andrewharrington

1 hour ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

Have the Cardinals ever had a red facemask? Because I bet it would look super nice.

 

This looks nice, doesn't it?

 

 

Yeah, but it looks like the Louisville Cardinals, not the Chicago / St. Louis / Phoenix / Arizona Cardinals.

2 hours ago, Cujo said:

 

Negative. Grey facemasks work if it's part of a throwback uniform (ala Indy, SF, NYG), which the Cardinals definitely don't wear.

 

With their current piped out, Reebok era, 00s set they have, the grey facemask comes off as if the Cards forgot to update it with the rest of the uniform. Black, red, white, yellow, aquamarine, eggplant -- just about any color would be better than grey.

To be fair, you asked how a grey face mask works with this *helmet* (not uniform).

3 hours ago, DEAD! said:

I don't think it would nearly as nice as the white pants. The white pants would have even made the black shirts tolerable. 

Without a doubt. Honestly, I think dark-colored jerseys with (different) dark-colored pants is the worst look for pro football. It definitely screams youth/high school/small college much more than monochrome does these days. Dark-colored jerseys look best with light-colored pants, and orange is the official dividing line between light and dark in that rule; anything lighter works with a dark jersey, anything darker doesn’t, and orange is case-by-case.

On 3/19/2021 at 1:43 PM, FinsUp1214 said:

I suppose I understand the reasoning for keeping black from a marketing standpoint, but it sure doesn’t look that good with wine. Cleveland would look so much better if they’d just simplify to wine, gold, and white.

 

Regarding Cleveland’s historical identity crisis, I’ve never really known what the “essential” Cavs identity is, and I don’t think the Cavs have ever really known either. They’ve seemed to chase after different identities thier whole existence, and to a detrimental fault. 
 

They’re in a weird spot in my head where they’re both relevant and irrelevant at the same time; relevant because of Lebron and a recent title, yet irrelevant because they suck again and I have no bearing on what thier brand or identity is or ever was. If I were ever hired to rebrand them, I honestly have no idea what I’d do with them nor would I trust the brand would last five years at this point. They’re perpetual shapeshifters and I just don’t understand how or why they insist on being such time and time again. 

I don’t necessarily like it, but I think I get why they do it. At this point, I their legacy is settled as a team that’s never going to be a permanently relevant NBA franchise and also a team that’s going to be third fiddle in its own city for eternity. It’s the Pepsi mentality of trying to constantly reinvent yourself in an attempt keep your target audience younger and fresher, since there aren’t enough old fans around to make building a “forever” identity worth the effort. It’s just life for lots of small- and mid-market teams.

On 3/19/2021 at 10:07 PM, Ark said:

This is their best set:

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think it needed the side panel on the shorts because it’s just so empty down there, but yes. These were nice. I wish the type was a little less bubbly, though.

21 hours ago, BBTV said:

 

I don't know anything about fabric, but I doubt it starts out crisp white, so wouldn't there be dye in either case?  I know you're being funny, but it made me think.

White fabrics are bleached or chemically brightened rather than dyed, because dyes aren’t opaque (meaning there’s not really a way to “dye” something white). Natural fibers (cotton, flax, wool) normally produce yarns and fabrics with a beige/cream color. Undyed synthetic fibers are usually brighter, but still produce yarns and fabrics with an off-white appearance. What you’re actually doing when you make white fabric is taking that natural color out, rather than adding color in.

16 hours ago, ManillaToad said:

 

since realigment teams wearing white are 15-4 in the Super Bowl. Bucs, Packers, Eagles, Chiefs are the four

 

edit: I counted and teams in white are 36-19 in SB history. You'd think it would be more even

Having no dye in the jersey fabric saves 1g on the weight of the jersey, which gives the players dressed in white a small performance boost.

On 2/24/2021 at 6:48 AM, TruColor said:

 

Two different colors.

 

Process Blue is a Pantone base ink color, while Process Cyan is a primary color in CMYK printing:

 

 

Yes, I’m just saying that blues of that hue and value are often colloquially called “cyan.”

On 2/24/2021 at 6:26 PM, SFGiants58 said:

 

Didn't @andrewharrington suggest that the OG logo looked like it had a broken jaw?

 

Not me, but I don’t disagree on that particular point. The composition needs work, but stylistically, the old one is much more suited to succeed as a logo, in my opinion.

On 2/19/2021 at 9:15 AM, DG_ThenNowForever said:

 

True.

 

But I still can't tell you what color the Panthers' blue is.

On 2/19/2021 at 9:48 AM, QCS said:

There you go, it's Panthers blue. If you want to use the Pantone name, it's Process blue. If you want to be non-specific, light blue tends to work best, at least in my opinion.

I’m surprised this wasn’t mentioned before, but process blue is most commonly referred to as “cyan.”

On 1/5/2021 at 7:13 AM, cajunaggie08 said:

Whats a little odd is when they released the new uniform look, there never was any pictures of the road look and the graphic said there was a maroon pant option for the road, but there has never been any photos of them.

 

 

 

Big schools typically get a specific amount of product per year according to their contract, so they very well may have them even though they didn’t wear them.

1 hour ago, fouhy12 said:

I don't love the black endzones, but I've started to come around on them. It is fun to have some kind of a tradition for this specific game, something about the design you don't get at other games. I do wish they used the conference or team logo in the endzones instead of the CFP one however. 

I like them, too, for exactly this reason. It’s their thing, and it works well as an extension of the CFP brand (black + silver/gold + team color).

12 hours ago, cajunaggie08 said:

Either Adidas wasnt able to produce maroon pants in time before the start of the season or we just straight up shelved them as every game we wore white pants this year. I dont believe Jimbo is a fan of alternate uniforms and looks so we just stuck with our 2 combos all year. I wish we would have had maroon pants to bust out as M/W/M is my preferred road look.

Stripeless Primeknit pants are available as a stock item in maroon. If A&M wanted to wear maroon pants, you’d have seen it.

25 minutes ago, Lights Out said:

I'm as sick of Notre Dame as anyone else, but I don't get why people are pointing to Oklahoma as a better choice when they've gone winless in all their playoff games and haven't played any defense in any of them (last year's performance was particularly embarrassing). They also lost to 4-6 Kansas State this season.

 

Cincinnati played a weaker schedule. Texas A&M's only quality win (Florida) wasn't as good as ND's win against Clemson, and they lost to Alabama by a larger margin than ND did. Same deal with Georgia - if you're upset about Notre Dame getting owned by Alabama, why would you want a team that didn't do any better against them? Maybe Northwestern could have made a valid argument if they didn't inexplicably lose to a terrible MSU team in November.

 

It sucks, but I understand why the committee did what they did this year. There really weren't any clear-cut better options than ND, unfortunately.

Exactly. With a season like this, it was impossible to compare to  so the committee really had no chance.

People just get salty when you have a G5 team sitting there undefeated (knowing the history of how G5 teams have showed up in big bowl games), or a team that finished its season with a half dozen conference wins in a row after losing to the team it would have matched up against. Those are more compelling games for me than rewarding a team who just got shellacked. Maybe I’d feel differently if ND actually showed up and gave someone a game even one time, but they’re running out of chances in the public’s eye.

Ten years ago, the Buckeyes couldn’t shake their own reputation that they were too slow and traditional to compete with top-tier teams. They are 11-6 in BCS/CFP/NY6 games since 2000. Notre Dame is 0-7 (with none of the losses by fewer than two touchdowns), yet they’re still getting the benefit of the doubt year after year.

51 minutes ago, DNAsports said:

(I don’t mean to deviate even more from the thread subject)

 

I agree. You could honestly throw Oklahoma, Georgia, and even Iowa State (after their performance against Oregon) into that conversation too. It’s perplexing how the committee watched ND get blown out in the ACC championship and still thought “they’re still good enough for the No. 4 seed” then watched that same ND team get blown out on an even bigger stage against No. 1 Alabama.

Thats my issue with it. The playoff is entertainment for all CFB fans. It can’t effectively folllow the simplistic, traditional selection model of “who’s going to fill the seats” if it wants to be taken seriously as a fan-focused entertainment property. Nobody wants to watch a team go into the postseason off a loss in their biggest game. Apparently, they didn’t learn many lessons from the BCS era...

18 hours ago, DNAsports said:

I meant it in the context of, Indiana played the number of games initially necessary for the Conference Championship yet the rules got bent for (and only for) Ohio State. For what? Conference integrity?

Eh. They were temporary rules the conference created. They put themselves in a bad position by making the rule in the first place with such uncertainty afoot, but I don’t think they anticipated Penn State imploding and Wisconsin having to cancel most of its season, so they ended up inadvertently painting themselves into a corner. Ultimately, the conference made the best decision for its own long-term health by giving its best team a chance to prove it belongs on the biggest stage.

Every team with a “gripe” about this had their chances during the season and lost their biggest game, except for Cincinnati and Coastal (who waited until the bowls to lose their biggest games). Either way, I think Cincinnati and A&M both deserved the #4 spot over Notre Dame. Losing your conference championship game should be automatic playoff elimination, in my opinion. That’s the first round as far as I’m concerned...

1 hour ago, colinturner95 said:

 

 

 

 

After this debacle I have my doubts they'd let that happen. 

 

It’s the New Mexico Bowl, a game whose primary role in our society is background noise for people who get together and bake traditional Eastern European desserts as a family the week before Christmas. We’ll survive red vs. green on this one.

On 12/13/2020 at 6:19 PM, WavePunter said:

No way.. those are fantastic

Eh. They only go half way around, get folded up under many players’ pads, and really don’t add much to the design as a whole. Vestigial, if you ask me.

19 hours ago, ManillaToad said:

Miami looks terrible, who comes up with these crap uniforms?

My friends and co-workers!

19 hours ago, dont care said:

But when you compare the 2 it really lacks compared to army’s. Army took a division and made a uniform based on their history, navy went “uh our marble is cool let’s make a uniform that looks like that” just seems like very little effort was thought into that design.

They went “uh our marble is cool” because It’s the 175th anniversary of the Naval Academy. Thus, they are celebrating with a uniform that incorporates features of... the Naval Academy. How is that conceptually lesser than what West Point did?

4 hours ago, dont care said:

Navy’s is really uninspired. Oh our campus has marble and gold so well put it on our uniform. You know what other schools have marble and gold used around campus. Basically every other school you can think of

Really? Find me another campus with marble like this.

15 minutes ago, Scrumptious Ham said:

How did you gather that? That's not what I said, detective.  The pandering is dumb, but so is the design. Don't be naive. This is indeed pandering, though. It's what Nike and Oregon does best. Actually,  crap design is what nike and Oregon does best, too.

What’s “dumb” about the design?

9 hours ago, selgy said:

Not everything needs to be "executed" on every canvas. 

The design and inspiration are probably gorgeous. But limiting the design to a football uniform that will get squished, torn, stretched, etc are in my mind a bad decision. You then put that design on 50 different bodies that are all shaped differently and to me the execution failed.   

Again, I understand you think the execution failed, so I’m wondering what you think is the right way to execute this.

5 hours ago, selgy said:

I understand the intent. But the execution looked terrible (and my attempted joke). 

The patterning was designed by a Polynesian artist. How else would one execute this?

42 minutes ago, Red Wolf said:

Disclaimer: This isn't my fault. I've been lobbying to be the designated nerd but have yet to be granted that position.

 

This must be the uniform for the alumni team: the Arkansas State Silver Foxes.

UNC rollin’ the dice a little using Disney IP for a uniform post.

Right, and that third photo is exactly what the uniform pattern is, three-tone grey blob camo.