• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by OmegaRed

  1. I like what you have done here. I think all three are decent logos. Here are some ideas that might help. Panthers: I like that you are taking a different approach by changing the angle of the panther. As another member mentioned, removing the neck might help. Or you could try rounding it from the ear down to the bottom point of the neck. You can make the teeth larger and longer. The nose area, you might want to think about adding in whiskers. As for the shading and highlights....keep it simple. You are not far off, just revisit a little and simplify. The panthers current logo does a good job of it. Try matching the style. Vikings: I like what you have created and I think some of the comments have been a little unfair. But I think you have the ability to try a whole new approach (like what you've done with the panthers). I've seen a lot of vikings concepts and most of them follow the same right facing viking. The only one in my opinion that does a great job at it, is the version created by Dane Storrusten at Gridiron Labs. How about a front facing or a 3/4 view. Like what if you had a 3/4 front facing viking with a V integrated into the beard or something. Just a thought, but it's a start in a new direction and something custom is what will make you stand out. Cards: Again, here maybe your could try something totally custom. Maybe think about making the cardinal more aggressive by opening the beak and adding some angrier looking eyes. If you really want to push it...based on the shape of a cardinals could even do a front facing version in the shape of an A. It would take a little messing around...trial and error, but it's doable. Again just an idea. Great start on these though. Keep pushing them.
  2. Nice work! Really digging the Georgetown unis and especially the script text. It gives it a real throw back feel.
  3. You have to simplify your logo. There is way too much going on. Right now it's a logo within a logo. Maybe take a shot at coming up with something totally custom. You are halfway there. Lose the Cavs logo (that someone else designed) and try something different. As a starting point, you can stick with the roundel and the cityscape. Lose the Navy blue as mentioned in the previous post. Then just think of other ways to show or say Cavaliers. You could also think about adding a basketball to the inside of the roundel. Remember, simple is good. A good trick when creating logos is placing yours beside current logos. So you can take a screen shot of the NBA logos page on this site.... and place your logo where the Cavs logo is. This will show you where yours works and doesn't. You will immediately notice that yours is too wide / too complex currently. Simplify and strip it down to the roundel only with the suggested tweaks in the thread and you should be good.
  4. Amazing! I think you've done an excellent job pushing this forward. Looks great.
  5. Maybe you could enlarge the NE in the centre so that it fills in the white space. Then if you want the tree in there, it can be small in the centre or something. But you might be able to lose the tree entirely. The tree along with the green and red feels a little Christmas-ish. I think your jerseys are nice but your logo might need to go further.
  6. The ones that stand out to me are: G: 6 S: 11 B: 13
  7. Thanks to everyone who voted for my concept! Means a lot. I actually did another version for New England but decided to enter the Bucs, just because I thought there might be a few entries for NE. I was pretty happy with my Patriots version and I'll post it later on in the concepts section. One thing that surprised me was that nobody who did New England, decided to use the Patriots script logo. Which works great for baseball.
  8. These are cool. Have you tried enlarging the logos on a few of them? I think by doing that, they will look more dynamic. For example, the Cavs logo would look awesome if it was treated like the Buccaneers helmet. For others, think about something totally different than just applying a teams logo. For example the Miami Heat. What if the helmet was just flames. The team logo (MH) could just be small on the back of the helmet. On the Wizards helmet, I would angle the red portion downward so that it follows the indentation of the back of the helmet. Great work overall! But again, my advice would be to try to make them more dynamic. Go outside the box.
  9. These ones really stood out for me. G: 8 S: 2 B: 30 Great job by all.
  10. I really like your Babe Ruth illustration. Here are some thoughts on how to possibly take it further. - What could be cool is cropping Ruth around the belt and enlarging him so those details in the shading are seen. By doing this, you will also fill in the inner circle eliminating any extra space. You might lose the baseball in the back but that's ok. - I think the navy blue outline around the logo and illustration might be too harsh in comparison to the subtle colours used in the illustration. Perhaps eliminating the outline around Ruth altogether and changing the outline around the outer circle to a light grey. - Try an extended font to cover more of the real estate around the circle. (This next point might be tough to explain without actually mocking it up but i'll try) - With an extended font and with the cropped and enlarged image of Ruth, you should be able to fit the headline, "100th anniversary of" on the top half of the circle. Then on the bottom half, "Babe Ruth's 1st Homerun. - I would then maybe put two small ribbons, one on the left and one on the right, (in between the top text and the bottom text) and add the years. That might be super confusing. But if you like, PM me and I can quickly mockup what I mean. Great work though man! Love the Jack Johnson patch too.
  11. Thanks derschwigg! And thanks to everyone for the votes!
  12. G: 5 S: 6 B: 11 I also liked the idea behind 10. Very creative. Great entries again!
  13. You can check deviant art for some 3D helmets which can be downloaded. You can add a little credit line on your art that gives credit to the person who created the helmet template. Regarding your logo, you probably wouldn't be able to use it, as it is the same logo the New Orleans Pelicans used for the NBA All Star Game in 2013 as a secondary logo.
  14. Very nice! I like the little touch of creating an "M" out of the outline around Timberwolves in the logo.
  15. Ok, this round is definitely the toughest to call for me. I have it as... G: 18 S: 16 B: 1 But big shout out to #17. What a great clash jersey! Love the northern lights motif and the simplified crest. Well done.
  16. Thanks for all the votes peeps! Much appreciated. Awesome entries as usual. It's my first time participating in the Logolympiad and I've gotta say, it's a lot of fun!
  17. I really like the simplicity of this. The only thing I might look at is the way the banner is set. As mentioned by Gothamite, the way it's flowing kind of clashes with the crest. Almost like the curve isn't quite there. Maybe a horizontal banner above the crest would do the trick....or you might not even need the banner at all.
  18. Put both. The guideline mentions that you should put the city name, but you also need to have the team name on there. I don't want anyone submitting only the team name. I clarified the initial post. General rule of thumb: the wordmark should take most of the space. If the logo is too big, then it's not a wordmark. I leave it up to your creativity to add some stuff in or around the wordmark, but the main focus here is the wordmark. I was going off of the bolded bit when Designing it didn't say no logo it said the word mark should take up most of the space which mine I feel does. I understand there wont be any change in decisions just a little butt hurt I guess. Especially when You look at some NFL wordmarks The Patriots have a logo-less wordmark. It's just New England likes to promote this version for some reason, despite the fact they have a very iconic logo. I don't think it matters if a specific team has or doesn't have a logo on one of their 17 different wordmarks. If the contest was about no logos, then that's one thing. But the rules didn't say that, and was clarified that if one is included to have it be smaller than the rest of the wordmark. There was no rule or clarification that a logo MUST be melded in very specific ways in to the wording or any such thing. It was a design choice, simple as that. I thought we were here to be creative. Personally, I honestly don't like it for a top 3 wordmark, but I do think it should have been included. We can't read minds, we can't interpret or follow rules that don't exist. But that's just my opinion. Many people seem to just making up their own guidelines for judging, and that's fine and all, but many people are stating that they love many of the wordmarks but automatically discounted them because they don't match some of the ones that the NFL teams are currently using, and then only (or mostly) voted on the wordmarks that are generally straight up text. I thought we were trying to be innovative and creative, not boring and repetitive like the Bengals/Broncos/Cardinals/Falcons/Texans/Seahawks. That being said, I think there are some that went slightly out of those bounds and came up with some utterly great stuff. I'm just disappointed that so many are discounted for being creative, and disappointed in myself for trying something along those lines (let's be honest, here, lol). I like wordmarks that are descriptive of the team, not just something to put on letterhead. I'd love for there to be a new team in LA, but I'd think it sucked if they followed the same boring routine. Spice it up! I get what you are saying about creativity. Makes sense. I took this particular event to be an exercise in typography as opposed to type with graphic elements. I felt that the creative challenge was to make type interesting without adding much graphic support (logos etc). That reason alone is why I personally voted the way I did. But there were some really creative executions. In the end this is all opinion based. People will vote either for what they think simply looks good....or they will try to rationalize their decision to what they think best fits the brief. What is for damn sure, is people are cranking out some awesome work and having fun doing it.
  19. The NFL has a very simple aesthetic. I voted for the ones that displayed a simple approach. More of a wordmark rather than being way over the top including logo assets. G: 2 - I thought this did a great job of just being text that looked like it could be subbed into the list of NFL wordmarks today. Even if it didn't have the wreath leaves around Los Angeles, it would have been strong. S: 24 - I liked the font choice..but again it's the simplicity that works. B: 6 - Here I think the wings are just subtle enough. I don't even think it needed the drop shadow. I like the nice touch working out the L and A. There is a bit of negative space between the L's but overall I think it's a great concept.
  20. Wow these are amazing! It will be tougher to narrow these down than the last event. I think the ones that best represent a logo / jersey that would have been created in 1967 are the following: G: 28 S: 14 B: 12
  21. Very nice! Really great presentation too.
  22. Totally understandable. You've done a remarkable job with this competition and as other have mentioned, your patience is amazing.
  23. Definitely some gray area with alt primary and secondary based on the requirements.