Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, smzimbabwe said:

 

So why Baltimore Browns? An expansion team taking the same name as an existing team? Surprised we didn't have Carolina Colts or Jacksonville Jets then. No matter how "official" they try to claim it, I know what happened.

 

Art Modell's original plan was to call the team the Baltimore Browns upon moving.  The "Cleveland Deal" was subsequent to that (and scotched that).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, B-Rich said:

Yeah, very 90s, colors and all, but it is a STUPID logo.

For a team called the Clippers, that is.

 

What does a crashing wave and sun rays have to do with a very fast sailing ship?  Nothing. Change the name to the Breakers, the Waves, the Surf, and you've got something.  Otherwise-- fail.

 

 

BUT, speaking of Lost Sports Logos, here's a real doozie.  The proposed logo to be used for the White Sox if they had moved to Tampa Bay in 1989 and become the Florida White Sox:

 

s-l300.jpg

 

I remembered seeing this logo on a TV news piece back in '88, when the Illinois legislature was voting on the new Comiskey.  Finally found it online.

 

 

 

 

They were not the only ones

 

BQqv4oyCYAAmuw7.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gothamite said:

Was that created by the club?

Not sure, but i would guess no. The deal was that then-owners Einhorn and Reinsdorf were moving, not selling. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, C-Squared said:

 

The "official" narrative claims the Ravens were an expansion team, while the Browns simply laid dormant in Cleveland for three years before resuming play.

 

The kicker is that Jacksonville and Carolina were handed stacked rosters via favorable expansion draft rules, presumably to help secure success in their new markets. Cleveland, on the other hand, slipped through the cracks - not important enough to keep their team, but established enough to get a restricted set of expansion rules that ensured mediocrity for years to follow.

 

The first post-merger expansion was a cluster. Seattle and Tampa Bay were hamstrung quite badly with the expansion draft and regular draft. Tampa Bay, remember, went 26 straight losses before their first victory. The NFL didn't want that again when the Jaguars and Panthers joined. But, they overshot. Both the Jaguars and Panthers were in their respective conference championship games in their second season (Panthers were a legitimate threat, Jaguars were a surprise wildcard team that made a run). So, even though the Browns were regarded as a 'continuation' of the former team, the other owners did NOT want them to just waltz right in to a deep playoff run in their first or second year. Because the Browns in the mid90s had one good year (11-5, second best in the AFC, won a wildcard round game against New England), but the year before the move, they tanked to 5-11. Though we know that their record pre and post announcement were quite different. The team basically gave up. They had no idea who their QB would be, as there was the mishmash between Testeverde and Eric Zeier.

 

So, the NFL made sure they'd have to 'work' for their playoff futures, thinking that free agency would be the great equalizer unlike Tampa Bay and Seattle didn't have. But, their first front office had the bright idea to draft position players and pick up linemen off the street. Which left Tim Couch running for his life every play and constantly getting injured. Eventually being so worried of the inevitable QB hit, that he'd throw it to his first read, whether he was open or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My soon-to-be alma mater, Colgate, has a pretty interesting "lost logo" situation. Our current athletic branding is just awful in my opinion. Way too many outlines. Is the mascot a pirate? A zombie? Paul Revere? Nobody knows. He's got red eyes and grey skin. Good news is most students and teams just stick to basics which work really well for a small liberal arts university with a very traditionally collegiate aesthetic

 

Anyway, I asked our now-outgoing AD about the origin of the athletic branding a couple years ago, and she told me there there was this whole design put together that was scrapped just before unveil in the early 2000s. I emailed the guy who she said designed it, and here's what he had to say:

 

"I can’t recall the exact date, but we were hired by Colgate to a comprehensive redesign of their athletic identity in the early 2000’s. At that time Mark Murphy was the Athletic Director (former Washington Redskin and current president of the Green Bay Packers). As we were near completion Mark moved on to become Athletic Director at Northwestern and the sudden change in leadership caused our project to meet an untimely demise. The project was essentially “in the can", so yes, there is a complete Colgate athletic identity that never saw the light of day. It’s a shame, because I thought it was pretty good, not something that we would do today, but good for the era in which it was created."

 

All of this is especially interesting in light of the fact that Colgate transitioned from being known as the "Red Raiders" to the "Raiders" and lost all Native American imagery in about 2002. You could probably count most of the old logos from the "Red Raider" era as lost anyway. They're very hard to find. This torch logo is definitely not from the current brand, which while terrible is very consistent in its colors and marks. But the "flames" match somewhat to the current athletic torch.

 

The "lost identity" guy said if I was ever driving through the area to come by and check them out in person. I think I'll have to sometime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" I thought it was pretty good, not something that we would do today, but good for the era in which it was created.""

 

That statement right there is pretty damning.  Basically saying it's a dated / trendy late-90s design, rather than anything classic / timeless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, poser said:

s-l300.jpg

Wow I kinda like this, in a ugly but good way. I guess only the socks have to be white, not the rest of the logo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BringBackTheVet said:

" I thought it was pretty good, not something that we would do today, but good for the era in which it was created.""

 

That statement right there is pretty damning.  Basically saying it's a dated / trendy late-90s design, rather than anything classic / timeless.

 

Either that or he’s saying that he’s proud of the growth and improvement his firm has had in the last 15 years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KRZYBDGRZ said:

Wow I kinda like this, in a ugly but good way. I guess only the socks have to be white, not the rest of the logo.

 

The White Sox haven't actually worn white socks in decades. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, DeFrank said:

Either that or he’s saying that he’s proud of the growth and improvement his firm has had in the last 15 years?

 

Or maybe it was a First Nations-themed identity?  When did Colgate drop their native mascot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, DeFrank said:

My soon-to-be alma mater, Colgate, has a pretty interesting "lost logo" situation. Our current athletic branding is just awful in my opinion. Way too many outlines. Is the mascot a pirate? A zombie? Paul Revere? Nobody knows. He's got red eyes and grey skin. Good news is most students and teams just stick to basics which work really well for a small liberal arts university with a very traditionally collegiate aesthetic

 

Anyway, I asked our now-outgoing AD about the origin of the athletic branding a couple years ago, and she told me there there was this whole design put together that was scrapped just before unveil in the early 2000s. I emailed the guy who she said designed it, and here's what he had to say:

 

"I can’t recall the exact date, but we were hired by Colgate to a comprehensive redesign of their athletic identity in the early 2000’s. At that time Mark Murphy was the Athletic Director (former Washington Redskin and current president of the Green Bay Packers). As we were near completion Mark moved on to become Athletic Director at Northwestern and the sudden change in leadership caused our project to meet an untimely demise. The project was essentially “in the can", so yes, there is a complete Colgate athletic identity that never saw the light of day. It’s a shame, because I thought it was pretty good, not something that we would do today, but good for the era in which it was created."

 

All of this is especially interesting in light of the fact that Colgate transitioned from being known as the "Red Raiders" to the "Raiders" and lost all Native American imagery in about 2002. You could probably count most of the old logos from the "Red Raider" era as lost anyway. They're very hard to find. This torch logo is definitely not from the current brand, which while terrible is very consistent in its colors and marks. But the "flames" match somewhat to the current athletic torch.

 

The "lost identity" guy said if I was ever driving through the area to come by and check them out in person. I think I'll have to sometime.

 

I happend to be "the guy" that did the long lost Colgate logo. I didn't expect a friendly phone conversation to end up on the internets, but hey, I guess that's the world we live in.

 

Sports logos are defined by fashion, what's great today (I guarantee you) will be perceived very differently in the future. It's the cycle of things. I have created hundreds of sports identities, at every level and I'd sign my name to every single one of them. However, I would do all of them differently today, time and context matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Joe said:

 

I happend to be "the guy" that did the long lost Colgate logo. I didn't expect a friendly phone conversation to end up on the internets, but hey, I guess that's the world we live in.

 

Sports logos are defined by fashion, what's great today (I guarantee you) will be perceived very differently in the future. It's the cycle of things. I have created hundreds of sports identities, at every level and I'd sign my name to every single one of them. However, I would do all of them differently today, time and context matter.

 

If the 90s was a “more is more” era in both sports design and fashion, what would you say the contemporary version of that is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the 1976 World Hockey Association Intraleague Draft, the league announced the Cleveland Crusaders had been sold and were relocating to Hollywood, Florida for the 1976-'77 season. The deal fell through later that summer (with the Crusaders instead ending up as the short-lived second incarnation of the Minnesota Fighting Saints), but the WHA Florida Breakers did exist long enough to have a logo:

 

WHA_Florida_Breakers.png

 

I've lost track of the specific date / source of the newspaper article, but luckily was able to find the image (and some additional information) posted here

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/9/2018 at 10:33 PM, rams80 said:

 

No :censored: Sherlock.

This seems kind of over the top. Some might even say abusive. Probably not suspended for 2 months I’m guessing though. He’s in the Good Ole Boys Club. It’s hilarious how this statement is fine, but saying Andrew Harrington thinks jerseys are the whole uniform is worth a two month suspension. A joke from a previous thread. Congrats Office Glenn on being maybe the softest person on the internet. Bravo. {snip}

 

Edited by officeglenn
Removed photo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Brown2 said:

This seems kind of over the top. Some might even say abusive. Probably not suspended for 2 months I’m guessing though. He’s in the Good Ole Boys Club. It’s hilarious how this statement is fine, but saying Andrew Harrington thinks jerseys are the whole uniform is worth a two month suspension. A joke from a previous thread. Congrats Office Glenn on being maybe the softest person on the internet. Bravo. {snip}

😶

 

 

Edited by officeglenn
Removed photo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Brown2 said:

This seems kind of over the top. Some might even say abusive. Probably not suspended for 2 months I’m guessing though. He’s in the Good Ole Boys Club. It’s hilarious how this statement is fine, but saying Andrew Harrington thinks jerseys are the whole uniform is worth a two month suspension. A joke from a previous thread. Congrats Office Glenn on being maybe the softest person on the internet. Bravo. {snip}

Wow, you're so classy.  Not only does your name give your identity away (really? Brown2?) but the whole thing you're saying is giving away your idnetity even more.  You're not only getting a ban for what you just said, but also because you made another account to avoid suspension.  I'm not a mod, but at least I looked at the rules.  As you put it best, Bravo.

NAyolUr.gif

(that's the best image I could think of.)

 

Edited by officeglenn
Removed photo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Brown2 said:

This seems kind of over the top. Some might even say abusive. Probably not suspended for 2 months I’m guessing though. He’s in the Good Ole Boys Club. It’s hilarious how this statement is fine, but saying Andrew Harrington thinks jerseys are the whole uniform is worth a two month suspension. A joke from a previous thread. Congrats Office Glenn on being maybe the softest person on the internet. Bravo. {snip}

Giving me some Brown1 vibes here, *gasp* Is that who you are!?!?!?!?!?!

 

just wait two months and you’ll get to come back, insulting the mods and making a dupe account is not how you get back.

Edited by officeglenn
Removed photo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2018 at 6:16 PM, B-Rich said:

Yeah, very 90s, colors and all, but it is a STUPID logo.

For a team called the Clippers, that is.

 

What does a crashing wave and sun rays have to do with a very fast sailing ship?  Nothing. Change the name to the Breakers, the Waves, the Surf, and you've got something.  Otherwise-- fail.

 

The Clippers haven't had an identity that incorporates a ship since they moved to LA 36 years ago. Which is fine. Plenty of teams don't visually incorporate their nickname into their branding in any significant way, including the Nets, Pistons, Warriors, Pacers, Lakers, Knicks, Thunder, Blazers, and Wizards. I personally think that there are a lot of cool design possibilities that reference clipper ships, but they're not exactly alone in going with an abstract design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now