• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


FinsUp1214 last won the day on September 24 2020

FinsUp1214 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

5,553 MVP

About FinsUp1214

  • Rank
    Joe InGOAT

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Provo, Utah
  • Favourite Logos
    Hartford Whalers
    Minnesota Wild
    Montreal Expos
    San Diego Padres "Swingin' Friar"
    Indianapolis Colts
    Cincinnati Bengals head
  • Favourite Teams
    Utah Jazz, Indianapolis Colts, Real Salt Lake, Ole Miss Athletics

Recent Profile Visitors

6,480 profile views
  1. Yeah, Packers/Chiefs and Packers/Bills are the top standouts left for me. Packers/Browns and Buccaneers/Bills (if the Bills wear blue pants with the white jersey) could both be sneaky good matchups, though. Perhaps Bills/Saints could be good too if New Orleans chooses (and is allowed) to wear the white color rush...though I’m not holding my breath for that.
  2. Between the uniforms and court together, I thought it was too much red and gold everywhere. The Jazz would always be better off matchup-wise wearing thier redrock stuff against white uniforms, or color schemes and uniforms that are “cooler” in visual temperature (Minnesota, Dallas, Orlando, Lakers classic blues, etc).
  3. Ah! I should’ve looked closer at the lowercase “a”, now I can see the difference! In any case, that’s a very nice sans-serif font.
  4. Just my two cents: - The name is ridiculous. I audibly laughed out loud when I read it. The market speak is beyond awful. - It really seems like the Alouettes’ recent rebrand may have inspired them to go the lifestyle brand route as well, and I don’t think that’s a bad idea. - To be honest? I love the crest and the branding. Again, not the name, but the branding itself appeals to me. The modernist snowflake made up of arrows and M’s is something I like a lot. - For those opposed to Helvetica, I think it’s actually a perfect typeface selection. Canadian modernist-era design is very Helvetica heavy, and I made that connection instantly. (On a related note, I highly reccomend Design Canada for those who love documentaries. A very excellent deep-dive into Canadian Modernism). This is one of my favorite archival design sites to reference and study, and shows some good examples of Canadian Modernism that may help visually explain what Montréal was going for graphically (I’m assuming, at least):
  5. Yeah, I mean I’m glad there is a throwback program at all of course, but it definitely comes across as lazy when very clear and visible details like the Nets’ numbers are mishandled. I’d throw the wide width of the Hornets’ classic edition pinstripes in there too, among others - those were more like tape strips than pinstripes. I don’t know who’s totally responsible for those cases - whether Nike or the teams themselves submitting the wrong details* - but whoever is responsible could have done a whole lot better. *I suspect it’s actually the teams, as there’s been plenty of other classic editions that didn’t seem to have clear problems. I’m not sure, though.
  6. I was curious as to how this was going to go, and I think it was really cool. I’m sure it seemed really odd to any older audiences who may have watched, but considering Nickelodeon’s audience of kids through teens, I think the coverage and graphics did a really good job of making the game seem youthful in a way other broadcast coverages may not. It had a sort of “Backyard Football Meets Nickelodeon” video game vibe to it, which is exactly what I was hoping they’d do. Growing up as a 90’s kid who watched Nickelodeon and all the sliming and such, I thought it was really fun and may have struck some nostalgia for my age group well. It’s (by design) not for everyone and targeted to a very specific audience, but I think they nailed it. It’s also making a lot of good buzz on social media, so I wouldn’t be surprised if we see more of this in the future too. EDIT - Here’s a good article about Nickelodeon’s coverage:
  7. Corinthians is as classy a set as it gets. Beautiful work! And really, beautiful work all around on this series. It’s been so fun to follow and I really admire your attention to details. Everything looks very professional. Can’t wait for Spain!
  8. The white shirsey with the gradient accented wordmark and numbers looked a whole lot better. They should have went with that as a full uniform base instead, it would’ve carried thier concept while being a whole lot easier on the eyes.
  9. I don’t mean this as an “I hate this because I’m a traditionalist grump” thing, but am completely serious: this is literally hurting my eyes. Wow. These looked softer and more like trix yogurt when they were revealed, but these look WAY more saturated and stark on the court. Speaking just for myself, my eyes are fairly sensitive and strain easy (always have to wear blue light glasses when looking at screens, can’t watch 3D movies, harshly saturated old color films give my eyes fits, etc); so I truly don’t mean to sound dramatic, but this is an unwatchable uniform for me personally. Something about the saturation of the cyan and magenta, the starkness of the gradient, and the colors competing everywhere on the court is too much. Terrible.
  10. I remember seeing a photoshopped Rockies tweak concept once which was simply just swapping the undershirt, socks, and cap color to purple on the home and road sets (with a black “CR” outlined in silver on the cap), and I was pleasantly surprised at how big a difference it made. That tweak alone breathed a whole lot of life into the set, so it leads me to believe the Rockies aren’t far from getting it right. I’m certainly not opposed to more refinements and exploration for them too, but I don’t think they have a lost cause on thier hands with what they have, either. Just emphasizing purple more can do the trick.
  11. I’ve really tried to see what’s so great about Cleveland’s orange pants, and I’m just not seeing it. White pants make for a much more balanced and easier-on-the-eyes combo with the brown jersey by a mile. If they have to be worn, they should be worn with the white jersey and socks only. That’s a much less garish combo.
  12. Yeah, the Suns set as a whole is just so...I don’t know, average? Forgettable maybe? There’s just nothing special about it to me. The wordmark beveling and the butt stripe are both dated, all the modern elements just look slapped on and “there”, and the sun on the orange jersey reeks of afterthought. It’s all just as “meh” as a modern uniform set can get. The city uniform has a lot of promise (despite the nickname on the front), but that’s really just about all they’ve got going for them currently. None of the other uniforms in thier set are anything to write home about.
  13. That Murphy pic is interesting, I’ve never seen that before. The bridging of eras going on there kind of reminds me of another Braves example: this Phil Niekro (RIP) card with the early 70’s cap and the late 60’s jersey (discernible from what little you can see of the wordmark):
  14. Yeah, Pujols is certainly a Cardinal in my mind first and foremost. His Angels tenure also takes a hit in that they’ve been an either frustratingly underperforming or a downright bad team the whole time he’s been there, and there’s little if any memorability to his time as an Angel. The Cardinals years far outweigh the Angels years and it’s not even close. As for logoless caps on plaques in general, it’s one of those things I do understand in terms of why a player would choose it, but don’t like it at all. Those mentioned here, as well as Catfish Hunter’s and others, look pretty goofy and overly generic for a museum with a very specific purpose. I do think the Cleveland situation is a very worthy exception, but outside of that, a specific cap ought to be chosen. Fun, random plaque fact: I’m sure I’m forgetting others, but George Sisler and Mel Ott aren’t wearing caps on thier plaques at all. Ott’s especially is weird, given he played his entire career with the Giants and the choice for cap wouldn’t have been that hard.
  15. 100% agree. I’m not a fan of the idea that alternates being clearly better than your primary look - and allowing that to perpetuate by not doing anything about your brand’s weak points - is somehow a good thing. In a way, it really spits in the face of basic design principles and the whole point of why design exists. In general, sports teams should be striving to look thier best all the time, consistently. The whole point of design and visual communications in general is to search for, establish, and present the best possible visual solution to a problem. That’s textbook. A team (or any organization) is not solving any problems by allowing different branding directions to co-exist within thier brand under the mistaken guise of having fun variety, and most certainly not if bad uniforms or assets are being allowed to perpetuate just because another good look is in the rotation to offset it in some way. If teams aren’t actively shifting and considering thier branding problems and inconsistencies, cutting ties with looks and elements that aren’t working, and presenting a strong, unified solution to thier branding problems, then they frankly are not utilizing good design at its core.