Jump to content

IceCap

Moderators
  • Posts

    32,589
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    304

Everything posted by IceCap

  1. It would depend on the threads. Three threads that could reasonably be one topic could be merged but three random threads of different topics wouldn't be.
  2. The Chargers had been a navy blue team for most of my life when they started wearing powder blue throwbacks regularly. I didn't throw a fit about them "not looking like the Chargers." What a strange position.
  3. One of these things is not like the other, one of these things doesn't belong!
  4. Nah. The NFL can- and is- selling Houston Oilers gear, because the Titans are wearing the throwbacks. They don't need to give it to the Texans, and the Titans have no incentive to do it without a huge payout
  5. The Titans- and the NFL- have no incentive to do either.
  6. Here's my hot take... Get rid of the Titans. Tennessee Oilers and Houston Texans. "Titans" as a name had potential but between the super "turn of the millennium" first set and the Toronto Argos-lite second set... between their most notable moment being losing the Super Bowl by a yard and getting pantsed by the Brady Pats in the snow, what great legacy do the Titans have? McNair? George? They were Tennessee Oilers too. No, Tennessee Oilers doesn't make a lot of sense but who cares? Neither does Los Angeles Lakers. Bring the Oilers back... in Nashville. Let it be a weird quirky thing, with awesome uniforms.
  7. The NFL's marketing and branding is very centralized and there's no way they let the Texans wear anything that could eat into the Titans' IP and throwback sales. blah blah blah Bengals blah blah blah Browns yeah I get it but 1) those two unis are nothing alike aside from orange helmet shells these days and 2) back when they were similar sports apparel wasn't nearly as huge a market as it is now. Back then who cared if two teams had more or less the same brand? Today though? Huge issue.
  8. The New York Islanders toyed with the name Long Island Ducks. Interesting to think of what would have happened to Disney's team if that name was already spoken for.
  9. Shoe companies will never love you back.
  10. On one hand I get it because some people put the cart before the horse and that was bound to end in disappointment. But on the other hand... shut up marketing suits and just give the people what they want.
  11. I know they're your favourite team and I get the desire to go to bat here, but the "est 2006" bit on a jersey meant to celebrate a 30th anniversary isn't even the worst part here. Ducks fans (and everyone else) seemed to want something invoking the original Mighty Ducks sweaters. If not a straight throwback then perhaps the Cup winning template in Mighty Ducks colours and with the Mighty Ducks logo. Maybe this is a case of fans working themselves into disappointment but it seems really clear what the people wanted and team ed it up with a generic template, the Mighty Ducks logo no one really prefers front and centre, and an awkward inclusion of their current Webbed D primary. Like... if someone had to make the most disappointing design possible for the brief "celebrate the Ducks' Mighty Ducks era" this would be it. Even a throwback to the first movie design that Eisner wore when the team was announced would be fun in a deep cut sort of way. This is just... bland and bad and far short of what everyone wanted. This was an easy put for the team and they sent it into the G-ddamn sand trap. So having the wrong founding date on the sleeve is just one more thing to laugh at on top the pile of disappointment this thing is.
  12. People here really need to stop looking to teams' social media outlets for hints about brand changes. It almost never pans out and social media teams usually just do their own thing anyway. Like how the Jags didn't go black and white even though that's what their Twitter profile was just before a big rebrand. Or how the Jets using forest green and neon green on social media meant nothing when their new unis ended up using the 80s-early 90s scheme of kelly green with black trim.
  13. Anyhow the best thing I can say about City Connect unis is that some of them have a few good ideas that if tweaked could make for a decent identity, but that's it. Even the unis with those promising elements fail to pull it all together. All in all it's a collection of bad alternates
  14. Ok. I mean I hear a lot of reasons as to why the Boston Marathon is important. Which I don't think was ever in doubt. But like... that doesn't mean the Red Sox need to use their colour scheme.
  15. Gonna send in the paperwork on that one we'll let you know in 4-5 weeks.
  16. Agreed. The whole "matte vs dazzle" stuff is pretty pointless because why can't we have both? The teams with metallic pants can use dazzle fabric and the teams that don't can't use matte. It seems like this Orwellian-esque double talk some people engage in to convince themselves flat grey is better than silver shouldn't be necessary. It just requires that Nike get out of the "one solution for everyone" mindset.
  17. Nike's a victim of their own marketing here because they've spent so much time and effort convincing us all that they're on the cutting edge of athletic wear and athletic wear design. And it's like "ok why can't you replicate a colour Wilson managed to make in 1997?"
  18. Whether or not Boston can "claim" marathons is kind of beside the point. Sure Boston has the Boston Marathon and it's a big deal. Doesn't mean the city's baseball team, just as engrained in the identity of the city if not more so, should ditch their traditional colours to homage the marathon.
  19. The problem is that California's design emerged organically. That's not something you can replicate. Thing is it's a rare organic design that happened to be fairly unique. It's the dragon all of these lame af corporate designs are chasing but they'll never get there because "hey guys I graduated with a degree in graphic design in 2013" isn't a substitute for the unique historic events that led to the Californian flag being what it is. My attitude is "lame" or not they're the way they are because of history and that has meaning. A flag should reflect that meaning more than it looks like a beer label.
  20. I feel like a lot of people see the Chicago/DC/Cali flags and instantly want something like that for their city or state but those flags came about because of very specific reasons. A slickly designed flag meant to look good printed on a beer cooler isn't going to resonate the same way. I think most flags that are past a certain age tell a story, even the "seal on a blue field" ones and that telling the story is more important than whatever new design is being pushed tells. I rather like the idea of states having a flag that's a seal on a blue field because they wanted to honour their state's Union Army regiments. The Confederate side sort of got to monopolize the space of memorializing the Civil War, and celebrating Union iconography isn't a bad thing.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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