Jump to content

Sportslogo design pet peeves


Ark

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, PepMan33Conde said:

I was talking about this...

9764934.jpg

Yeah, those ones were amazing! Best look in their history in my opinion...

"And those who know Your Name put their trust in You, for You, O Lord, have not forsaken those who seek You." Psalms 9:10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 45
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • NBA: Not really "design" so much as a rule that forces bad design; but forcing primary logos to have city and nickname.  It causes some logos to be bulky and some teams to essentially rely on an alt.
    • EDIT: The apparent rule of adding a ball to at least one logo for each NBA team.  
  • Setting certain colors "off to the side."  I hope this makes sense.  For example, the canucks primaries use green on the sleeves and hem but then not on the logo, numbers and NOB.  Before the T-Wolves ditched green, they had it on the side panels but not the wordmark, number or NOB.  And a related pet peeve of mine...
  • ...color separation.  The best two examples I can think of are Ole Miss and the New York Giants.  For the Giants, the current blue jersey has no red and the white jersey has no blue.  Similarly, Ole miss either wears a red jersey with no blue or vice-versa (and their white jersey tends to include only one color too).
  • Uniforms projecting the image of the manufacturer rather than the team.  Much worse trend in college than the pros as you see teams ignoring their school colors, the identical templates ("Made in March"), etc.  The Pro Bowl and Seahawks uniforms pretty much say "Nike made these" as well.  
  • Overdone college football helmets;  detailed logos (Fresno State), logos on top of wordmarks (Iowa State's old helmet, Boise State, if they still even wear that), giant logo on one side with number on the other side.
  • Similarly, mascots on helmets. Or any part of a uniform.  The Texas and Iowa helmets are great, but cartoons belong on T-shirts.  Bucky on the shorts is the only problem with that recent Wisconsin throwback (which was otherwise beautiful).  I have never once liked a cartoon mascot on a helmet: Kansas, Sparky/ASU, etc.  
  • Too many uniform combinations.  Honestly, no team needs more than three jerseys (home, road, and rarely-worn alt).
  • (Inspired by McCarthy's White Sox comment).  Non-matching elements that should match.  For example, Ohio (Speaking of McCarthy) should have double-stripes on their pants to match the helmet/jersey.  But they don't.  Why?
  • Over-thinking fringe elements.  I am thinking specifically of the Bengals and former Vikings "blending" the side panel from the jersey to the pants.  There has to be a seam somewhere so why not just have it on the waist?  It was particularly bad for the Vikings, who rarely broke out the purple pants...so when the wore white/white, the purple side panel just had an arbitrary gap.
  •  "Performance" design that helps players be .00000000001% faster but really just sticks out...Nike sweat boxes are the best example. 
  • The long history of adding black to color schemes that look great without it.  Eagles Kelly/Silver.  Lions Honolulu/Silver.  Mets. Royals. Flames.  They all looked way better without black.
  • And my list would never be complete without...gray facemasks on teams with no gray/silver.  Iowa State would look so good with red facemask.  And really, Boise, your ultra-modern helmets need old-school masks?

 

And my biggest pet peeve: Teams that project multiple identities.  The Brewers routinely going 80s but still keeping their primaries.  The Twins with the '60s throwbacks.  Now the Padres will be wearing brown once a week. Not to mention camo.  Prior to the one-helmet rule, the Jets wearing Titans throwbacks, the Packers in blue.

Disclaimer: If this comment is about an NBA uniform from 2017-2018 or later, do not constitute a lack of acknowledgement of the corporate logo to mean anything other than "the corporate logo is terrible and makes the uniform significantly worse."

 

BADGERS TWINS VIKINGS TIMBERWOLVES WILD

POTD (Shared)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/9/2016 at 7:41 AM, VikWings said:

 

* - The NBA also has a rule that at least one logo in a teams set must include a basketball, that's why you see that.

 

Really?  Well then add that to my list.  Sports equipment is a bit overused...having a rule to include certainly perpetuates that problem.

Disclaimer: If this comment is about an NBA uniform from 2017-2018 or later, do not constitute a lack of acknowledgement of the corporate logo to mean anything other than "the corporate logo is terrible and makes the uniform significantly worse."

 

BADGERS TWINS VIKINGS TIMBERWOLVES WILD

POTD (Shared)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/9/2016 at 5:30 PM, pianoknight said:

One of my pet peeves is when a design element is specific to one team, but then gets adopted by copycats/knockoffs.  High schools and smaller colleges doing it is one thing (budget, no outfitter sponsorship, etc) but when it's done on the pro/major college level it's a little absurd.

 

Case in point - I believe Bowling Green was the first to adopt this wing pattern:

Bowling-Green-s-Travis-Greene-picks-up-a

 

And then FAU and others snatched it:

owls.jpg

 

 

I get that FAU doesn't have the same budget as FSU or Florida, but c'mon - neither does Bowling Green and they managed to get a fresh look.

 

It was a lazy look by FAU, they don't wear them anymore, FAU also had enough money to have multiple helmets. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tracy MidGrady said:

It was a lazy look by FAU, they don't wear them anymore, FAU also had enough money to have multiple helmets. 

 

Right.  And there are other examples, that was just the first that came to my mind.

 

There are others though, such as the Steelers/Iowa arm stripes or the Packers/Georgia "G" logo that don't bother me, mostly because both sets of teams have used that look/logo for eons.

UyDgMWP.jpg

5th in NAT. TITLES  |  2nd in CONF. TITLES  |  5th in HEISMAN |  7th in DRAFTS |  8th in ALL-AMER  |  7th in WINS  |  4th in BOWLS |  1st in SELLOUTS  |  1st GAMEDAY SIGN

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, oldschoolvikings said:

I think the "yellow isn't gold!" crowd is just hung up on the idea that the term "gold" must only be  applied to metallic golds like Notre Dame and the 49ers.  Which is dumb... 

 

Waiting for those same people to tell us that we have to start calling teal "green".  Because there's no difference between those two colors, either. 

 

Using established names for different colors is important, especially on a board like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, OnWis97 said:
  • NBA: Not really "design" so much as a rule that forces bad design; but forcing primary logos to have city and nickname.  It causes some logos to be bulky and some teams to essentially rely on an alt.
    • EDIT: The apparent rule of adding a ball to at least one logo for each NBA team.  
  • Setting certain colors "off to the side."  I hope this makes sense.  For example, the canucks primaries use green on the sleeves and hem but then not on the logo, numbers and NOB.  Before the T-Wolves ditched green, they had it on the side panels but not the wordmark, number or NOB.  And a related pet peeve of mine...
  • ...color separation.  The best two examples I can think of are Ole Miss and the New York Giants.  For the Giants, the current blue jersey has no red and the white jersey has no blue.  Similarly, Ole miss either wears a red jersey with no blue or vice-versa (and their white jersey tends to include only one color too).
  • Uniforms projecting the image of the manufacturer rather than the team.  Much worse trend in college than the pros as you see teams ignoring their school colors, the identical templates ("Made in March"), etc.  The Pro Bowl and Seahawks uniforms pretty much say "Nike made these" as well.  
  • Overdone college football helmets;  detailed logos (Fresno State), logos on top of wordmarks (Iowa State's old helmet, Boise State, if they still even wear that), giant logo on one side with number on the other side.
  • Similarly, mascots on helmets. Or any part of a uniform.  The Texas and Iowa helmets are great, but cartoons belong on T-shirts.  Bucky on the shorts is the only problem with that recent Wisconsin throwback (which was otherwise beautiful).  I have never once liked a cartoon mascot on a helmet: Kansas, Sparky/ASU, etc.  
  • Too many uniform combinations.  Honestly, no team needs more than three jerseys (home, road, and rarely-worn alt).
  • (Inspired by McCarthy's White Sox comment).  Non-matching elements that should match.  For example, Ohio (Speaking of McCarthy) should have double-stripes on their pants to match the helmet/jersey.  But they don't.  Why?
  • Over-thinking fringe elements.  I am thinking specifically of the Bengals and former Vikings "blending" the side panel from the jersey to the pants.  There has to be a seam somewhere so why not just have it on the waist?  It was particularly bad for the Vikings, who rarely broke out the purple pants...so when the wore white/white, the purple side panel just had an arbitrary gap.
  •  "Performance" design that helps players be .00000000001% faster but really just sticks out...Nike sweat boxes are the best example. 
  • The long history of adding black to color schemes that look great without it.  Eagles Kelly/Silver.  Lions Honolulu/Silver.  Mets. Royals. Flames.  They all looked way better without black.
  • And my list would never be complete without...gray facemasks on teams with no gray/silver.  Iowa State would look so good with red facemask.  And really, Boise, your ultra-modern helmets need old-school masks?

 

And my biggest pet peeve: Teams that project multiple identities.  The Brewers routinely going 80s but still keeping their primaries.  The Twins with the '60s throwbacks.  Now the Padres will be wearing brown once a week. Not to mention camo.  Prior to the one-helmet rule, the Jets wearing Titans throwbacks, the Packers in blue.

The Lions have used the black wrong at times (AKA an all black alt.) but the black REALLY brings out the Honolulu blue. The black was a great addition for the Flames, and the jerseys before the edge are THE best sweaters in their franchise history... Except the flaming snot horse jerseys, those were bad... 

 

And the Twins branding hasn't really changed. The 60's throwback is simply that... 

"And those who know Your Name put their trust in You, for You, O Lord, have not forsaken those who seek You." Psalms 9:10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • white cleats for NFL teams. the cleat + white sock makes the players look like they're wearing boots
  • no stripes on socks; any sport
  • numbers being placed too low on jerseys (on stomach area)
  • how every MLB team wears gray
  • logos not being properly placed on helmets (off center or at angle)
  • basketballs in every NBA logo
  • football players not wearing an appropriate facemask for their position 

 

 

GRAPHIC ARTIST

BEHANCE  /  MEDIUM  /  DRIBBBLE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/11/2016 at 7:45 PM, Gothamite said:

 

Waiting for those same people to tell us that we have to start calling teal "green".  Because there's no difference between those two colors, either. 

 

Using established names for different colors is important, especially on a board like this.

I remember riding to school everyday on a big GOLD bus. I agree established names for different colors is important, but that's in the event that they're actually using correct names. The color people are referring to as "gold" is actually yellow, though. It's a more accurate description of that color. In your analogy there would need to be a teal team who incorrectly refers to their color as "green"*. It'd be like if San Jose Sharks fans insisted on calling their teal "green" when the color actually is Teal. 

 

I firmly believe "gold" is the preferred term in sports because "yellow" doesn't sound as strong and it has associations with cowardice. 

 

 

*the Mariners call their teal "Northwest Green" and I refuse to use that identifier. It's teal, damnit!

PvO6ZWJ.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

I remember riding to school everyday on a big GOLD bus. I agree established names for different colors is important, but that's in the event that they're actually using correct names. The color people are referring to as "gold" is actually yellow, though. It's a more accurate description of that color. In your analogy there would need to be a teal team who incorrectly refers to their color as "green"*. It'd be like if San Jose Sharks fans insisted on calling their teal "green" when the color actually is Teal. 

 

I firmly believe "gold" is the preferred term in sports because "yellow" doesn't sound as strong and it has associations with cowardice. 

 

 

*the Mariners call their teal "Northwest Green" and I refuse to use that identifier. It's teal, damnit!

 

Then what is gold?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

Then what is gold?

I know you just said this is dumb, but I disagree with that assessment. Gold ->

 

hi-res-454399673-drew-brees-of-the-new-ojoe-montana.7021211.jpg

 

Words mean things. This is yellow

 

BN-GG693_rodger_J_20150105121024.jpg

 

 

If I'm describing these uniforms to a child or a layperson and I want to be the most true to the uniform and the most accurate I'm not using the word "gold" to talk about the Packers' yellow.

 

In a similar sense if I'm talking about this uniform I'm not going to use the word green

sharks.png

PvO6ZWJ.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/11/2016 at 2:05 AM, ElwoodCuse said:

Baseball teams that violate the "home jersey nickname, away jersey geography" rule. I'll give the Phillies a pass but that's it.

 

Basketball is really bad about this too.

Just curious if you have a bigger problem with the teams that use their nickname on the away jerseys (Cardinals, Phillies) or the teams that use their geography on the home jersey (Miami, Texas)? There's two violations to the rule and I'm wondering if one bothers you more than the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the color name issue is only an issue when there is no context.. For example, the Michigan wolverines and NY Giants both refer to themselves collectively as "Blue" (go blue, go big blue, etc), although they use different blues.. Words absolutely DO mean things, but general words mean general things and specific words mean specific things.. There's a difference between navy blue, royal blue, powder blue, electric blue, periwinkle blue, etc, just like there's a difference between athletic gold, Vegas gold, and old gold.. As someone else pointed out, Ohio State's color is supposed to be grey, but they use silver.. And yet no one minds.. Not to mention, the physical description of gold (the actual element) is "metallic yellow".. That's also a point where the metallics vs colors issue gets hazy.. Metallic red is still red, but metallic yellow becomes gold... Metallic blue is still blue, but metallic grey becomes silver.. Metallic purple is still purple, but metallic khaki is now gold.. Adding metallic sheen doesn't change the actual color, and gold is metallic yellow, so that's why they've become somewhat interchangeable..

For me, a bigger issue is when a team uses a blatantly incorrect color.. For example: the Kansas Jayhawks.. They call their red "crimson", but they use the exact same shade as Nebraska, who calls it "scarlet".. It's not even close to crimson, and although there's no hard definition of crimson, you can't pass off scarlet for crimson.. 

So I agree that "words mean things", but if we're gonna pick nits, then let's pick em all, because there are plenty out there

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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