jaha32

Not a train wreck. Lol. Just a front-facing bear has been done 10x over and is very run-of-the-mill at this point...Now watch as my next project will probably be a frontal bear. Ha.

Shaw's previous logo was arguably more unique and just an update of that profile swiping claw would have been a good direction to go. The new one is an improvement in some ways, but at least the old was more distinct. One issue I see with the new logo is the left tail of the italic banner extends way to the left, and when centering, hopefully whoever handles it will know to use the head as a centering point, because as is, the bear's right ear area (our left) is the center.

They also produced these for Wisconsin Lutheran College in 2017. My brother, an alumnus from the school, put in a bid to create their new logos, but they went with Phoenix Design Works and ended up with this.

The only issue with the new Fresno set is that they could’ve toned down the slashes on everything but the word mark still manages to be legible. Other than that, this shows that the Brandiose style still works when working on a more traditional team name. And even if you don’t care for the team name Pit Spitters, that Michigan emblem is one of the most creative logos I’ve ever seen, especially the leaves forming the UP.

Illinois Wesleyan is a big upgrade but I can’t help but notice that the plume is at a slightly different 3/4 angle than the helmet. It’s not enough to ruin the set because overall they now have a nice consistent look.

The fish Is beautifully rendered. It’s a bit detailed to work on a cap/helmet though, so I wonder if they also have a ligature logo to round out this identity.

Not familiar with this school but that mascot had a ton of potential, and they should have at least kept it as an alternate (if they cleaned up the gradients) similar to how the Wisconsin Badgers have their primary W but still use the Bucky mascot logo a lot. As far as these new shield logos, they need thicker lines. There’s a lot of unimaginative empty white space. This update seems like a missed opportunity.

I'm going to be really nitpicky here about the UNCG logo but there are two things that bother me about this. 1) I agree with you on the gray. The logo is predominantly blue and yellow but there's this large gray area smack dab in the center of the logo so your eye is drawn to the gray first. Another reason the gray seems off to me is that it makes the spartan look shirtless. There is no separation between the neck which is skin and the shoulder which has clothing/armor shadows. If there's so much detail in the highlighting in the yellow, then why so little detail in the gray skin/cloth? 2) There's a disconnect between the helmet on the top and the lettering on the bottom. Part of it's composition and part of it's because the line width of the blue on the helmet is about 1/3 the width of the blue around the letter so they aren't stylized similarly. It probably sounds like I dislike this, but all in all, I really like the logo - mainly the helmet, the yellow highlights, and the pattern under the plume. My guess is that they felt the need to tack on the shoulder to it to avoid confusion with Michigan State or especially San Jose State, and as a result, it looks like different elements were designed at different times.

I knew this MHU logo looked familiar. It's nothing more than a traced version of this Penn State logo below. All they did is add teeth, paws, and illegible letters.

Very nice, but that "H" monogram is a mess. The crawdad obscures the letterform, and it doesn't read clearly as a letter. I've really grown to appreciate Studio Simon's work, but I do agree with this. The set could lose the H logo because it is kind of confusing to make out at first glance, but I'm guessing they needed something as the cap logo. Other than that, the lettering is stylized just right to give it that old school baseball vibe, and I do love how the crawdad is submerged in the weeds to give it a bit of that watery habitat feel.

I like how the goat has a cute yet somewhat crazed look in its eye. It works for Double A ball. The green in the goatee seems kind of out of place since the rest of the fur is gray/white, but I'm sure they needed to get more green in here somehow. Overall I like it.

I'm not liking the interlocking LA forced into OkLAhoma but I do like the OKC lettering in the same style as the Brooklyn Dodger days. The way the KC are arranged made me think Royals for a split second but that thought went away quickly. I always liked the Redhawks logos but I guess they're history now.

I wonder how much of Bosack's style and Brandiose's style that we see today is a result of their clients' desires shaping it over time. What I mean is Brandiose has obviously found their niche (or almost monopoly) in minor league baseball and Bosack does his fair share of college logos these days, but they don't seem to cross those lines too often. I love Bosack's timeless and classic look, and Brandiose's style fits minor league baseball. But if Bosack were doing a minor league logo and Brandiose a college logo, I'd imagine we'd be seeing different results and styles than what the usually see. What kind of work does Brandiose even do outside of minor league baseball? I've only been paying attention to who's who in sports design for 2-3 years, but I imagine every time Brandiose sits down with a new minor league team to discuss the new logo package, the team knows that they did this super clever, almost gimmicky design for Team X over there, so they choose Brandiose for that exact reason, not realizing that just because it worked for Team X doesn't mean it has to be forced for them, and Brandiose has no choice but to try and make it happen resulting in forced ideas, such as a pepper for an S in San Antonio. I think Studio Simon's Smokies logo is a perfect example of how a minor league logo doesn't need that twist to be good. I can't get enough of that bear and lettering.

I find it somewhat irking as well when every aspect of a logo needs to be explained or have some reasoning behind it. If it looks good, that's reason enough for me. I didn't say anything about slant symbolizing action. When I saw "Since1888" in there, I wondered if they actually expect anyone to believe that. All that being said, when I see this, and I'm strictly referring to the primary logo, it looks like a baseball logo and doesn't contain a flying squirrel, a rubber duck, or an iron pig. So in that sense, it is a breath of fresh air to me.

So buildings can be skewed at 15-degree angles that they're not actually at as long as they aren't tall? MOD EDIT It makes no sense whatsoever. What are they doing, trying to show that there's something progressive and "forward-facing" about a historic building? There's one historic building I can think of that should be drawn so that it's leaning, and it's not because it's progressive.Hey, my running shoes look like the ones the guy in the home uniform is wearing. It's an identity for a baseball team. Baseball is a sport. Sports like baseball are about action. Italicizing things connotes action. Of course, the Alamo itself, unlike the historic building you referenced (we assume you are talking about a certain structure in Pisa), does not lean, but sometimes creative individuals use this thing called "artistic license," a hypothetical certificate of sorts that entitles the holder to not necessarily have to be literal in their depictions. I cannot argue with most of the flaws that the Creamer community has already pointed out about this particular identity, but I do not agree that the building being rendered in an italicized fashion is worthy of scorn.I want to know what school gave you your graphic design/generic art degree so I can make it my mission in life to cost them their accreditation.Some people are too busy keyboard mashing their way up to 20,000+ posts that they lost the ability to express their opinions with any tact. Again, ideally if you're rendering a building, of course you wouldn't slant it. Vertical structures like the Washington Monument or Empire State Building would appear to be falling. So at least with this logo, it's horizontal enough that it doesn't look like it's falling. It's not ideal but it's no big deal, right? (That question is rhetorical so no need to answer it to those unable to control the urge to accumulate another 20,000 posts.)There has to be a better, less condescending way for you to express yourself.I couldn't agree more, but at the same time I'll meet condescension with condescension. I stop by occasionally to check out and casually discuss the latest design releases, not to get confronted by an overly zealous, confrontational, thread-derailing troll.Anyway, it seems he has gotten back on topic so let's do the same.

So buildings can be skewed at 15-degree angles that they're not actually at as long as they aren't tall? MOD EDIT It makes no sense whatsoever. What are they doing, trying to show that there's something progressive and "forward-facing" about a historic building? There's one historic building I can think of that should be drawn so that it's leaning, and it's not because it's progressive.Hey, my running shoes look like the ones the guy in the home uniform is wearing. It's an identity for a baseball team. Baseball is a sport. Sports like baseball are about action. Italicizing things connotes action. Of course, the Alamo itself, unlike the historic building you referenced (we assume you are talking about a certain structure in Pisa), does not lean, but sometimes creative individuals use this thing called "artistic license," a hypothetical certificate of sorts that entitles the holder to not necessarily have to be literal in their depictions. I cannot argue with most of the flaws that the Creamer community has already pointed out about this particular identity, but I do not agree that the building being rendered in an italicized fashion is worthy of scorn.I want to know what school gave you your graphic design/generic art degree so I can make it my mission in life to cost them their accreditation.Some people are too busy keyboard mashing their way up to 20,000+ posts that they lost the ability to express their opinions with any tact. Again, ideally if you're rendering a building, of course you wouldn't slant it. Vertical structures like the Washington Monument or Empire State Building would appear to be falling. So at least with this logo, it's horizontal enough that it doesn't look like it's falling. It's not ideal but it's no big deal, right? (That question is rhetorical so no need to answer it to those unable to control the urge to accumulate another 20,000 posts.)

So buildings can be skewed at 15-degree angles that they're not actually at as long as they aren't tall? MOD EDIT It makes no sense whatsoever. What are they doing, trying to show that there's something progressive and "forward-facing" about a historic building? There's one historic building I can think of that should be drawn so that it's leaning, and it's not because it's progressive. Hey, my running shoes look like the ones the guy in the home uniform is wearing. ...so you're saying you like it? or no? You'll have to work on stating your opinions clearer next time. Does it bother you that the Alamo isn't really blue?

I find it to be a nice upgrade from their previous look, which was a nice idea but I always disliked its heavily shadowed text under an uninspired-looking Alamo. Since the Alamo isn't a tall building, the slant doesn't really bother me as much as it would if it were a skyscraper. And although I find the red in the chili pepper S to be a bit much, I do like the Davy Crockett hat, which exactly the kind of thing we've come to expect from Brandiose. They saved all the "clever cutesy" stuff for the cap and alt logos and kept the primary looking relatively clean and traditional.

One thing I really like about this is the way the lettering and salamander itself all fit within the stitching on the ball, and it flows along the same general path as the stitching. So many minor league baseball logos have seams that clash with the other elements in the logo. This Salamanders logo has a very clean composition.

Nice rant, but these are logos, not sentences. There is really no need to over think the so-called grammar. Anyone who is a fan of American sports would easily know that location is spoken before the mascot. If someone doesn't know that, they are likely not a sports fan and thus not the target audience here, so their confusion wouldn't matter. These two are also hardly the first teams to do this. Since we already analyzed the hierarchy of verbiage here, let's analyze the aesthetics and composition, which is really what logos are all about. If you look at the Staten Island Yankees, where else should they place "Staten Island"? You have a tall capital "Y" and a tall lower case "k", with three stars between them. These letters already make the logo top heavy to the left. Should the place "Staten Island" in the top left making it even more top heavy to the left? That would be a bad idea. Should they cram the twelve letters in "Staten Island" over the three letters "ees" in "Yankees"? That cram job would look really terrible. Should they center "Staten Island" over "Yankees" leaving an awkward gap between the "ees" and the letters above it? That would look a little strange too. I'd say they put "Staten Island" in the best possible place aesthetically speaking, which just happens to be under "Yankees", giving company to the tail of the Y down there. Good logos need good composition. We could break down the Joplin logo now too, but I think we all get the point.

What's with the blocky shield? Sure the guy is jagged and rough but to use the same technique on the shield looks like it was created in MS Paint. The head looks too small as well. This could be a decent logo otherwise but those things take away from this.

I had a busy week and hadn't stopped in to concepts here for a few days, but now that I'm here, what a pleasant surprise to see this and to have my name included! I thank you guys for not only including me among such great pros on that list, but for also taking the time to put this all together. I never took a design class in my life, so for me, my "schooling" came mostly from being a member here. All the insight/feedback the members here have to offer is a resource of its own. There are plenty of people whose names are not included in this list who have been great sources of inspiration for me. PS: I'm liking the Creamers maple leaf/pencil design as well. The creativity around here is second-to-none.

That Wilmington primary is one of the friendliest sharks I have seen, but that's not a bad thing. I like the driftwood feel given to the area around the word Wilmington. The W cap logo is the best in this set.

There is a lot going on with the Desert Ghosts design - wordmark, snake, skull, ball, and the circle containing YUMA. My eyes aren't sure what to focus on. Flynnagain must be doing something right since they still get clients, but to me their execution always seems somewhat sloppy/rushed. The forehead on the snake looks too forward to me as well, almost like a pig snake, but I guess for the level of ball they will be playing, it works. EDIT: I just noticed some things that back the sloppiness thing I mentioned. 1. on the secondary, the left side tail around the ball doesn't even have a green outline. 2. green slivers within the blue outline on the wordmark (kind of a pet peeve of mine) and for some reason there are more slivers on the wordmark than primary 3. the blue square around YUMA covers part of the E in the wordmark 4. this is nit-picky - but the chin of the snake covers part of the G in GHOSTS on the wordmark 5. the seams on the ball just disappear around the shadow rather than wrap around the ball

The way the bottom side of the monster is submerged under the water reminds me of the AHL Lake Erie Monsters, except the design here is even more cartoony than Lake Erie's. Anyway, I'm not really liking the way the S morphs into a mutated crocodile, but I will say that with a name like Lake Monsters, you really have no choice but to go cartoony or dark/creepy. I wish they chose creepy, even if it is minor league baseball.