Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing most liked content on 04/14/2018 in all areas

  1. 10 likes
    it wont be a big unveiling event. the day it comes out, there wont be much to it besides a page you can view the old and new. we felt like that was needed so when the changes are spotted there no confusion about it. since this is not a “new uniform” it wont be a big deal
  2. 7 likes
    It's weird how both the hat and the jersey now look like cheap, bootleg, knock offs.... so bad and a double fail which is actually hard to do...
  3. 5 likes
    The fact that they still use their old numbers for their helmet decals is wack, but asked to describe “the Penguins numbers,” 99 out of 100 are going to look at the jersey, not the helmet decals.
  4. 3 likes
    Never mind. I can tell by your incessant argumentative posting that you aren't interested in gaining from advice.
  5. 3 likes
    If it was a logo, I might agree, but for a random letter in the middle of a word, not so much. Uniqueness is important, but it’s not a principle of design and should never trump the actual principles. Sacrificing proper aesthetics and/or formal composition to make something more unique is a net negative, in my opinion. You have to find a way to do it without disrupting the rhythm, the unity, the proportion, the balance, etc. The N is unintentionally the focal point of that wordmark.
  6. 3 likes
    "Just as the fin on the mighty dolphin helps to navigate the animal through the depths of the ocean, the fins on the new numbers represent the Dolphins navigating their way to the top of the NFL." - Nike
  7. 3 likes
    FROM THIS: TO THIS: (The gold numbers/NOB aren't working is all I mean.)
  8. 2 likes
    Friendly advice, Brown1. You just joined. Your best opening move is not to start arguing with Andrew Harrington. He knows of what he speaks.
  9. 2 likes
    Um no. I tried to explain to you that it’s freaking common sense to assume that you’re talking about the uniform numbers when you say “(insert team here)’s numbers” while you spent a day roasting me for not specifying *uniform* numbers.
  10. 2 likes
    This, as well as how many graphic styles. Why is the stroke on the snake way different than the bell? Why use the retro-modernist typeface for the 76 but the Constitution signature typeface for Philadelphia? It feels like three different logos mashed up together, like something a new graphic designer might put as their first post in the concepts forum. Also don't wear your clever, weird-color alternates in the playoffs.
  11. 2 likes
    Up next: Minnesota If the mothership is to be trusted, and why shouldn't it be, then the Twins have a lot of uniforms. Too many uniforms for my liking. Also I am not a fan of the gold they use. Yes it separates them from all the other R/W/B teams but I just don't think that gold fits them. As I was designing these, I came across the powder blue era Twins, and that's when I got the idea to use double blue again. Plus in my head it makes sense because they play in Minnesota which is the Land of A Lot of Lakes and blue = water. Thats as close to NikeSpeak as I want to get . Hats - Hats, hats, hats. There's a lot of hats. The main hat is the navy/navy with the TC logo, and so is the matching helmet. The alternate hat is navy/red with the resurrected M-swoosh logo on the front. Matching helmet as well. BP hats are red/navy with TC logo and white front panel with the M logo. I'm not sure if I'd let those into the normal rotation. Jerseys - So I don't like the Twins in pinstripes. That's just me. I don't think it fits them. I like the new non-pinned home jersey and used those as the base. I borrowed the striping from the powder blue era and made them a little bigger. State outline with the two players is on the right sleeve on all jerseys. Drop shadowed numbers and scripts on all jerseys. Pants - White and powder blue pants. I considered a navy blue set, but it didn't fit so they hit the scrap heap. Triple stripe down the side of the pants. Socks have the jersey stripe on them. C&C welcome!
  12. 2 likes
  13. 1 like
    Well its been promised for years and I finally finished the league last night! I will post two teams today then the rest next week. The concept behind this for those that have not followed my fictional league MLF, is that the MLF decided they needed a developmental league but did not want to brand it as such. They came up with MLF Spring League as a branding. There are eight teams one for every 4 teams in the MLF. The design of the league would be to name a managing partner that each club could agree on with equal investments coming from each team. The results have been pretty good so far. Here is the league logo.
  14. 1 like
  15. 1 like
    But that...proves....that....they do use an angled 2 if it’s on the helmet? So thanks for clarifying how right I was? Or do they not wear helmets anymore?
  16. 1 like
    There's still plenty of room for individual team identity on a uniform, even with a shirt sponsor on a chest and a league-mandated name and numeral font. Look at the vast majority of soccer for proof. It's inexcusable that no one at Nike or NBA Properties wanted to try.
  17. 1 like
    Well why is it still on the helmets? Can’t really be old if they’ve used for so many years consecutively....they didn’t go back to it nor is it a thing of the past...
  18. 1 like
    It is the number font from the old uniforms...so yes, they're old.
  19. 1 like
    I wonder if cause of death is part of it?
  20. 1 like
    I like the Twins. The stripe pattern is probably my favorite part of the set. The only thing I would say are that I'm personally not a fan of the return of the "M" cap, I would go all "TC" if it were me. I would also maybe try seeing how red wordmarks look for the home and alt, I feel like those might help the drop-shadow work a bit more. Overall though, great job! This would be a welcome change for the Twins in my book.
  21. 1 like
    Same here, up until I was 9 or so. Though for a brief period I also thought the Blazers played in Maine. I knew little of western geography at this point, needless to say.
  22. 1 like
    I agree with most of this except the capitals thing. Not sure why but I have no association of them as Virginian more than anything else. But definitely on the mark with the NBA, NFL. Nats too on the idea that it’s an occasion for everyone, but I would say that many O’s fans have come over. Not all, but many, especially of my age. I was 10 when the Nats came in. Never an o’s fan, but many of my friend were. If you lived in DC you joined up, if you lived in true ‘Maryland (Bethesda, but not Chevy Chasr) you typically stayed with the O’s/loved the Maryland foootball pride uniforms/old bay etc
  23. 1 like
    I can match that 4.6, the Fargo Force identity is poor at best.
  24. 1 like
    Every one of these looks is better than what the CFL currently has. Every. Single. One. And this Alouettes logo is truly inspired. The ONLY beef I have is with the Esks. You can't mess with the Double E, even to put icicles on them. That's a touch sacreligious.
  25. 1 like
    this is very well done
  26. 1 like
    Yeah, I always thought of the Redskins as the truest team for natives of the entire DMV/southern Mid-Atlantic/whatever, because of their tenure, their success, and the fact that football brings demographics together like that. The Capitals feel like a distinctly Northern Virginia team to me, transplant-friendly but with a definite core of very proud DC-area lifers, while the Cosplay Bullets seem to skew more to the District and Maryland and get that particular NBA mix of blacks and rich white snobs. The Nationals feel like an occasion for people from other places to get together and hang out; I'm not convinced they really won over that many O's fans from points south. But that whole part of the country is still terra incognita to me until maybe this summer so I could be 0/4 here.
  27. 1 like
    These are all pretty awful. Hard pass
  28. 1 like
    No love for Boston? Well let's move on then. In honor of game 2 tonight, here's the inferior Pennsylvanian team, the Flyers. From here on out I think I'll just keep going with playoff teams unless I get any requests.
  29. 1 like
    I'm excited for the uniform unveiling obviously, but the construction/design nerd in me is hoping for Shipyards and Lot J news as well!
  30. 1 like
  31. 1 like
    You nailed it. That's exactly how a modern day Bucs uniform should look. Great job.
  32. 1 like
  33. 1 like
  34. 1 like
    Red & gold vs. silver & blue... and some of the greatest games of their era. Can't beat that.
  35. 1 like
    ^ That is the St. Paul Saints, formerly of the Northern League, and now with American Association of Independent Professional Baseball. They're an independent minor league baseball team.
  36. 1 like
    I would like to see the Tigers bring this back. That tiger design looks good for the modern era.
  37. 1 like
    So here's what the rest of the set looks like with gold added in: Only differences worth mentioning here is all the thin stripes become gold, the drop shadow becomes gold, and the hat logo gets a gold outline as well. C&C welcome!
  38. 1 like
    On the uniforms, OK (though I never liked the eggplants anyway). But "Mighty Ducks of Anaheim" to "Anaheim Ducks" is the greatest team name UPGRADE ever. (With the possible exception of the crosstown Angels dropping the "of Anaheim" crap).
  39. 1 like
  40. 1 like
    Sure to be an unpopular opinion, but I preferred the original silver helmets.
  41. 1 like
    I got a lot for you guys: to to And of course, the one that was bad for everyone involved: to and Can't forget about this one: to And it's going to get even worse. Finally: to
  42. 1 like
    Unique doesn’t necessarily equal good. The Lightning came out of that redesign with better, more versatile marks and a stronger overall brand based on how they’ve built around it. They’re two or three minor changes/additions from excellence, which wasn’t always true of their previous looks.
  43. 1 like
    Connie Mack with a few of his shrewd advisors.
  44. 1 like
  45. 1 like
    I am preparing for some heat, but first thing that comes to mind: From: To: Take a 90's team with a unique identity and strip it of everything unique and attempt to create an ugly marriage of Leafs and Red Wings.
  46. 1 like
    Always liked that O as a uniform logo.
  47. 1 like
  48. 1 like
    All in good time but for now, I finally have Detroit ready: My biggest complaint with the Tigers current look is that their home jersey gives off the impression that they are a navy and white team and how orange could play a bigger role in their look. So that's what I did -Hats - For the normal rotation, one hat; Navy with a orange bill. Kept the Olde English D on the front, in one color. I tried adding an outline to it on the hats but it looked bad so I left it one color. Batting helmets match the hats. BP hats are just a flip of the hat; orange hat, navy bill. -Jerseys - The home jersey changes the most by far. I used the scripty Tigers on the front to match the existing away jersey's "DETROIT". For all jerseys I used the striping pattern from the '70s which I'm starting to notice was a very popular stripe. Kept the placket piping on the home and away jerseys as well as the front numbers under the scripts. Alternate jersey is orange, with the D on the chest along with no piping. BP jerseys continue the wild trend. Orange and navy, I used the striping found throughout on the collar and on the sleeves. -Pants - White pants would be the normal go to pants for the Tigers. Again, used the same stripes down the legs. I debated and debated if I should add the navy pants and I ended up adding them as an alternate set. I'm still not sure about them but I'll see what the consensus is. Socks are navy and orange and are striped as well. C&C welcome!
  49. 1 like
    Looks like The Astros weren't the only ones to get a Ring tonight!
  50. 1 like
    This isn't so much a realignment as an alternate history. What if Walter O'Malley agreed to a stadium deal at Flushing Meadows, as proposed by Robert Moses, and kept the Dodgers in Brooklyn? I tried to keep the timeline as close to reality as possible. 1958: The Dodgers and the City of New York reach an agreement to build a new multipurpose stadium in Flushing Meadows. Realizing they are the odd man out in New York, the New York Giants announce a move to Minneapolis, and become the Minnesota Giants. 1961: Prior to the 1961 season, American League owners vote to expand by two teams. For the past few years, Calvin Griffith had been in discussions with Los Angeles officials to move the Washington Senators to LA. The main obstacle was trying to find another AL team to accompany them to the West Coast, without which other AL owners would not approve a relocation to Los Angeles. With the expansion, the original Washington Senators opted to relocate to Los Angeles to become the Los Angeles Angels. The San Francisco Seals and a replacement Washington franchise, the "new" Washington Senators, became the two new AL franchises. 1962: The new Flushing Meadows Stadium opens in Queens, and the Brooklyn Dodgers decide to rename themselves the New York Dodgers as a result. The National League, not wanting to have fewer teams than the AL, opt to expand as well for the 1962 season. Expansion franchises are awarded to the Houston Colt .45s, and not wishing to miss out on the West Coast, the Los Angeles Stars. 1965: The Houston Colt .45s rename themselves the Houston Astros upon their move to the new Astrodome. Meanwhile, the new Angel Stadium in Chavez Ravine opens up for the Los Angeles Angels. The Los Angeles Stars relocate to Anaheim, though they maintain their name. 1966: The Milwaukee Braves relocate to Atlanta, becoming the Atlanta Braves. 1968: With Oakland not being a relocation option for the A's, thanks to the presence of another AL team there, Kansas City Athletics owner Charles Finley reaches an agreement with the city of Milwaukee to relocate there for the 1968 season. AL owners, sick of Finley's constant attempts at relocation and aware of Milwaukee's success as a major league market less than a decade prior, approve the relocation. The Milwaukee Athletics are formed. 1969: Under pressure from Missouri Senator Stuart Symington, who would famously call Milwaukee "the luckiest city since Hiroshima" on the Senate floor, the American League hastily decides to expand in preparation for the 1969 season, with Kansas City guaranteed a replacement franchise. The National League, already planning on expanding in the early 1970s, decide to move up their expansion plans to align with the AL. The AL awards franchises to the Kansas City Royals and the Seattle Pilots, while the NL gives franchises to the Montreal Expos and the Oakland Oaks. 1970: With the Seattle Pilots going bankrupt, and no stadium construction in sight, a San Diego-based ownership group buys out the Pilots, and relocates them to San Diego, renaming them the San Diego Padres. 1972: The Washington Senators relocate to Dallas, and become the Texas Rangers. 1977: Under pressure from a lawsuit from the city of Seattle regarding the relocation of the Pilots to San Diego, the American League decides to expand, creating the Seattle Mariners and Toronto Blue Jays. 1993: The National League expands, creating the Florida Marlins and the Colorado Rockies. 1998: The National League expands again, creating the Arizona Diamondbacks and the Tampa Bay Devil Rays. 2005: After years of flagging attendance, the Montreal Expos relocate to Washington, renaming themselves the Washington Nationals. 2013: In order to even out the two leagues, the Tampa Bay Rays move to the American League. The NL East is reduced from six to five teams. The Detroit Tigers move to the AL Central to accommodate the arrival of the Rays to the AL East. The Texas Rangers move from the AL Central to the AL West, increasing the size of that division from four to five teams. In 2016, baseball looks as follows (differences from our timeline in italics): AL East: Baltimore Orioles Boston Red Sox New York Yankees Tampa Bay Rays Toronto Blue Jays AL Central: Chicago White Sox Cleveland Indians Detroit Tigers Kansas City Royals Milwaukee Athletics AL West: Los Angeles Angels (in Chavez Ravine, Los Angeles) San Diego Padres San Francisco Seals Seattle Mariners Texas Rangers NL East: Atlanta Braves Miami Marlins New York Dodgers (in Queens, NY) Philadelphia Phillies Washington Nationals NL Central: Chicago Cubs Cincinnati Reds Minnesota Giants Pittsburgh Pirates St. Louis Cardinals NL West: Arizona Diamondbacks Colorado Rockies Houston Astros Los Angeles Stars (in Anaheim) Oakland Oaks The toughest thing within this timeline was the A's relocation to Oakland and subsequent 1969 expansion. Finley was in talks with a slew of cities - Louisville, San Diego, Oakland, Seattle, Denver, Milwaukee, etc. The Sporting News actually reported in 1967 that he had agreed to a relocation to Milwaukee, and that he had a TV contract in place, but fell one vote short of getting the relocation approved by AL owners. This timeline assumes that sometime in 1967, he persuaded one other owner to vote in favor of the relocation. The other alternatives would've been to have Finley agree to move to either Seattle or San Diego (I know he had in-depth discussions with Seattle; not sure how far he even got with San Diego, though he may have been more interested in that California market had Oakland been unavailable). Seemed to be less of a jump to have the tentative Milwaukee deal get approved than to have him strike an agreement with either Seattle or San Diego. I would guess that under this timeline, the AL's Los Angeles Angels (who would've struck a stadium agreement in Chavez Ravine upon relocation from Washington) and San Francisco Seals would've become the "dominant" franchise in their respective metro areas, being that they were the first franchises to arrive, and would be in the largest city in the area. This would've dramatically changed the balance of power between the NL and the AL in the 1960s and 1970s, being that the AL would've had the two dominant franchises in the LA and Bay Area markets. Would they have been motivated to implement the DH in 1973 in that case? Would the NL have been looking to play catch-up with the AL and implemented it instead? Would the continued presence of the Dodgers (whose 1960's core would've looked largely the same) have resulted in them being the dominant franchise in New York from 1964 up until, say, the 90's? Would Bud Selig have ever gotten involved in baseball in Charles Finley moved a team to Milwaukee? (I tend to think that he would've - he might've bought out the Athletics once Finley decided to sell) Lots of interesting hypotheticals.
This leaderboard is set to Toronto/GMT-04:00


  • Newsletter

    Want to keep up to date with all our latest news and information?
    Sign Up