecessary.

DC: Barely noticeable, unnecessary.

NY: Barely noticeable, unnecessary.

Philly: Barely noticeable, unnecessary.

Portland: A downgrade in my opinion, but overall, meh.

Colorado: Just unnecessary.

Vancouver: Just unnecessary.

LA: Upgrade. Don't see why you should change the name, but a good logo and a good name.

San Jose: Why change the name? It's unique. Font change is an upgrade though.

Houston: Upgrade. Really adds to the Texas feel.

SLC: If anything, it's a downgrade. The crown looks like clip-art in my opinion.

Seattle: Why?

Kansas City: Better. I personally am a fan of vector logos rather than gradients at all, so this is an upgrade.

Dallas: Downgrade. The bull separating the red and blue brings out the Texas flag in the logo and that aspect is gone.

Overall: 11/15 were unnecessary, unneeded, or downgrades. There was nothing wrong with those 11 logos, or really any of them for that matter. The only total upgrades were LA and Houston.

[the_grateful_ted]

LA is a pretty good update, so is Houston, and I actually like the crown moved to above the crest for SLC. Seattle is a complete downgrade though.

[TheBlueBomber]

The MLS logos are fine as they are. The American-style names aren't something you want to mess with either. Sorry.

[Wgeddes122]

The MLS logos are fine as they are. The American-style names aren't something you want to mess with either. Sorry.

^^this is an unnecessary comment, these are just some ideas, you can change some things. Kansas City wizards changed to sporting Kansas City and it is one of theost successful rebrands in sports history the European style names do help to elevate the leagues status as a whole

[Wgeddes122]

Toronto: Barely noticeable, unnecessary.

Orlando: Barely noticeable, unnecessary.

DC: Barely noticeable, unnecessary.

NY: Barely noticeable, unnecessary.

Philly: Barely noticeable, unnecessary.

Portland: A downgrade in my opinion, but overall, meh.

Colorado: Just unnecessary.

Vancouver: Just unnecessary.

LA: Upgrade. Don't see why you should change the name, but a good logo and a good name.

San Jose: Why change the name? It's unique. Font change is an upgrade though.

Houston: Upgrade. Really adds to the Texas feel.

SLC: If anything, it's a downgrade. The crown looks like clip-art in my opinion.

Seattle: Why?

Kansas City: Better. I personally am a fan of vector logos rather than gradients at all, so this is an upgrade.

Dallas: Downgrade. The bull separating the red and blue brings out the Texas flag in the logo and that aspect is gone.

Overall: 11/15 were unnecessary, unneeded, or downgrades. There was nothing wrong with those 11 logos, or really any of them for that matter. The only total upgrades were LA and Houston.

Some of these aren't big changes I didn't do full revamps of each team, I just made corrections where I saw fit, so this "barely noticeable and unnecessary" crap is frankly unnecessary. Not all of them are gonna be brand new looks. For the others you have your opinion I respect it, but I will make a counter point

Dallas: I don't like how the blue currently creates a weird shape because of the division by the bull

Seattle: supporter group is called emerald city and I thought it was a good name trying to go with more European style names

RSL: the crown is the one from the logo, it's upgrade and you are just flat out wrong on that one. Sorry

San Jose: again trying to get away from the American like names. Earthquakes isn't really unique, California based team in an area that experiences a lot of earthquakes, oh I know let's name them the earthquakes

Portland: again European style name and wanted to include red in the logo

[Wgeddes122]

Toronto: Barely noticeable, unnecessary.

Orlando: Barely noticeable, unnecessary.

DC: Barely noticeable, unnecessary.

NY: Barely noticeable, unnecessary.

Philly: Barely noticeable, unnecessary.

Portland: A downgrade in my opinion, but overall, meh.

Colorado: Just unnecessary.

Vancouver: Just unnecessary.

LA: Upgrade. Don't see why you should change the name, but a good logo and a good name.

San Jose: Why change the name? It's unique. Font change is an upgrade though.

Houston: Upgrade. Really adds to the Texas feel.

SLC: If anything, it's a downgrade. The crown looks like clip-art in my opinion.

Seattle: Why?

Kansas City: Better. I personally am a fan of vector logos rather than gradients at all, so this is an upgrade.

Dallas: Downgrade. The bull separating the red and blue brings out the Texas flag in the logo and that aspect is gone.

Overall: 11/15 were unnecessary, unneeded, or downgrades. There was nothing wrong with those 11 logos, or really any of them for that matter. The only total upgrades were LA and Houston.

Some of these aren't big changes I didn't do full revamps of each team, I just made corrections where I saw fit, so this "barely noticeable and unnecessary" crap is frankly unnecessary. Not all of them are gonna be brand new looks. For the others you have your opinion I respect it, but I will make a counter point

Dallas: I don't like how the blue currently creates a weird shape because of the division by the bull

Seattle: supporter group is called emerald city and I thought it was a good name trying to go with more European style names

RSL: the crown is the one from the logo, it's upgrade and you are just flat out wrong on that one. Sorry

San Jose: again trying to get away from the American like names. Earthquakes isn't really unique, California based team in an area that experiences a lot of earthquakes, oh I know let's name them the earthquakes

Portland: again European style name and wanted to include red in the logo

Sorry for the double reply

[upperV03]

I gotta tell you that Portland fans would be pissed if the Timbers name was scrapped in favor of "Portland City FC". I'm a big Timbers fan and our fan base respects the tradition of the name and the history behind it. And just knowing the passion of all the Cascadia teams, I would imagine Seattle and Vancouver fans would feel the same about their respective team names too. As for your actual changes to the Timbers' logo, I feel it is a downgrade. The chevrons have always been yellow in past crests and making them partially red just doesn't feel right.

[Wgeddes122]

^dont really care, it's just a quick concept. I don't care about the previous teams that used those names, I was going for more European like names to help elevate the level of the league, to maybe a point where it's on par with Europe

Are the logos good? That's what I'm asking it's a quick concept. Can all of yall stop freaking nit-picking it.

Seattle is definitely an upgrade the black and two greens is a great color combo, the sounders black and lime jersey is their best seller if there is any indication

[IanC]

Sometimes subtle changes are all thats needed which you have done on them. You can't win sometimes. If you had made big changes some would freak out. You make small changes and others freak out. Just remember it's your work and be proud of it and rise above the really harshest critics.

[Midway]

This isn't the place for you if you can't take some criticism. If you're going to publicly display your work, you have to expect that not all commenters are going to agree with your changes.

That being said, the only logo change that really drew my attention was the Dynamo. The subtle western stylings give it some character but I favor the shield background over the star. If you could find a good middle ground between those 2 elements you might have something solid on your hands.

[Wgeddes122]

This isn't the place for you if you can't take some criticism. If you're going to publicly display your work, you have to expect that not all commenters are going to agree with your changes.

That being said, the only logo change that really drew my attention was the Dynamo. The subtle western stylings give it some character but I favor the shield background over the star. If you could find a good middle ground between those 2 elements you might have something solid on your hands.

I can take criticism. What I'm talking about is all the nit-picky stuff, the fact that people can't look past their biases, which act as a sort of beer goggles that change how they see a design. They can't put away their biases and look at logo and critique it on its own merit. This was a quick concept, I said what I was trying to do. Somebody saying that some changes were minimal and therefore unnecessary, is frankly an unnecessary comment, I made varying changes to different logos depending on how I saw them. I went for European style names. I guess I'm just an idealist. so someone can voice their complaint and if I think they are wrong, then I'm not allowed to voice my criticism of that comment, how does that work?

[macalesterscots]

I don't think the problem is so much the inability to take criticism (although there may be a better way to go about responding to the criticism); the problem here seems to be the critics rejecting the premise of OP's work. He states he wants to give the MLS teams more European logos and naming conventions, and rather than comment on whether he accomplished this goal, commenters are instead comparing the logos and team names to their predecessors. That is not the point of the concept; when commenting on a concept, I feel there is a need on the part of the commenters to accept the concept's premise at face value, determine whether the concept successfully fulfills this premise, and address any room for improvement in the concept. I do think the premise of this concept could have been more effectively communicated to the board; the title, while accurate, does not clearly set out what the OP was trying to do. A more accurate title would be something like "Europeanizing MLS Logos". And, of course, being antagonistic to the commenters only exacerbates the problem.

Now, to the concept.

1) I'm not a fan of you adding the star to the Orlando City crest, as stars tend to indicate championships in the European sphere. It does not have a connection to the concept, unlike the stars seen in the Philadelphia, Dallas, and DC crests.

2) While I like the change you made to the Galaxy, the logo has far too much red. To remedy this, I would make the top half of the shield white to mimic the California flag.

3) The Dynamo logo you made evokes Texas well, with the flourishes and the star. I don't mind the star shape because it is unique.

4) Moving the crown for Real to the top of the crest was a good move.

5) Removal of the unnecessary gradient for KC was a massive upgrade.

[Wgeddes122]

The star on Orlando is from the old usl crest. That's why it is there.

Thank you for understanding

[jrcollis714]

Toronto & Orlando were barely changed. DC, Philly, LA, Houston, RSL, KC, and FC Dallas are all pretty good. What you did with New York, Portland, and Seattle ruin the logo, and the rest you can't mess with the names.

[S.Tom.P]

I do like the idea of the crown above the RSL crest - coming from an ardent supporter.

[DTConcepts]

I can take criticism. What I'm talking about is all the nit-picky stuff, the fact that people can't look past their biases, which act as a sort of beer goggles that change how they see a design. They can't put away their biases and look at logo and critique it on its own merit.

You must be new here. "Nit-picky" stuff is what can make or break a logo, in my opinion. The little stuff can make a logo great, and therefore not having that little stuff and missing an opportunity downgrades a logo.

[Jake3roo]

if you were to just post the Dynamo one, this would be an amazing thread, maybe even Creamer-worthy (okay, maybe not).

[Wgeddes122]

Not, new, this is about go with more European style, but people just freak out and hate something if you change something they like. I'm talking about judging them on the most basic level of being a logo. But apparently people can't see past all their own preconceptions. And as I said earlier not all of these are going to be big changes so I don't get why people keep bringing it up how some have only changed a little.