Super Bowl 50 Aesthetics

[BrandMooreArt]

this isn't official SB50 graphic work, but it comes from ESPN and i thought it was worth showing. i like these little banners. you can see the rest here: http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/page/top50SBrank3/ranking-50-greatest-players-super-bowl-history-nos-10-1-nfl

 

 

[Mr. Bojangles]

 

 

[Cujo]

2 hours ago, TheOldRoman said:

they chose to wear white because they've lost all four orange Super Bowls, getting dump-trucked the last two times.

 

Dumptrucked by Seattle and San Fran... Then what do you call that 42-10 loss to the Redskins?    

[TheOldRoman]

6 minutes ago, Cujo said:

 

Dumptrucked by Seattle and San Fran... Then what do you call that 42-10 loss to the Redskins?    

 

Right you are. I was thinking of the last two games in the old orange jerseys. They got destroyed thrice.

[IceCap]

On January 28, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Captain Poncho said:

I have no qualms about the Conference logos not being present.  They're incredibly secondary in the scheme of important graphics to display (and there are a ton to display).

 

I'd even go so far as to say no one truly cares about the conferences since it is fairly trivial. It's not an SEC vs. PAC12.

You would be wrong. The Super Bowl grew out of a game between the NFL and AFL champs, the two leagues that went on to form the basis for the NFC and AFC.  So the conferences are pretty important. 

 

Also? I care

[Sport]

28 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

You would be wrong. The Super Bowl grew out of a game between the NFL and AFL champs, the two leagues that went on to form the basis for the NFC and AFC.  So the conferences are pretty important. 

 

Also? I care

I also care. This isn't the BCS where the two best teams are picked by a computer and voters. You literally can't play in this game unless you win your conference, which is why they're more important to display than identifying SEC v. Pac12 or whatever. You're representing those 16 teams. A visual shoutout to the conference looks good, speaks to traditions, and is also an identifier for how each team got to that point.   

[Captain Poncho]

40 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

I also care. This isn't the BCS where the two best teams are picked by a computer and voters. You literally can't play in this game unless you win your conference, which is why they're more important to display than identifying SEC v. Pac12 or whatever. You're representing those 16 teams. A visual shoutout to the conference looks good, speaks to traditions, and is also an identifier for how each team got to that point.   

 

To that point, it's a very inside baseball sort of identifier. Sure, you had to win your conference to get there, and yes it hearkens back to the old AFL/NFL days, but visually, it's a very secondary consideration. The identity absolutely needs to present marks for:

 

1) The Super Bowl

2) The NFL

3) The Denver Broncos

4) The Carolina Panthers

 

After those four mandatories, why cram in another unnecessary designation? I'd argue that it's clutter, because even though there's some nostalgia about the old AFC/NFC, it's not important enough to drop onto the playing surface, even though it's been done in the past.  Also, I'd suggest that there is either zero or a tiny fraction of NFL fans that would identify themselves as fans of a particular conference – no one goes out of their way to wear an AFC hat or an NFC t-shirt, and, if you do, you're probably on the extreme periphery.

 

I know I have great difficulty cheering for teams that play in the same conference as my team. So what if the AFC wins the Super Bowl and it's not my team? Is there inherent pride in that? Even if there is some, is it enough to warrant more artwork on the playing surface?  I don't think so.

[TheOldRoman]

It's not clutter. There's 120 yards to work with! And the last 46 Super Bowls have found a way to "cram in" those logos. It doesn't even make the endzones look better. They both look bad. Having off-center wordmarks is dumb. The Panthers one in particular looks incomplete and poorly spaced out. This is what a field should look like for one of their London games, not the Super Bowl.

 

Furthermore, I'd argue that the NFL doesn't need marks present for it. It's the Super Bowl. You know it's the NFL. Also, if the NFL was good at what it does, they probably could have found a way to incorporate the shield into the SB logo, as the NBA, NHL and MLB all manage to do with the logos for their championship series.

[Captain Poncho]

Design-wise, having a visual priority list is a good thing.

 

Removing elements that might not be necessary for the enhancement of the overall aesthetic is key, and I believe the conference logos fall squarely into this category. Regardless of how the NFL has or has not pulled off the Super Bowl logos, they've chosen not to incorporate the NFL shield into that identity, which necessitates both presentations.

 

As to the open space, it's a matter of conjecture (what on these boards isn't?), but if you feel the space in the end zones is too empty, is the "cure" Conference logos? I still think they're not important enough to be present. Fill that space with another team mark, perhaps even facing helmets.

 

Keep in mind this reduction in number of logos isn't inherently bad just because it's never been done before.

[ryanheape]

I think conference logos are helpful for people who aren't familiar with the two-sided playoff format—it quickly explains to the layperson why the Cowboys and Packers can't ever face each other in the Super Bowl. Also, the pageantry is fun. It shows off the fact that the reason why your team is here is that they are NFC or AFC champions. Like, imagine being a Browns fan when (if?) they finally see a brown endzone with the AFC logo in it on a Super Bowl field for the first time.

[TheOldRoman]

8 minutes ago, Captain Poncho said:

Design-wise, having a visual priority list is a good thing.

 

Removing elements that might not be necessary for the enhancement of the overall aesthetic is key, and I believe the conference logos fall squarely into this category. Regardless of how the NFL has or has not pulled off the Super Bowl logos, they've chosen not to incorporate the NFL shield into that identity, which necessitates both presentations.

 

As to the open space, it's a matter of conjecture (what on these boards aren't?), but if you feel the space in the end zones is too empty, is the "cure" Conference logos? I still think they're not important enough to be present. Fill that space with another team mark, perhaps even facing helmets.

 

Keep in mind this reduction in number of logos isn't inherently bad just because it's never been done before.

 

It's not inherently bad because it's not been done before, but that also doesn't make it inherently good. I stated that I think it looks worse without the logos. And it doesn't matter than they could have added another team mark (or opposing helmets!) instead of the conference logos, because they didn't do that. They left the conference logos off for no reason, then just kinda spread out the rest of the marks in the endzone.

 

Right now, the endzones look like endzones you might see at any high school (since most of them have synthetic turf now). They also look like something you might see at a college. High schools and colleges don't use league or conference logos in the endzones. Even the College Football Playoffs didn't use the NCAA logo or conference logos. But the NFL had always done that for the Super Bowl. And it was part of what made it special.

[Dalcowboyfan92]

Looking at it; the Super Bowl as a series grew up with conference affiliations in the endzones. Even league affiliations when the first four Super Bowls were matches between the AFL and the NFL.

 

It's 49 years of a tradition, while the conference affiliation designs have changed over the years (from circles to helmets to conference redesigns to simple conference logos), they are simply apart of the visual tradition of this game.

[WSU151]

3 hours ago, Mr. Bojangles said:

 

 

 

 

The NFL really should sell the plastic/rubber patches to fans.  Out of the 80 billion collectibles offered for sale...it seems like this would be one of the coolest.

[CheeseHusker]

My guess is they'd rather make you spend another $200 on the special jersey rather than a $10 patch you can sew on yourself.

 

[Cujo]

Wanna get your hands on an official Super Bowl patch? *Maybe* if you live in northern Colorado....

 

Fort Collins company, FiberLok, makes Super Bowl logos

[rsaline]

37 minutes ago, Cujo said:

Wanna get your hands on an official Super Bowl patch? *Maybe* if you live in northern Colorado....

 

Fort Collins company, FiberLok, makes Super Bowl logos

Did not know that. Colorado is the best. Wonder how much they charge for custom patches!

[Quillz]

3 hours ago, McCarthy said:

I also care. This isn't the BCS where the two best teams are picked by a computer and voters. You literally can't play in this game unless you win your conference, which is why they're more important to display than identifying SEC v. Pac12 or whatever. You're representing those 16 teams. A visual shoutout to the conference looks good, speaks to traditions, and is also an identifier for how each team got to that point.   

This is why, by extension, I care about supporting division winners. Yes, I may hate it when the Giants win the NL West, but when it comes down to it, they are representing the division my team plays in, and you kind of want them to do well.

[WSU151]

1 hour ago, Down Under Husker said:

My guess is they'd rather make you spend another $200 on the special jersey rather than a $10 patch you can sew on yourself.

 

 

If I have no desire to spend $200, then they'd be pretty dumb not to take my $10 for something that costs $2.

 

 

[Sport]

 

3 hours ago, Captain Poncho said:

 

To that point, it's a very inside baseball sort of identifier. Sure, you had to win your conference to get there, and yes it hearkens back to the old AFL/NFL days, but visually, it's a very secondary consideration. The identity absolutely needs to present marks for:

 

1) The Super Bowl

2) The NFL

3) The Denver Broncos

4) The Carolina Panthers

 

After those four mandatories, why cram in another unnecessary designation? I'd argue that it's clutter, because even though there's some nostalgia about the old AFC/NFC, it's not important enough to drop onto the playing surface, even though it's been done in the past.  Also, I'd suggest that there is either zero or a tiny fraction of NFL fans that would identify themselves as fans of a particular conference – no one goes out of their way to wear an AFC hat or an NFC t-shirt, and, if you do, you're probably on the extreme periphery.

 

I know I have great difficulty cheering for teams that play in the same conference as my team. So what if the AFC wins the Super Bowl and it's not my team? Is there inherent pride in that? Even if there is some, is it enough to warrant more artwork on the playing surface?  I don't think so.

It's not that inside baseball. A person who doesn't watch football all year can look at the Super Bowl field and instantly know who is the champion of what conference and how they got to the Super Bowl. 

 

The bold has nothing to do with anything and nobody was arguing that. The logos should be on the field simply because in order to get to the Super Bowl you either have to be AFC Champions or NFC Champions. The conference logos in the endzone designate who is who and how they got to the game. Plus, tradition matters and history matters. Without those logos it's just another endzone painted in another stadium. That's why the old Super Bowl endzone system was cool. If you saw a tight shot of a player in the endzone you could tell exactly what game the picture was from because no other field was painted like that.

 

In the visual heirarchy I'd go Super Bowl logo, the two teams, then the conference logos as the absolutely necessities. The conference logos aren't "unnecessary" designations. If you want to talk clutter, why does the field need to have two Super Bowl 50 Logos? They have 6339 square yards to work with. There's more than enough space for the teams, game logo, NFL logo(s), and conference logo without looking cluttered. 

 

3 hours ago, Captain Poncho said:

Design-wise, having a visual priority list is a good thing.

 

Removing elements that might not be necessary for the enhancement of the overall aesthetic is key, and I believe the conference logos fall squarely into this category. Regardless of how the NFL has or has not pulled off the Super Bowl logos, they've chosen not to incorporate the NFL shield into that identity, which necessitates both presentations.

 

As to the open space, it's a matter of conjecture (what on these boards isn't?), but if you feel the space in the end zones is too empty, is the "cure" Conference logos? I still think they're not important enough to be present. Fill that space with another team mark, perhaps even facing helmets.

 

Keep in mind this reduction in number of logos isn't inherently bad just because it's never been done before.

It's not inherently good either. The end zones look empty and they don't look like a Super Bowl endzone should. An endzone is a short, wide space that is difficult to fill and although both teams use more horizontal logos they didn't paint them large enough to adequately fill the space and the wordmarks don't take up enough real estate either. The off-center wordmarks don't help. They're begging for some visual balance. And in your opinion if a conference logo adds clutter why would using a repeating team logo be a better solution?

 

Just going to say this - the field sucks this year. Black and navy blue backgrounds when you could've had light blue and orange. It would've been stunning and instead we get this awful clash. It's disappointing all around.

[TheRicSlick]

10 minutes ago, Quillz said:

This is why, by extension, I care about supporting division winners. Yes, I may hate it when the Giants win the NL West, but when it comes down to it, they are representing the division my team plays in, and you kind of want them to do well.

The Patriots winning all those Super Bowls has really helped the AFC East.