Ted Cunningham

Members
  • Content Count

    1,735
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ted Cunningham

  1. I'm not sure I see three outlines here. On the teal jersey for example, the numbers have a gold stroke and black stroke, right? Or are you referring to another element? Since the Jaguars went to their minimalist set, I've thought that it wouldn't take much to add back some of the 1990s feel while keeping the basics of the current uniform. This concept very successfully accomplishes that. Nicely done, Lee.
  2. I guess maybe I'll get some flack for this, and I know this is all opinion based. But this really feels like a scorching hot take when the NFL has seen uniforms from the early 2000s. I'd gladly take this Rams look over the red/royal/white/navy/nickel Bills or the "swooshy" pipe-and-panel Vikings. The early 2000s were an era of "just because you can do it doesn't mean you should." To be clear, I am by no means saying that the Rams' uniforms are good. There's a lot of room for improvement. However, I don't think even the all off-white look is "the worst uniform of all time".
  3. I don't know if you can get those two looks to be harmonious simply because the elements that make them what they are don't work together without feeling overdesigned. The argyle is intricate and fussy compared to the almost overly-large, bold stripes of the throwback. The pants stripes match the sleeve stripes match the helmet stripes in terms of line weight on the throwback. Using argyle on two of those elements (pants and helmet) while having plain stripes that don't match anything else on the sleeves would look disjointed. Now I say that with it being my understanding of what you're saying above. Two other options you may mean instead are: Add the argyle to the middle portion of the stripes on the various uniform elements. That, however, is what I meant by "overdesigned" above. That's like saying "I like pickles. I also like cake. I will put pickles on my cake." They just don't go together without feeling obviously forced. Just adding drop shadows to the current uniform and reducing the weight or width of the numbers. That seems like a lot more doable solution, though it would just be the modern look with drop shadows. I'd argue that, besides any nostalgia, what makes the throwback successful is that it includes a fair bit of variation in color because the stripes are so large while still staying within the rough definition of "traditional" stripes. So many college uniforms have plain/solid-color pants sometimes with the addition of (again) fussy, overly-intricate elements that don't necessarily translate well at distance (e.g. team names, piping instead of stripes [though that fad has faded somewhat], logos, patterned stripes, etc.). Seeing big stripes like UNC's (or even just complete waist to knee stripes, generally) is refreshing. And my argument against "fussy" detailed elements isn't even necessarily an indictment of UNC's argyle. I think it works alright for them. I do think argyle is disproportionately viewed as positive on these boards because of so many designers working it into their concepts. But I also don't think it's bad in practice. It's just not the best option for football.
  4. This right here is important. I feel like the general tone on the boards, lately, has been to react to anything one does not like with over-the-top, end-of-the-world-and-all-things-aesthetically-decent reactions like calling people "morons" for going with subpar uniform combinations within a set of uniforms that has been, for the most part, praised. Or reacting with puke emojis or else referring to things that don't fit personal preference with descriptors like "vomit-inducing" (Did you really come close to puking?) Or else dunking on someone else's opinion with cutesy comebacks and owns based only on the poster's own opinion (i.e. no more or less valid). Maybe I am way off base here, but this seems to be way more prevalent lately. If a uniform is so bad, explain why it's so bad. Or if you disagree with an opinion, explain why instead of responding with infinite variations on "yeah, except the opposite!" I hate sounding like "why can't we all just get along" or whatever, and I also acknowledge there's nuance to all of this (some things are simply really bad, etc.). But there are only so many "yeah, except by good, you mean bad!" reactions and puke emojis I can read before starting to discount your thoughts and opinions. ("Ah, I see this guy is an overreactor.") And to be clear, this isn't directed at any specific person. It's just refreshing to see someone else acknowledging an over-the-top response to a uniform decision. I've felt that way for a while and this was an opportunity to express that.
  5. I believe the Mets or Pirates did this at one point for the surname "d'Arnaud". Just flipped a P. It was a bit more effective for that name because there was no E.
  6. Also, this is the correct answer for the Titans' current look: I am pleased to see it. There's a lot wrong with this uniform, but from a broad standpoint, the navy over columbia over white look with the dark numbers outlined in white is a solid look. It's a shame that some of these brands lend themselves to mixing and matching with three essentially color-swapped versions of each element. Everything becomes muddled and inconsistent. Like, what is truly the "default" home look for the Titans? Navy jerseys, sure. But with what pants? (Navy, I guess? That's what they've worn the most with the navy jerseys, but in the history of this particular set, it's not really been consistent.) This is a fair point too. Don't do it just because you can. All white should not be Green Bay's primary away look or even used often. And as I said above, having too many options and mixing and matching dilutes the strength of a brand. However, I don't think it has to be quite so strict ("best" look or don't wear it). "Best" is likely too subjective to make a determination that excludes all other looks. An alternate, when done well and used sparingly, can provide variety without confusing/diluting which look is "default", "classic", or otherwise easily recognizable as a particular team, especially when it's a change to one element (like an alternate color jersey or pair of pants) and not a completely different look (like the Browns' previous color rush set vs their previous main brand). Maybe allowing any alternates is incompatible with brand consistency, strictly by the definitions of the words. But an alternate that makes sense and is used sparingly can add variety to a brand without weakening it.
  7. I agree with this. I realize it might go against tradition, which, aesthetically speaking, is woven into Green Bay's brand. But I think it looks good in the same way that it works for Michigan's away uniforms. Once a year is alright, certainly.
  8. To preface: this isn't an attack directed at you, JTernup. It's simply a counterargument to the views you expressed here. 1) "In life, perfect can be the enemy of good, but in uniform design we shouldn't settle for good when perfect is attainable" This seems contradictory to me, unless you mean to extract uniform design from life generally. If perfect has the potential to work against good, then why would one work to attain perfect at the potential cost of good? (I'll come back to this in a moment.) 2) While the mock-up arguably presents better color balance between the three main uniform elements (which could make it a better uniform in your opinion [I don't think we can say "objectively better" simply because aesthetics rely so heavily on personal taste]), it also deviates from those elements that make Ole Miss look like Ole Miss. Adding another color between the white shoulder hoops is the big one there. Ole Miss football, generally, has had double white shoulder stripes on its color/home jerseys. Yes, there are examples of them with other stripes, but the most identifiable and most used look is the double white shoulder stripes (be that on navy, red, or even powder blue). As for the particular uniform yesterday, the white pants definitely changed the look, arguably, more drastically than the change in jersey color. But because the general idea behind the jersey remained the same, Ole Miss still looked like Ole Miss. I think this is interesting because it gets at a discussion we come back to on these boards from time to time: thinking of the appeal and attractiveness of an identity "in a vacuum" vs. in the context of the look in a team's history (be that context based on success in that uniform, longevity of the look, etc.). The former, "in a vacuum", is "perfect" as you've described above. Sure, a perfect look, applying all of the "generally accepted axioms of good uniform design" (which don't necessarily have to be explicit, but stuff like "color balance", mirrored elements between home and away uniforms, symmetry, etc.) could be attained for every team. However, that ignores the other elements that factor into why identities are successful or "good": identifiability, nostalgia, success, longevity, or simply because it looks cool even if it goes against one of those axioms of good design. In an effort to attain perfect, what makes identities like Ole Miss's good, can get stripped away. For example, adding red between the white shoulder stripes takes away from a key identifying feature of Ole Miss's football uniforms. They also look like Louisiana Tech in the mock-up. The mock-up doesn't have that quintessential Ole Miss look, even if it has arguably better color balance. The look could be improved, but without respect to the context in which the uniform exists and why it looks like it does, it wouldn't be Ole Miss because it doesn't have those characteristics that are tied to Ole Miss's football identity. (As for my own opinion on the uniforms they wore this past Saturday, some others pointed it out above: the regular grey pants would have made more sense. Rough Photoshop:)
  9. One of my favorites that I discovered a few years ago: the 1966 Ottawa Rough Riders. Sleeve stripes only on the right sleeves, and TV numbers oriented toward the front of the jersey. It's a pretty wild uniform, especially for the more traditional mid 60s. The below is a screencap from the 1966 Grey Cup broadcast (which is on YouTube). I had to screencap it because I couldn't find a picture with the whole uniform visible. I also mocked it up so you could get the idea from a flat perspective.
  10. I believe Hader is referring, specifically, to the Sister Bridges (of which one, the Roberto Clemente Bridge carrying 6th Street across the Allegheny, is visible in the backdrop of PNC Park). As pictured here (top to bottom), they're named for Clemente, Andy Warhol, and Rachel Carson. EDIT: As others have pointed out, the P simply fits in with the keystone serif motif that the Bucs have employed since the 40s. But I do think it's a cool little happy accident that it does line up that way.
  11. It's not the prettiest flag, certainly: https://loderunner.github.io/flagwaver/#?src=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FKhB19Tm.png
  12. While that's technically the case, as you've illustrated above, it doesn't come off as in line with the bottom of the letter to the naked eye. If you were to make the tail smaller and remove the "serif" from the arm, it wouldn't feel so heavy in the top-left and bottom-right corners. Also, if you're going to keep the serif on the arm, you should check the lighting on the beveling as all other left-side vertical faces are lighter. Plus, the shadow on the halo is a little odd if the whole thing is lit from the bottom and left. I hope that's not too critical. I think you're moving in the right direction, but it's still a little off.
  13. To continue the meandering of this thread (because, thanks to this thread, I read the whole Wikipedia article describing the Donner Party's ordeal): I don't find it all that surprising that Californians would be more familiar with American history that took place in California. In my West-Virginia-public-school education, I'm fairly certain Donner Pass was mentioned in the unit of American history that included Lewis and Clark, Sooners, the Oregon Trail, Conestoga wagons, pioneers, and sod dugout houses, etc. I know I was familiar with its significance in the same way as those other topics (i.e. having a general knowledge of it), so I am guessing it was covered at the same time as the rest of "westward expansion" and Manifest Destiny. To my first point, though: West Virginians generally have a decent grasp on the history of the state simply because every 8th grader takes West Virginia history as their social studies/history course for that year. (This includes not only straight history of the state, but also learning about the geography, civics, and government of the state. It's arguably useful not just for history and context, but for understanding how to operate as a citizen within the state, later in life. Whether that's effective is mixed though, as a lot of West Virginia history is still spent glorifying the coal industry and pining in vain for its return because the old guard of politicians, influenced by the coal and other extraction lobbies, selects what is put into the books. But I digress.) So a not entirely one-to-one example of an event from West Virginia history that West Virginians might know more of or more details about, while those not from the state would simply be aware that it happened, would be John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry. That was part of American history and obviously had an impact beyond what became West Virginia, so it would likely be addressed when discussing the beginnings of the Civil War in many locales across the country. However, it took place in what became part of the West Virginia and preceded a conflict that partially gave birth to the state, so it's given more focus in West Virginia history.
  14. My goodness yes, this song is tremendous. One of my favorite by Broken Social Scene. Right up there with 7/4 Shoreline and Hotel (and all of You Forgot It In People, really).
  15. It's throwing me off just slightly to not be able to see any indication of the numbers on the full body template when the perspective (at least to my eye) looks like it should show some portion of the numbers. I don't know if that's easily remedied or not with what you're working with OSV. (And I understand what you mean about using Paint for certain things. Its simplicity is an asset in many cases.)
  16. I don't know. That'd probably make news outside the home markets.
  17. Oh, and the original logo in question (apparently still hosted on Photobucket).
  18. I was wondering how long it would take for whomever to figure it out. I feel like it taking a couple days like this goes to show that 1) there aren't a ton of people around from back then and 2) even fewer of those people visit the concepts forum, it appears. @JustForFun, given that you joined in 2007, I am presuming this was for the lulz, and it ruled. Nicely done. Somewhere, Lee is pleased. The Wyoming Marinerzz live on.
  19. Your last point is interesting because not only did they make the same mistakes, but aesthetically they were in the same situation: Both of them had stale early 00s rebrands which initially coincided with some success (with the Rams changing their look after winning the Super Bowl at the height of "the greatest show on turf" and the Falcons updating theirs during the Michael Vick years). Those early 00s rebrands were grounded in the trending uniform aesthetics of the era. But, as time went on, those looks became dated, and in the interim, the franchises introduced throwbacks to arguably simpler, more classic designs, which were appreciated by many fans, both because they were improvements over what they were wearing otherwise and for nostalgic reasons. Then, leading up to the 2020 season, both teams proceeded to overthink and overdesign what should have been simple rebrands: instead of returning to popular throwback looks (which seemed to be the obvious choice in both cases), both teams attempted to split the difference of listening to and pleasing the fans, and going with something modern or almost change for change's sake. I think that the head-scratching design choices (e.g. "bone" away jerseys and pants, and no blue accents on the away look for the Rams; the gradient jersey and number font for the Falcons) coupled with frank disappointment shared by ostensibly a lot of people in not returning these two teams to popular throwback looks puts them in that bottom tier, whether that's really an indictment of the designs themselves or not. Personally, I don't think either look is as bad as Cincinnati or Arizona, for instance, which still cling to that 00s piping and panels look. From a purely design standpoint, and given that some basic traditions of football uniforms are followed, they're not awful: if Atlanta were to wear black over white at home and white over white on the road (with contrasting socks) and LA were to wear gold pants with both their home and away jerseys, they'd be acceptable to me. But, that's the whole "in a vacuum" argument. We don't operate "in a vacuum", so the uniforms must be judged both from a purely design standpoint and within the broader context. Your post kind of made that click in my mind, BBTV: how parallel these two redesigns are.
  20. At least in terms of the rankings, they're not too far off. If you were to average them together (and I realize that's not the most useful, given it's only two people, but still), you'd get a distinct three tiers, which makes sense: Chargers - 1.5 Browns - 2 Buccaneers - 2.5 Colts - 4.5 Patriots - 4.5 Rams - 6.5 Falcons - 6.5
  21. Agreed. And this is what @heavybasswas getting at as well. "Bone" over yellow with blue socks is the best-looking combination for an away look, and I feel like it's also the most logical.
  22. Something I feel like we, on this forum, discuss a fair bit is how when yellow/gold and white are next to each other on uniforms, they tend to bleed together and their individual elements become harder to distinguish. The "Bone" color the Rams are using seems to exacerbate that issue. Any strictly white elements are now essentially guaranteed to be lost at all viewing distances except player-to-player, and the yellow they're using becomes even more difficult to pick out from the Bone elements because Bone appears that much closer to yellow in value (as part of hue, saturation and value) than white is (where, at least by perception, yellow would have a lower value simply because it isn't white; I grant that technically/scientifically, that's not the case, but as far as how we would perceive it, white is "brighter" than yellow). What I'm essentially getting at is the Rams have made the yellow-and-white-elements-next-to-each-other problem worse by using "Bone".
  23. Generally, I think that a logo on top of a sleeve stripe somehow cheapens the look; doing that makes it look like a retail/for-fans replica jersey. I feel like for a while, the NFL was selling replica shirts/jerseys that were made out of jersey-style material, but only featured a player's name and number (in the appropriate fonts) with the team's logo on the sleeves instead of striping and/or TV numbers. I think that, coupled with the over-designed feel of the Cowboys' blue jersey (which features their star logo over the stripes on the sleeves), has turned me off to the whole idea of combining sleeve stripes and logos.