Ted Cunningham

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

165 Utility Player

About Ted Cunningham

  • Rank
    Let's go Bucs.

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    West Virginia

Contact Methods

Recent Profile Visitors

7,945 profile views
  1. Ah, no, I was referring to this one from UpperV03's post on the first page:
  2. Agreed; the Aggies' scripts are nice. And for the same reasons I laid out above, I don't like Arizona's new script. It's a half-hearted attempt at best. We get what you're going for, Arizona, but it doesn't work the way you want it to. (At least that's how I see it.)
  3. So to be clear, is the implication that this script is a "throwback style" insomuch as it's a script and scripts generally are more throwback? I would argue (and this is not to pick on BVZ by any means or to call BVZ out; this just sparked a thought that I've had for a while) that this script feels decidedly not "throwback" or like a classic baseball script. And here's why: When teams started using what I would now think of as classic baseball scripts from roughly the 1930s or 1940s (e.g. the Dodgers' script), teams were unaided by computers and ostensibly attempted to mimic how the word would look as though it were written. In other words, it appears that scripts were meant to look organic and unique to each team while being done in such a way as to be legible on a uniform. Sometime in the 60s (that's a guess, based on the uniforms I'm thinking of and have seen), uniform manufacturers must have had basic patterns for each letter to allow them to put together scripts without having to fully design them from nothing, though still maintaining some semblance of that handwritten feel. Nike included this particular set of letters in one of their apparel catalogs a few years back, and a member here converted it into a font with an Oregon State-related name. (The font is now no longer available.) I took the vectors out of the pdf of the catalog to make making scripts easier: (I made these in roughly a half hour, all in. The town name is a census-designated place in central West Virginia; I just used it because I really like script Zs. The team name is just one that had a fair few characters I feel like exemplify the standardized baseball script patterns/letters. The S, especially, is fairly ubiquitous.) The Texas script (though I can't see the T) in the photo of the Clemens-era uniform looks to be similar to this kind of script. The new script looks like a computer-based brush script font. It kind of mimics a brush script, but it's a little too exact/cold and lacks a certain human touch, if that makes sense. I don't know why Texas just didn't go with the same script. I really like the uniform otherwise. I don't mind modern uniforms in baseball, and I don't necessarily think traditional means good. But if a team is going to go with a script, go with a real baseball script, and not an imitation. So in that respect, I guess I'm a bit of a baseball script purist. Again, this isn't to call out BVZ. That just made me think of this post that I'd not really ever written down.
  4. I liked this post, but to be clear (and more specific), there's a certain style of stirrups that I think are truly dumb: Baseball aesthetics in the 70s and 80s were at an arguably all-time low. And stirrups with enlarged loops were a big part of that: I just don't get the mid-calf, tight pants, and stirrups with only the stirrups themselves showing-look. (And that doesn't even address the pull-over jersey and sansabelt, etc.) In the 40s, 50s, as well as likely before and after that time (though the 40s are what stick out most to me when thinking of this style), baseball uniforms obviously included stirrups as well, but the openings were far smaller, showing much more color and any potential striping. Now, as with all things related to sports aesthetics (and really design and art), this is all opinion. I understand that there are many that would disagree with me because the uniform worn by Teke is one that represents baseball as it was when they fell in love with the sport. I just think that stirrups like those in the second picture can offer more the overall look of a uniform.
  5. They're also the first team with blue as a color to make the playoff! (Sorry if that's been pointed out already.)
  6. These are some tremendous concepts. Nice work all around, Nate. Only because they're the latest, one thought that occurred to me about Green Bay: The first thing I thought of when I saw them was the Edmonton Eskimos. I realize the two are fairly similar to begin with, but the thing that really got me was the stacked two-letter logo on the helmet. The GB mark is smart and looks good, so for redesign purposes, I'd say keep it. I just wanted to point out the similarity. One other thing: Your Browns concept seems to be the logical way to clean up their current actual look. It's solid, simple, and yet a bit more modern than the full-on 60s look they had before their redesign. Again, excellent work all around.
  7. https://twitter.com/BUFootball/status/1055141876905299968 https://twitter.com/WVUfootball/status/1054862532060553217 WVU will be in what I would characterize as their regular uniforms (blue, blue, gold) tonight vs. Baylor (in all white). Apologies; I couldn't figure out how to directly embed the tweets. Lame, I know. I've kind of just come to accept that many teams (including my own, WVU) in college football now mix and match, so I'm just going to enjoy them wearing this combination tonight, and be glad they did it at least once this year. Ha.
  8. Just for the sake of seeing them, I took the colors out of the posted images to get a better idea of what they actually were. The red/pink is actually on the pink side of red if one were to look at the hex code. Now, I fully admit that the colors are just based on what's in the image and are not the actual Pantone/official colors. But I think it helps to see them this way.
  9. Interesting thought there. When I saw that picture, I immediately thought of a cross between Air Force and Michigan. Nothing about that uniform says "Chargers" to me. I can understand your thinking though.
  10. Err wait, no! Stanford! ? (Just giving you a hard time, PK).