Ninjorz

Members
  • Content Count

    148
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4 Prospect

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. Then I think you could have just not voted for it, if you didn't like the design choice. There were several design choices that move your eyes to move to certain points of the wordmark first before the wordmark, to include the Mammoths that everybody seems to like. You either like it and it works, or you do not. But there was no rule against it. I'd hate for us to be disqualifying people solely on opinion on what one person's eye moves to first. You say removing it would have "taken it to the next level" while others say they think it's the best one, period, without a change. We should only disqualify due to strict rule breaking, not design opinions. There's a difference between incorporating elements into a wordmark and having two different design elements proximal to one another. I went back and re-read the rules - I was mistaken, there's no clear-cut rule about it, save for the one that says "do NOT submit logos." But that said, I still see where Pollux is coming from. And since this event is his baby, his word is law. I stand by my opinion. There are facets of his design that simply don't work for me -- things that I would do differently. But he's McElroy, and I'm Derschwigg. That's the beauty of these boards and sports design in general. Hopefully he can tell the difference between constructive criticism and an insult. But frankly, I feel like this thread is losing sight of it's purpose. We can all wax philosophical after the votes have been tallied. Until then, let's all try to keep our commentary on the matter to a minimum. You're welcome to PM me if you feel incensed to talk about it further. Nice. Write 4 more paragraphs telling me why I'm wrong, and go on to say that if I write more then I'm the bad guy, and I should write a PM ... all of which, if you didn't feel the need to get some sort of last word of condescending superiority and ass kissing, you should have just sent in a PM yourself. BTW, thanks for turning off your PMs so that it isn't even possible to do so. I don't think this takes away from the purpose of this thread. We are discussing what was expressed in the OP, and frankly, it would appear that this would have been the winning entry but it was not included for any justifiable reason. Pollux had a chance to say "no logos may be included within or around the wordmark, at all ... only text, borders, blocking, basic shapes, and shapes incorporated into the text are allowed. ex: Current Patriots wordmark with logo would not be allowed (image provided), but current Minnesota Vikings wordmark with horns incorporated into the M and V font letters (image provided) and the Eagles wordmark (image provided) are acceptable." But once you say logos may be used along with the wordmark, so long as they aren't bigger, then you have to stand by that ruling unless you clarify further that the included logo may not overlay the fonts within the wordmark ... which he did not. The dude made a design choice (that I personally don't agree with in concept - I don't like it covering the letters, either, but that is far from the point). That's it. So, no, I don't see where he's coming from. If Pollux didn't want logos at all, then he should have forbid them, not disqualified people for following his direction and even his exact clarifications. He stated: "Since I specifically mentioned that there shouldn't be any logos or uniforms in the criteria, I have to disqualify it." That's not what his rules said. He said not to "submit a logo", which was clarified later within the same thread, by himself, as you can submit a wordmark with a logo on it (as opposed to just a logo by itself). Saying "I leave it up to your creativity" when asked about logos, and then disqualifying somebody for their creativity, is pretty messed up. Thus, there is still no justification as to why it was disqualified. This dude spent a lot of time on his entry. This ruling is ridiculous. Heaven forbid we question a ruling because "his word is law" or that we discuss it at all. Just go ahead and ban me.
  2. Then I think you could have just not voted for it, if you didn't like the design choice. There were several design choices that move your eyes to move to certain points of the wordmark first before the wordmark, to include the Mammoths that everybody seems to like. You either like it and it works, or you do not. But there was no rule against it. I'd hate for us to be disqualifying people solely on opinion on what one person's eye moves to first. You say removing it would have "taken it to the next level" while others say they think it's the best one, period, without a change. We should only disqualify due to strict rule breaking, not design opinions.
  3. 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!
  4. Gold: 18 Silver: 7 Bronze: 24 There were some other solid ones, too. Mostly, I stayed away from any logo whose color scheme was too close as to be confused with the 49ers and Bucs. Awesome entries, people!
  5. Gold-24 Silver-21 Bronze-5 Awesome entries, people! Loved #24, thought it really captured the year with the logo style and bold colors. Loved the logo of #5, and the color scheme of #21. In the end, 21 got the Silver because it felt like a timeless uniform that fans would love to see brought out for tradition time and again, and the logo was super simplistic but flowed with the uniform perfectly. Super honorable mentions: #15 #20
  6. Do NOT use white. Stick with the colors from one of the palettes above. Very interesting choice. Isn't white the one color on every NFL logo, wordmark, and uniform? Challenge accepted! Alrighty then, let's do this. =)
  7. Thank you for that! Well then, it's even better than I thought.
  8. A lot of great logos there! Grats to the winner with #36. I'm not a big NBA fan, personally, but can somebody explain to me the relevance of the winning alternate design for the Trail Blazers? I really like it, I think it's cool and pretty and all ... just not sure how it relates to the team, other than the colors (and the psuedo-basketball stripes in the center). Is it the state flower or something?
  9. These are really great! I absolutely agree, you should get inkscape ... you can do even more quality stuff there! You can even turn other graphics into vectors and change them up to use as a draft/baseline, scan in drawings, or just start from scratch. Really top-notch program. https://inkscape.org/en/
  10. Very nice job! Where does one get this font?
  11. I think the 2nd Philly helmet is perfect. Nailed it. By the way, the Bengals are tight! I remember, growing up, I loved the Bengals helmet, it was my favorite of all. I'm not a fan, but I still root for them to this day when they're not impacting the 9ers. This helmet reminds of how much I loved those tiger stripes as a kid. Seriously, you made me feel like a kid that just loves tigers! Best helmet I've ever seen! Got some great work here, keep it up!
  12. I think what you've done here is really awesome! Coming all together, this really is a great series! 3 different teams, one sponsor, all unique identities, all with the same theme. It's really great. There's tons of synergy here ... I think all of them together make each other better. I wish you luck in getting the owner to buy in on them and getting you guys some new uniforms! It's incredible advertising, especially if people from different teams go somewhere together after a game (that isn't The Loft, lol).