FinsUp1214

Members
  • Content Count

    2,952
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Everything posted by FinsUp1214

  1. Billy looks like heeeee don’t eeeeeven care Alright, I’ll see myself out!
  2. 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.
  3. 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).
  4. 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.
  5. 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): https://canadamodern.org
  6. 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.
  7. 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: https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/30688842/the-bears-saints-nickelodeon-game-was-goofy-most-fun-nfl-broadcast-year
  8. 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!
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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):
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. I feel the same way, as well as frustrated that branding across the league is becoming more and more convoluted. It’s easily the worst of the big-4 now. I’ve even noticed that broadcasters are talking more and more about this during games. Among other examples, last week during the Lakers/Mavs game, Van Gundy and Breen said something along the lines of “teams have so many colors now that it’s hard to tell who’s who sometimes” after cutting back from a game break. It’s easy to be dismissive with responses like “look at the scoreboard duh” or “it’s not that hard”, but if people whose occupation is watching and calling these games week after week are acknowledging that they can’t keep up with the uniforms either, then I’d say that concerns on the matter are justified. I imagine the league doesn’t mind if the uniforms are getting any kind of press at all and certainly if stuff is selling, but therein lies what unsettles me the most: the league isn’t budging on this expanded uniform program despite some glaring flaws, and money/exposure is probably going to keep talking louder than said flaws for the foreseeable future.
  18. Just to add on to the 90’s baseball movie discussion: For Love of the Game is one I always remember, thanks to it being re-run often. You have to endure the will-they-won’t-they romance storyline, but Billy Chapel’s epic swan song is a great feel-good baseball plot. I also appreciated the attention to detail with uniforms covering 20-ish years (logos and uniforms plug! ), and Kevin Costner always struck me as one of the more believable actors to portray a baseball player, so it worked for me. The Scout is one of those movies I lasted only 15 minutes through. “Annoying” is a kind way to describe it! It could be that I can’t stand Brendan Fraser, also could be that using state names as last names because Joe Montana was peak bad-90’s (Johnny Utah? Steve Nebraska? C’mon), but in any case, it sucked bad.
  19. Sandy Koufax and Don Drysdale at Ebbets Field:
  20. The redrock has indeed been very popular, but both classic editions were quite popular too. The mountain set was especially popular, as that tapped into a whole lot of nostalgia from my age group and I saw it worn around often. So I don’t think it’s so much a clear embrace of redrock and rejection of other identities outright so much as it is Jazz fans gobbling up new stuff when it’s released, as they often tend to do. If I had to gage popularity based on what I see, purple stuff isn’t all that far behind the redrock, really (but is clearly more popular than navy stuff). As far as brand equity goes, sure the Jazz don’t have any rings that elevate one set over another, but it’s not like the Jazz have been a terrible, laughingstock franchise for thier whole history either. The purple identities, despite early bumps in the road, ended up pretty successful. They were a consistent playoff team from the late 80’s into the early 2000’s, with deep runs throughout the 90’s, fielded four Hall of Famers (five if you count Sloan), and made two Finals trips. For a team who is the only big-4 draw in the market, there’s a lot of history that is appreciated and revered by Jazz fans, despite the lack of rings. It should be noted too that they haven’t won anything in the redrock set either, so on-court play hasn’t given any advantage to that set, either
  21. Ah, thank you for the clarification on that. That’s good to know. In any case, that particular uniform just has a myriad of problems. There’s more than a few elements, uniform color included, that leave me baffled as to how they made the cut.
  22. 1) Boiling the total identities down to three basic ones isn’t very accurate. The first one you included technically includes variations, yes, but each are distinct. The purple note set is pretty distinctive from the modern set. Yes, the logos are the same in form, but the color schemes - no matter how much the team tries to sell it as some kind of twist on a classic - present a much different feel. A brighter scheme of purple/gold/Kelly green is another tone entirely from navy/gold/forest green. It’s also worth noting that the green 80’s uniform was the primary road uniform for a few years, so there was a sort of sub-identity that existed where the Jazz were just as much a green team as a purple one. So really, you could argue there’s more distinction between those variations than you’re giving it credit for. 2) Having attended Jazz games often, I don’t think I’ve overstated the brand confusion at all. The jersey colors I routinely see at games in the last three years are: purple, red rock gradient (including red + orange +gold), navy, gold, green, black, powder blue, and white. Nearly every color of the rainbow covering 46 years. Home crowds look like a spilled bag of Skittles. If that’s not brand confusion, I don’t know what is. Of course I don’t speak for other Jazz fans on that and can only speak for myself. But, as a fan, it’s my opinion that thier brand is a huge problem and I’m not a fan of it at all. I’ve also covered before how the redrock gradient only represents the southern third of the state (opposite from SLC/Northern Utah) and doesn’t make sense for an SLC-based team to run with full time.
  23. No, it shouldn’t be thier new identity. That would be thier fifth color scheme in team history, not to mention thier fourth in the last 20 years alone. I’d rather my team not convulute thier brand any further than they already have. If they were to make any changes, I’d rather them go back to one of the purple schemes and stick with it like the Padres rightfully did with brown. But another new scheme altogether? No way.
  24. The Rams’ bone uniform looks exceptionally cream/light khaki today in Seattle, more so than other days when it looks more gray. I’d really be curious what kind of screen or field tests, if any, these uniforms took during the design process. Maybe they wanted the color to be a bit shapeshifting like that, but that much of a color swing would worry me tremendously if I worked for the Rams and were calling the shots. And no, one color doesn’t look better than the other, either.