Ted Cunningham

Members
  • Content Count

    1,642
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

183 Utility Player

About Ted Cunningham

  • Rank
    Let's go Bucs.

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    West Virginia

Contact Methods

Recent Profile Visitors

7,969 profile views
  1. You know what, you're right, especially looking at it from a strict definition of what a stroke is around an object. On the 1988-2006 set, the numbers (for example) technically go: white numbers, navy stroke, gold stroke. I was thinking of it in terms of the colors present in the design. So the navy wasn't so much a stroke as it was just space between the numbers and the gold stroke. An "offset stroke," so to speak. However, I still think my point is valid. But, I'm going to change my reasoning in light of your correction, @WavePunter. It's the addition of the third color (i.e. powder blue on both the bolts and numbers) on the new uniforms that really muddies the look. (To me, that third color constitutes an extra stroke, but like I said before, that doesn't meet the strict definition of the term). And I'm not saying that all teams with three colors plus white look bad or having three colors plus white automatically disqualifies a uniform. I just don't think the Chargers executed it well at all. The current design felt like one that was made to please everybody, and it falls flat compared to just about all the other uniforms they've worn. If they wanted to keep the current modern feel, they should just use the royal blue color rush uniforms as a template. The colors on the numbers and bolts are all consistent: navy (I think? It might be black) around gold on a white background. I still don't like the current set of numbers, but whatever with that, I suppose. Just make the royal blue powder instead (as the popular choice), and make the pants white (with just the gold bolt outlined in navy/black; no need for the colored background on the pants stripe). Then just make the jerseys on the away set white and keep everything else the same. (I know that means there would be no powder blue on the away set, but that's the direction they're going in anyway, as I understand it: the away set is still the one they've worn from 2007-2018; pretty navy-heavy.) The consistency would save that look.
  2. I agree with what you're getting at, Htown. The above is the key to all this. It's not an abomination, insanity, or the worst uniform ever. It's a not too great alternate. In other words, it felt like some reactions to this uniform were a bit over the top, driven by a strong reaction to the colors or else piling on once the somewhat ridiculous size of the wordmark was pointed out. The uniform-sky is not falling because of this below-par alternate.
  3. This is the correct answer. While I disagree with Lafarge (the 1961-1965 look is the best look they had up to 1974, and maybe all the way to 1988), I take the point that those uniforms are not the best that they've worn and are over-hyped. Powder blue is a great color, sure. But it's inaccurate, especially for those throwbacks in particular. And with their rebrand in 2007, it just felt so shoe-horned into the overall look. Their current look, regardless of which jersey is primary and what pants they wear or what color the facemasks are, is such a garbled mess of unnecessary detail. Too many strokes on the bolt on the helmet (why? because powder blue had to be in there). Too many strokes on numbers that are too thin. Weird placement of overly-thin bolt/stripes on the shoulders. Unnecessary curve in the pants stripe. It's just overly detailed and muddled. It's almost akin to the fairly common C&C feedback people get on their concepts wherein a logo is too detailed and wouldn't translate well if it was embroidered because the details are too small. The same principle can be applied, to an extent, with the Chargers. I feel like their numbers are hard to read at a distance, and everything having multiple strokes makes everything look slightly faded or "misprinted" (in the same way a label would be printed with multiple colors, but one of the colors wasn't aligned correctly and is therefore offset). I just feel like the Chargers have continued to tinker with their brand since the 1988-2006 look in an effort to 1) try and shoehorn in the powder blue, 2) to modernize its look, and 3) please everyone with hints at just about all of their previous looks. The resulting identity is a watered down mess. And now they're tinkering again by changing the facemask and the home look, while essentially keeping an away look based on an entirely different shade of blue. It just seems so illogical from an aesthetics standpoint.
  4. I find it remarkable that some of the criticism leveled against the Michigan State uniform is about a design element not really fitting on the jersey (or potentially fitting differently depending on jersey size), when that same criticism could easily be applied to sleeve stripes being put on modern sleeve caps. I would be interested to know how many members here are pro-sleeve stripe on modern templates, and yet think that the "STATE" wordmark "doesn't fit." Because it feels like essentially the same idea. As for that uniform itself, I understand that lime green (and I suppose "volt" could be included here too) always seems to get a reaction, especially in this case where it's not an official team color. And yeah, the large wordmark is gaudy. But this is far from an "abomination" or one of the worst uniforms of the year, etc. I would argue that if one of those two elements were not there, those uniforms would get a reaction more along the lines of, "yeah, I can live with that for an alternate." For example, take out the lime green: After a couple people would comment about the wordmark, this wouldn't get a second look until they actually wore them. I know that's an in-a-vacuum/if-you-just argument, but my point remains that this uniform is not awful. It's not this (for instance): Frankly, I think this Michigan State uniform will be looked back on (in 15ish+ years) with the same kind of hey-remember-that-one-uniform quasi-fondness as these (and their ilk):
  5. I really like the full-German idea here. I also like the somewhat geometric-blackletter mashup you have for the type. However, the Cs are reading as Gs to me: FUßBALL GLUB GINGINNATI.
  6. Spoiler because there are a fair few images in this post. These are screencaps from the gold and blue game.
  7. I think the other key to why Dravon Askew-Henry's jersey looks OK in that picture is because of the white pants. The white facemask would look out of place if the flying WV, numbers, and pants were all gold (essentially for the same reason you point out with the Rams' uniforms, just with gold instead of white). If they were to use white facemasks, they'd need the white pants to tie it in.
  8. I really liked this helmet when they wore it against Texas (the game in which Grier's finger went haywire). I didn't much care for the white flying WV, but I think I just have a thing for dark shell helmets with white facemasks. There's something very clean about that look. My favorite uniform, I think ever, for Syracuse uses that look: (I realize that they're called "the Orange" and there's not a lot of orange, etc., but I really like this uniform. It's a very simple, yet modern uniform.) I generally agree with your assessments otherwise. Blue and gold should be what's emphasized (with white included, obviously). (Side-note: I don't care for, in concepts mostly, how a lot of WVU mock-ups have gold and white touching on the uniforms: gold strokes on numbers or the flying WV, gold and white together in stripes, etc. Doing so washes both colors out.) Only a blue helmet (though I don't mind the matte finish). A decent set of numbers. (Unpopular opinion, I actually liked the 2013 - 2018 uniforms, even with their flaws. I'd take them 10 out of 10 times over either of the preceding sets [from Rasheed Marshall to Geno Smith eras; 2002ish to 2012?]. But the numbers are objectively bad and gimmicky.) If they had wanted something with points or edges on them to hearken back to pickaxes or whatever, why not use something like "McAuliffe" numbers? They've got points on them, but are still recognizable as "numbers used on sports jerseys" not to mention legible. And then just because I've always liked it since the 2001 Virginia Tech game, keep a pair of white pants with some blue-gold-blue Braisher stripes. (Can we call those Braisher stripes? or do Braisher stripes have to be color-white-color? I've always applied the term more broadly to three stripes of equal width that are touching. Perhaps I've been misinformed this whole time!) I remember a drunk guy in the stands behind us yelling the whole time that WVU was losing that game because of the white pants. Another fun fact about this game, that I have no memory of: Pac Man Jones, as a freshman, played quarterback for WVU during that game, wearing no. 13. There's another picture from the same gallery of him handing the ball off to Avon Cobourne. I saw that picture and thought "I don't remember any QB from that era wearing 13." No wonder. I guess it was a Rich Rodriguez experiment in his first year to see what talent Don Nehlen had left him. Anyway, I say all that to say that the new uniforms don't have to be ultra-traditional to be solid, and to be an improvement over what they've had since 2002. But they should stick with a few elements that WVU has kept consistent since 1980 (for the most part).
  9. Ah, no, I was referring to this one from UpperV03's post on the first page:
  10. 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.)
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. They're also the first team with blue as a color to make the playoff! (Sorry if that's been pointed out already.)
  14. 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.