Jump to content

Super Bowl LII logo


NYCdog

Recommended Posts

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

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply
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

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

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."

 

20_4630A_lg.jpeg

s-l225.jpg

chicago-bulls-1998-nba-champions-officia

chicago-bulls-1996-nba-champions-officia

 

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.

 

OldRomanSig2.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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:

 

untitled-2_33.jpg?itok=dakUIdzds-l225.jpgff_2603965alt2_full.jpg&w=600

ff_2682920_full.jpg&w=340h291248.001?$uspdlarge$

1024x1024.jpg

 

 

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

 

zes0aJ3.png

 


Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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.

champssig2.png
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

What happened to the logo on the mothership??

 

Initially it was the correct logo found on the official NFL sites such as vikings.com
temp2017_0206_SuperBowlLightGallery_0004Super-Bowl-LII-logo-777x437.jpg

C3_Wl2cUYAED5yX.jpg

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

220px-Super_Bowl_LII_logo.png

 

 

can actually see the difference when they're put side-by-side

C3_Wl2cUYAED5yX.jpg220px-Super_Bowl_LII_logo.png

 

so what's going on? why an update that uses the wrong logo?

 

 

 

 

 


Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

5 hours ago, SJAnfield said:

16665818_1483079271722555_94705347187174

 

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

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

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.