gosioux76

I'm sorry, but it doesn't get much sillier than a sailboat shaped like a football with oars coming out of it laces. It crossed the line of ridiculousness without having to add a smiley face. I have no issue with the use of a boat as the basis of a logo. And if that's a cool part of their history, then that's a good reason lean into that theme. But there has to be a more dignified way of doing it. That logo might be a charming relic from the archives, but that's where it should stay.

I don’t think there’s any confusion over that point. It it doesn’t make the boat with a football as a hull look any less ridiculous on their helmets.

That's some selective trolling right there. What I wrote:

This is a great explanation, and more validation for how Valpo picked the right name. That said, they might have been better off using a logo that placed more emphasis on the light cast by the lighthouse than the structure itself, which I think is more closely associated with nautical uses. Here's an example of something more in that vein:

It feels like this is an argument that, like the debate over Nike turning the NBA into a weekly fashion show, is becoming another one that breaks down along a generational divide. I know I've said it before on here, but I'm a lot like @guest23 and @BBTV in finding comfort in the order and structure of number conventions in the NFL. I'm 44, and I remember when I first put on pads in junior high and how much pride I felt wearing a number that matched my position. I was a fullback and wore No. 44, much like John Riggins did in the NFL. You can argue that it's better this way, and if your favorite player was a linebacker that wore No. 12, then you could just wear that number no matter where you played. But to me, the beauty of that traditional numbering system isn't just about the aesthetics. It's in how the numbers were exclusive to certain groups. Your number helped explain who you were as a player — whether it be a running back or lineman or linebacker, etc. It meant you were part of that group of players. There was something tribal about it, which is lost when the numbers no longer have meaning.

The interesting thing about the Giants is that they've never really adopted uniform changes that were a drastic departure from prior eras. They didn't really go BFBS or, like the Niners, adopt dramatically different shades of their primary colors. All they've done is vacillate between variations on two primary logos, played around with striping and tossed in gray as an occasional tertiary color. What you're left with is a team that could easily mix and match those various elements, blending pieces from prior eras to create something new within the context of its design history. I'm not sure there are many teams that can do that. (And I'm not including the Bears/Packers/Raiders, et. al, which are essentially unchanged from earlier eras, minus small cosmetic tweaks.) In contrast, I think of the Jets. The white-helmeted Namath-era uniforms of the 60s and 2000s are so distinct form the kelly green '80s and current sets that you could mistake them for representing an entirely different franchise.

I agree, this shield is by far the superior mark. That new logo is terrible on so many levels, not the least of which is its inexplicable use of two different fonts. On the other hand, turn that lighthouse into a butter churn and you'd have yourself a great logo for a regional dairy brand.

I'd rather they build off the design of that character's helmet than force that entire guy onto the helmet. I guess, on its own, it wouldn't exactly speak to the "argonauts name," but I still think it would work if they used some version of this as a primary logo.

I think this is a really interesting idea. I agree with you that there appears to be some momentum shifting toward the 80s-90s GIANTS look, which had me wondering whether the Giants aren't going to end up being one of these teams, like the Jets, that vacillates between some variant of the same two looks every 20 to 30 years or so. Your solution here is a clever way to merge those two ideas, which I appreciate. Someone else mentioned it earlier, but I wouldn't mind seeing the double-lined NY given another run. Maybe use that on your amalgamated jersey set to get a taste of all the Giants modern eras.

I hate everything about that logo. I'm sure to CFL fans there's some rich, historical heritage being preserved by its use, but I can't imagine how a team called the Argonauts -- which is a fantastic name -- can have such an uninspiring, cartoonish logo. The A roundel of recent years was better, though still far from exciting.

The Classic Edition line already existed, but only for a limited number of teams: Lakers (powder blue), Nets (Drazen Petrovic tye-dye) and Grizzlies (initial Memphis designs) were among the teams that had them last year. I wonder if it's only a three-teams-a-year kind of thing and these are the three for 2021-22?

Yeah, I think it's interesting to see Nike rollout the classic Nike/swoosh wordmark for throwback sets. I know Nike uses it pretty liberally on its retro/reissue footwear and lifestyle apparel, but I haven't seen it so much on team-branded performance products.

Reading into the press release on the new jerseys, it's really hard to tell whether Origins is limited to the Warriors for their 75th anniversary or is the start of a rebrand for the Classic Edition. I'm suspecting the former more than the latter. Here's what it had to say about the entirety of the team's 2021-22 uniform set:

100% agree. I lived in Portland for 10 years and during a recent period of prolonged success for the Winterhawks, when they were regularly producing future NHL stars. The team has a pretty devoted fanbase, but I never once felt like there was a sustained buzz around the franchise. I always wondered whether it would be different had they not been playing Blackhawks dress-up for so long. As a fan, I'd much rather connect with an original brand rather than one mimicking one that's more famous yet without any real direct ties to that club.

I felt the same way when North Dakota announced its rebrand from Fighting Sioux. The other options, which included Roughriders, Sundogs and (my preference) Nodaks, were all more unique than the eventual choice, Fighting Hawks. Much like with Marquette, its as if in making their choice they favored the least controversial over the most interesting. It's easy to understand why they did, especially for campuses in which the nickname topic had come to define entire eras. It's just unfortunate they couldn't add a little risk into the equation. We'd have had some better outcomes.

The Rams have us in this unusual position to where this is such a huge improvement over the monstrosities they revealed a year ago that I almost don't want to critique these. That said, I'm going to anyway. I'm relieved the numbers don't have a gradient like the blue ones, but I still really hate the numbers. I get that they're trying to evoke the shape of the ram horns inside the numbers, but it would look considerably better without the shiny lines of fabric. The same goes for the shoulder treatment. The glazy fabric is garish. One other nitpick: I don't care for the yellow trim going under the shoulders. I'm sure it has something to do with the blue on the shoulders not connecting to the end of the sleeve. But that little extra bit of yellow is a distraction.

I think you maybe contradicted yourself here. Because if you were a "Vegas guy," you'd enjoy going there whether it was February or August. FWIW, I'm not a "Vegas guy" either, so if I'm going there, it's specifically to see my team (and probably because the flights are cheap), so I wouldn't particularly care what time of year it was. But here's the thing I don't get about this topic: Vegas gets brought up as being too hot for baseball, yet Phoenix -- where the average summertime temps are nearly identical -- seems to get a pass in this regard. And the D-Backs have a retractable roof, rather than a fully domed stadium, so there's a willingness to embrace the elements. I don't really see why Vegas should be any different.

I get what you're saying, but there's a big distinction between two major universities that chose their colors decades ago and professional sports franchises that seem to make consequential branding changes every few years, and appear to do so with less and less consideration for uniqueness. The T-Wolves, for example, could easily have re-embraced royal blue and green with their most recent redesign, which would have made them unique in the league, but instead opted for a pair of darker shades of blue that, as the picture shows, isn't that dissimilar from what the Mavericks wear. It looks to me that they cared less about creating a brand that stood out within the league and more about creating product they thought had a better chance at selling, likely using focus group and market research data. And that's fine. These teams are a business, of which retail sales are a big part. So I get it. But as others have pointed out, they just end up looking a bit more like the Mavericks than I'd like. As an aside, I'm still flummoxed by the T-Wolves' decision to incorporate a neon green accent in such a subtle way that it's barely noticeable. The garish green alts aside, I don't see how adding a slight touch of green inside the fold of the shorts adds anything other than frustration that the rest of it looks so ridiculously bland.

I've never spent much time looking at that logo. It's really sort of ridiculous. That aside, it also appears as if it's too tall to adequately fit on a modern helmet. In order to avoid the air holes at the top, the logo had to be pushed more toward the back of the helmet. I wonder if you can even see the logo when looking at the helmet from the front.

This NBA Finals has really reignited my love for the NBA. As a result, I've started checking out some YouTube clips of old NBA broadcasts. I've got to say, as much as I like the current Bucks set over prior iterations, and I appreciate the attempt to pay homage to their '80s Irish rainbows, I can't imagine why they went with such a bland wordmark when what they wore in the '80s was so perfect.

Agreed. I love the idea, but the elk horn just feels too insubstantial to command the space it's trying to occupy. Making it worse are the ends of the chinstrap that partially cover up the helmet logo.

It's a crime that the Lighting totally ripped off their look from the old St. Louis Eagles. More should be said about this.

Of course it is. "Scraping the bottom of the barrel" doesn't have to mean you're picking from the worst, just that you're picking from limited options. There is so little left in the barrel that they're scraping bottom. So in this case, teams that either don't have a deep well of retro looks to pull from, or are already limited to just two colors, may already be nearing their limit of options under the RR concept. It implies nothing about whether those options are good or bad.

I don't think it takes too much effort to understand what he was saying. It wasn't a suggestion that the RR program isn't popular, but that the formula -- a throwback-inspired look in which the colors are flipped -- can only be done a limited number of ways for some teams. That, to me, is a perfectly logical take. In general, I applaud the RR program -- compared to what Nike has done with the NBA, the Adidas concept manages bring something new to the table while displaying some restraint. But I could also easily see how the concept could either run its course or run the risk of turning into a Nike-esque series of clown costumes . I think @Ridleylash's idea of paying homage to prior franchises isn't a bad idea. Depending on who owned the IP, it would be cool to bring some old WHA identities back for a spin. Personally, I'd prefer just a straight-forward throwback program minus the "reverse" part of it.

I get what you're saying, but adding that white line under his armpit, while perhaps satisfying a completist's urge, would make the logo considerably worse. Personally, I'm not missing it -- I think the logo manages to convey a continuation of that line even without that extra detail. If anything, I'd rather they had left a little space between that horizontal line and the Jerry West silhouette like they did on either side of the "75." That might have made the absence of the line under the armpit less noticeable.