TBGKon Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 1 hour ago, fouhy12 said: It's not bad, but it certainly is boring. The NFL should use March Madness branding as a guide for their own. March Madness has recently done a really good job of matching standardization with the identity of the host city. Yes, this totally. Simplify the typeface but allow for some identity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bosrs1 Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 1 hour ago, The Golden One said: Man these Lombardi logos need to stop. At least with 50 and before they included the stadium. But the last two have just been boring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neo_prankster Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 BLAND!!! The last half decade of Super Bowl logos have been a joke. The Fictional Story of Austus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnWis97 Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 20 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said: We disagree. I tend to agree (with the disagreers like yourself)...I generally don't get that caught up in event logos anyway but I notice that when the Super Bowl logos were a bit more elaborate, the Champs merchandise got a bit too focused on it. I was a student at Wisconsin when the Packers won the 1996 (season) game and I know that it was played in New Orleans because the merchandise took on a Mardi Gras theme. It was more about the game being played in New Orleans than the team that won (OK, I rather enjoyed that because it marginalized the big "G" that I was getting sick of). I like a subdued event logo so the focus in on the teams as opposed to the host city. I live five light-rail stops away from next year's Super Bowl and I don't need any Minnesota branding (most likely a snowflake)...the game's here and it's going to be a :censored:-show regardless whether the logo gives a little extra nod to Minnesota. 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 More sharing options...
FlyEaglesFly76 Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 The NFL can't do anything right. Fly Eagles Fly, on the road to victory... Philadelphia Eagles: NFL Champions in 1948, 1949, 1960, Super Bowl Champions in 2017-18. Philadelphia Phillies: World Series Champions in 1980 and 2008. Philadelphia 76ers: NBA Champions in 1966-67 and 1982-83. Philadelphia Flyers: Stanley Cup Champions in 1973-74, 1974-75 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neo_prankster Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 5 minutes ago, FlyEaglesFly76 said: The NFL can't do anything right. Exactly why I want a new commissioner. The Fictional Story of Austus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shumway Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 On 2/5/2017 at 4:54 PM, NYCdog said: First thought, surprised it's not Vikings Purple and instead appears to be Honolulu Blue. I now sincerely hope the NFL is pre-determined, and they're foreshadowing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOldRoman Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 9 hours ago, OnWis97 said: I tend to agree (with the disagreers like yourself)...I generally don't get that caught up in event logos anyway but I notice that when the Super Bowl logos were a bit more elaborate, the Champs merchandise got a bit too focused on it. I was a student at Wisconsin when the Packers won the 1996 (season) game and I know that it was played in New Orleans because the merchandise took on a Mardi Gras theme. It was more about the game being played in New Orleans than the team that won (OK, I rather enjoyed that because it marginalized the big "G" that I was getting sick of). I like a subdued event logo so the focus in on the teams as opposed to the host city. I live five light-rail stops away from next year's Super Bowl and I don't need any Minnesota branding (most likely a snowflake)...the game's here and it's going to be a :censored:-show regardless whether the logo gives a little extra nod to Minnesota. I know what you're saying, but I think that's just a product of that particular time in merchandising. I loved the hats and locker room shirts that teams got in the '90s, but in retrospect, they included a lot of graphics just for the hell of it. I mean, sure, a Bulls jersey makes much more sense for the Bulls than Mardi Gras stuff for the Packers, but I think they just fall in line with "lets throw more crap on there because screen printing is cool." And that Bulls had had real leather stitched on for the basketball. Because why not. I've still got it somewhere. I have the shirts, too, although I doubt they fit me anymore. Actually, they probably do. I was a big kid. Anyway, I think in recent years the Super Bowl merchandise hadn't taken on too much of host city of logo. Around the time Reebok started making the locker room gear, it became bland and "fill in the blank," which in retrospect was maybe good. While I dislike them moving away from unique logos for each game, I think the particular logo they chose was horrendous. 51 and 52 are slightly improved with the color thrown in, but even with that, the L is separated from the I's for no reason. The trophy should be behind those letters, but they didn't want to cover the damn shield. But jokes on them, but the league logo doesn't even appear cleanly on the logo. It appears distorted: on an angle, moving toward the viewer, and in monochrome silver. Dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jt0323 Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 The logo looks great for the Lions if they were to make the super bowl, but the Dolphins or Packers, it would look terrible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pharos04 Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 the light blue is very odd considering it doesn't reflect anything on the host team's color scheme. It could have to do with Minnesota itself considering the color of the flag, but that's a massive stretch at best. What we will have to wait and see is the informal official logo schemes that come out. It wasn't really discussed much but LI had a whole slough of different logos that no one's really pointed out. Granted it's mostly on merchandise but it was also found on the Conference Champion gear and a lot of the signage around Houston: If anyone cares ,I made a quick and dirty composition plugging in some of the unofficial official logos in with the rest and it still helps differentiate them...some of them anyways Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bosrs1 Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 19 hours ago, FlyEaglesFly76 said: The NFL can't do anything right. Yep, which is why they've peaked and are now on the downslide... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FSUViking Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 3 hours ago, bosrs1 said: Yep, which is why they've peaked and are now on the downslide... You make it sound so dramatic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bosrs1 Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 1 hour ago, FSUViking said: You make it sound so dramatic. Nah Roger Goodell is the drama queen. I couldn't care less if the NFL is the most popular sport or not. I watch the Women's Baseball World Cup and International Cricket for goodness sake. I just enjoy good sports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Clemente Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 I kind of prefer the LI/LII version of the Super Bowl logo than the XLV-XLIX version. Those big bold letters and the splash of color make it less bland. In hindsight, if they had been using this template for a much longer time, I'd have been okay with it. I am curious to see what XXXVIII would have looked like in this style. Follow me on Twitter if you care: @Animal_Clans.My opinion may or may not be the same as yours. The choice is up to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pharos04 Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 What happened to the logo on the mothership?? Initially it was the correct logo found on the official NFL sites such as vikings.com note the gap between the "L" and the trophy on the left and the reflection of the first "I" on the right side of the trophy but i just happened to notice that it was recently "updated" again to the mockup that was done in the speculation news report that mimics how the logo looks for LI where the L is actually somewhat obscured by the trophy can actually see the difference when they're put side-by-side so what's going on? why an update that uses the wrong logo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sykotyk Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 The NFL needs to admit the 'standardized' logo idea as an utter failure. Simply because they haven't standardized it. Starting with SB45, we had three years of 'standard' logos, including the 'regional/local' design, as well as the standard "trophy above roman numerals". However, by SB49, they basically just went with the 'standard standard' logo and really didn't emphasize the regional logo at all. In fact, the 'secondary' logo seemed to be much more noticeable. I was in Arizona at the time of the Super Bowl and bought a lanyard, and though the 'official' SB logo was on it, the orange color and blue text/style of the 'unofficial' logo was much more prominent. Which is the problem. If you want a standard logo, then the standard logo has to be it. If you want to have a 'standard logo' and then still create an alternate for marketing, publicizing, merchandising, etc, then your standard logo is a failure. But, then, the standard logo was abused for the SB50 logo and the addition of color for the first time. Sure, it was the NFL turning into 'Goldmember', but they couldn't continue their standard logo, which again points out the uselessness of the 'standardized logo'. And then, when they 'return' to the standardized logo, they no longer have the local/regional 'standard logo', and instead have added color to it, again. And I guess doing it again next year. So, it isn't standardized. It's sloppy. And boring. What everyone on this site, and anyone else with at least one working eye, has pointed out. If you have to keep adjusting it, or adapting it year-to-year, then you've lost the purpose of what makes it 'standardized'. And, if they really are going with blue for Minnesota instead of purple, then the choice of color seems almost random. And the overuse of the 'secondary, unofficial logos' in an otherwise 'official' capacity proves the entire failure of the experiment. If the NFL can retroactively rename games "Super Bowls" despite not being officially called Super Bowls, then NFL can end the fraud, adjust back to the 'secondary logos' as the officials (sans SB50), and simply go back to what the Super Bowl logo represented. That particular game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pharos04 Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 Looks like the proper one is back on the mothership! Yay accuracy! (this of course updates some of the links on my original post pointing it out, making it a weird oddity now) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJAnfield Posted February 15, 2017 Share Posted February 15, 2017 From the Raiders Facebook page. Post was about Raiders aiming to go to Super Bowl 52. Thought it was interesting they used the candidate logo rather than the crappy official cookie-cutter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBGKon Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 5 hours ago, SJAnfield said: From the Raiders Facebook page. Post was about Raiders aiming to go to Super Bowl 52. Thought it was interesting they used the candidate logo rather than the crappy official cookie-cutter. The Buccaneers also got one, and it was sent by the non NFL related host committee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 On 2/12/2017 at 2:15 AM, Sykotyk said: The NFL needs to admit the 'standardized' logo idea as an utter failure. Why would they think it's a failure? Because some people on an internet message board are complaining? I doubt there's any tangible measure that indicates it's a failure. I guarantee that if SB merch sales were down they'd scrap it. Why I think it's good (at least conceptually - I do think some of these could have been executed better) 1. It "brands" the superbowl. You see a mark with the Lombardi trophy and roman numerals and you instantly think Super Bowl. You're not looking at flowers or mardi gras hats or other stuff and having to read the words SUPER BOWL. To sports nerds you'd see it once and then associate it with the Super Bowl, but it's probably not that way for everyone. 2. It creates a genuine icon for the Super Bowl. It's tough to have an iconic logo with something that changes every year (the numbers, subtle color shades, etc.) but they've given it an iconic element (the trophy) and iconic theme if not an iconic mark. 3. It's special to see the logo on the jerseys now. It's like you play every year for the right to wear the Lombardi patch on your jersey. It's kinda like the Stanley Cup patch in the NHL. Also in photos you can instantly tell what SB it is by the patch. You don't have to stare at it for more than a second. 4. It's just classy and IMO looks more prestigious on a jersey. Now if you want local logos for use in the host cities or as alternate marks (kinda like the hosting committee logos) then maybe that would be OK, but I fear that it would dilute the brand. "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.