Jump to content

-Akronite-

Members
  • Posts

    1,157
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by -Akronite-

  1. Love this update! Draws from the franchise's best, gives the brand life, but feels an appropriate age for the team. PROS: Straightening the C monogram works really well. The wonky inward bend is my least favorite design element in the new branding, especially the way it doesn't match the road script. Utilizing the Feller/Doby era uniforms is a great choice, probably the peak look for the previous identity. LOVE bringing back the racing stripes look. I think it would be awesome if the team used them on the road set, maybe even full time, to jazz it up. While I don't hate the 3D logo they released, I think the 2D works better especially with these old school uniforms. It just makes sense to have a logo that more directly pays homage to the statues. That said, you could probably live with just one between profile and winged monogram. CONS: Not sure you need the cream as the primary. I'd probably prefer a white home w/ a cream alt. Might make more sense to keep the wings a consistent color. The wings seem a bit truncated. I feel that they could be attached toward the middle of the monogram and extend back further.
  2. Slider is a Hall of Fame mascot with no real ties to the previous nickname, no surprise that he's staying. https://www.mlb.com/news/history-of-cleveland-mascot-slider
  3. I don't love that version of the P logo, but I adore this color combo and it's a shame to me that they gave it up since it would stand out so much better in this league.
  4. The extra wide piping definitely stuck out, but there's clearly inspiration from the Mets given the format (blue wordmark w/ white stroke & orange shadow on black). Plus the Mets have worn a black-billed cap. Haven't seen them pair it with pinstripes but it is part of their identity. Oh look, they've even thrown a right sleeve patch in there at some point!
  5. I've always found the purple and black to be a very muddied pairing, so I would really like to see Northwestern own purple & white, which really works here. Personally, I'd swap the gray facemask for white, it looks so good. The pirate head is kinda hokey to me, but keeping the crossbones motif is really smart. I know they pretty much exclusively go by ECU and not EC, but I'd be curious about the logo without the U making it harder to read.
  6. A "few" as in two, one of which appears to be satire if you look at that writer's other work which is clearly right-wing & anti-"woke." https://spectatorworld.com/author/stephen-l-miller/ I will say that while I don't think the statue artist's previous work means the Guardians symbols should be abandoned, it's an interesting discussion. The intent of the artistic piece your identity is based around arguably matters. What if they didn't do their research and found out the guy was a Nazi who wanted to sculpt perfect Aryans? Of course, people love defending even overtly racist statues in this country, so it probably wouldn't matter.
  7. It's always funny to see the GP's reaction to these things. All over Reddit the comments were complaining that it looked like a Bengals jersey... A set the Browns have basically worn before. That is mostly the same as our current road uniform. With a throwback helmet we've worn before (essentially). And it's not just the drop shadow, which of course the Bengals used to wear, but some were arguing that the sleeves were too similar. Yes, our classic sleeve stripes seen on our uniforms since the 40s are too reminiscent of Boomer Esiason suddenly.
  8. Also from Akron and went to OSU. I always see the Cleveland/Cincinnati rivalry as brotherly and root for the Reds & Bengals whenever it's not against the Guardians & Browns. I don't understand the fans from either side that truly hate the other. You're just conflating groups of people now. There is certainly a segment of the population that felt "it's the logo, not the name" but the name "Indians" has also been a clear point of contention for decades as well. And @SFGiants58 is right, most of the color talk is because the MLB has a boring palette. I'm sure there's somebody out there that associates navy & red with the previous moniker enough to find it offensive, but come on. Wherever you stand, there have been and will be groups advocating an end to Native mascots across the board. Doesn't mean they'll win in every single case, but this is still nothing new. It's not some "Give a Mouse a Cookie" nonsense, many activists/advocates have been consistent on the subject.
  9. This is a good point regardless of my personal feeling that a color upgrade would've been great. It's rare that an old or historically successful team would suddenly swap color schemes, and the franchises that do (like the Cavs, Hawks, & Jazz in the NBA) are the same kinds that will switch things up again when the team hits the skids and they need a refresh. Bringing back a retro or classic look is a favorite in marketing, especially sports marketing.
  10. I think the "not care," especially at this point, is probably a bigger slice than those that would want to nix the change, though. One could chalk this up to the right change (no need to turn Native Americans into your mascots) for the wrong reasons (it's not as profitable to be viewed as a racist organization), but the bad press and unimaginative branding weighs down the fanbase as well. I know plenty of younger fans from the area that are excited to move on from the old moniker, even if they don't love the new one, because it's been feeling less and less acceptable to sport "Indians" gear in modern society. When I was young, I loved Wahoo as a logo and didn't think much of the name. I grew up, got a better understanding of the historical context for the protests, and changed my mind. I'm sure for a lot of people it will take a while to get used to/over it, largely because they spent much longer rooting for this team with it's previous name. But this is the smart move for maintaining/growing a younger fan base, insomuch as the market & baseball's popularity in general will allow for. As for the public trust v private property discussion, hard to say considering how unrepresentative our actual democratic republic is. You could say the change isn't a reflection of the public because the public isn't what forced the issue. Well, they changed the name and the public is mostly accepting it. That :censored: wouldn't fly if they tried to move the team, on the other hand, so I guess there's your answer.
  11. Until LeBron was drafted, the Indians weren't even the least relevant team in the city. Cleveland has the most AL Central Division titles and we're 7th all time in win %. There was a long down period but from the 90s on they've been one of the better MLB franchises, just missing a WS title (in 3 damn attempts including two extra innings game 7 losses fuuuuuck). Culturally, financially, and success-wise the team is certainly no powerhouse, but it's a disservice to compare them to the Sacramento Kings (my apologies to Kings fans). Not that it changes your point, but political correctness has been a thing for a long time. It gets a new name every so often (cancel culture, wokeness, etc.) but this is an old issue itself. Bill Maher used to host "Politically Incorrect" starting in 1993(!) and people still pretend it's a new phenomenon that the way we use language affects other people.
  12. A number of fans have stockpiled Wahoo gear and I'm sure will collect Indians memorabilia. As long as they aren't being an ass, putting on red-face, etc. this will be a non-issue for the most part. The franchise has been pretty clear about things, the Indians moniker will not be erased from history. Old jerseys and such will be welcome indefinitely, I'm sure.
  13. Indiana is itself a reference to Native Americans. If the state name derives from Indians it's hard to say the Indiana Indians isn't inherently a reference to... Indians. People are free to feel however they want about the name, just hard to separate the two.
  14. I think you make some good points, but I think it was only a fool's hope (and I was one of those fools) that they'd make a complete overhaul. If we look back at how they handled this: First they downgraded Wahoo Then they started making the logo disappear for the most part Then they officially dropped him Then they announced an upcoming name change, but only after another season with it Everything has been gradual, they aren't interested in making a big splash or re-inventing the wheel. It's an old team with the same colors as every other baseball team and a recognizable enough uniform template. Guess we'll continue to settle for that. If they had won it in 2016 (or 07 or 97 or... oh god) I'm not sure it'd make it any better. For the record, I'll take Major League since I'm not sure what pop culture impact most MLB teams are supposed to be making.
  15. Sure, a simple logo based on a letter first used in 1915 could never be considered classic or classy. I mean, every team does something *throws sheet over the Cubs cap* Look, I don't even love the Block C. I've wanted a white stroke or some variation on it to be more distinct from the start. I just think they swung and missed on the "something" they did. Probably won't last anyway, but it's easily the weakest part of the rebrand IMO.
  16. Unless it's changed recently... City proper: Columbus Metro area: Cincinnati Metro area only counting in Ohio: Cleveland Also, I don't love the winged logo, but I'll take a cheesy sleeve logo over slapping the monogram there too. I'll just say again: MORE ART DECO! There's so much more potential in this branding change than this initial release shows.
  17. Agree with your sentiment entirely here. To play Devil's Advocate, you listed arguably better players but most of them lack the star-power of Lindor. On that list I'd only put CC and Thome above Francisco in national name recognition. Doubt they change the name again, but I've seen rumblings that they may tweak what we've seen before they hit the field and I wouldn't be surprised if they made logo changes in the near future.
  18. Odd logo placement, but yeah the team is gonna look about the same. Hilarious that with a big rebrand they still created a similar but not identical C for the Cleveland wordmark.
  19. God I would've loved forest green... Guess we'll just blend in forever.
  20. Guardians did feel the "safest" which is why people outside of Cleveland seem especially disappointed. That said, the whole "Spiders were the worst team ever" thing never made sense to me. Like, who cares? It was literally over a hundred years ago and only baseball nerds seem to know or give a crap. But it's a moot point now. Most people either hated the C or wanted a real logo to go with it. It's still new to me, but I REALLY dislike the new monogram and feel like they managed to downgrade from one of the more boring/generic logos in sports. I mean, at least it was classy. I don't even want to get a cap with this cartoony bendy guy on it. Maybe a home jersey though.
  21. Let's break this down. Guardians wordmark: VERY reminiscent of the "Cleveland" signs around town, which is weird since they went another direction on the Cleveland wordmark Obviously still similar to the Indians wordmark, but more angled and less bubbly; I would've preferred a more handwritten, classic feel Baseball logo: Is it implied that the other side is a C? What an odd little logo I assume this will be on the sleeves? I hope they model the jerseys after the 40s set with the contrasting piping I like using the elements from the statues without just using a profile of their face Think they could've utilized the art deco much more effectively The use of the baseball here feels almost minor-leaguey, but it's FUN which is better than the Block C managed Monogram: Worst part of the identity, and I've seen several better updates to the Block C Inward bend is very cartoony, makes it seem like a logo from a TV show Glad they added a stroke I guess? Cleveland block: Jazzed it up a bit but nothing special Keeping with the script at home, block on the road motif; tradition is cool Reminds me of the Cavs current mark, no lasting power because it's neither classic nor distinct enough I'm fine with the name but because of its generic feel (to outsiders, obviously Clevelanders know the reference) they really needed to nail the branding and they clearly didn't. Kinda disappointed they didn't change colors but with this package I guess it's better to have continuity than a divisive color scheme on top of mediocre logos.
  22. With the news that the team has picked a name and the rumors pointing toward Guardians, I wanted to say that this is easily the coolest concept I’ve seen in term of the monogram/cap logo. The statue face is hard to turn into a good logo, but this uses the Art Deco beautifully to make a distinct identity. No way the franchise is smart enough to do something like this.
  23. While it's still BFBS, the previous black set was superior IMO. The cream pops and the deer head with the numbers in the antlers works better than most logo jerseys. Should've just worn their home whites but whatever.
  24. This is a great rebrand for the Cavs and they'd be much better off with this look than the generic crap they wear right now. I do agree that nobody really calls it "The Land" but I personally find it fun as a nickname and it harkens back to that 2016 squad. That said, the Cavs third jersey should say "Cavs" and "The Land" should be reserved for city/Cavfanatic alts, if anything. PROS: Candy cane stripes are awesome. Love when the Nuggets do it, the Knicks, Marquette, it's always cool to me. The 05 navy alts are possibly my favorite all-time NBA uniform, so borrowing from that is the best choice IMO among the various Cavs looks. I like keeping the motif but playing with it on the gold alt. Keeping black on a clash set while emphasizing the team's actual colors on the primaries is perfect. Works better than navy with the old school colors. Bringing the 2D swooping C is also smart, I've always preferred it (see avatar) to the 3D version with odd perspective and too many colors. The Cavfanatic is clever, love mixing eras on "city" uniforms. CONS: I never loved that script and I think it dulls the set overall. It occupies this weird middle ground to me. It's simple and clean, but not classic looking like a block font. It's a modern, but it's got no pizzaz. Personally, I would prefer a return to the 03 script. If not that, I'd love bringing back/modernizing the original feather script or going with the 80s CAVS logo in wine/gold. Nike has leaned pretty hard on simple trim, usually using solid colors as opposed to many classic looks (Celtics, Bulls, Lakers, Knicks, etc.) that use striping. I'm not a big fan of monochrome trim, but it works well enough here in spite of my disposition.
  25. Not only was there a literal Cleveland Show (not set in Cleveland), but several shows set in/around Cleveland: The Drew Carey Show (loved the first few seasons growing up) 3rd Rock from the Sun (very nostalgic for me) Hot in Cleveland (not good as far as I'm aware) These, along with WKRP, are probably completely forgotten by younger generations at this point. Hell, I barely knew was WKRP was growing up and I watched a lot of TV Land as a kid. So it's a good thing LeBron, Baker, and Burrow are around for the relevance of these cities.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.