Gothamite

Members
  • Content Count

    52,893
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    243

Everything posted by Gothamite

  1. Yeah. I get what they’re going for with the triangle, I just don’t think it works when you try to mash it up with half a shark. Or when you give it too many outlines. And it looks really bad when you monkey with the triangle shape to give it “motion” or “energy” or some nonsense like that.
  2. That is odd. but I kinda like the logo.
  3. And while Googling those shark logos, I found this version I don't recall ever seeing before. Is this an example of a newspaper mistakenly grabbing a concept logo? You think the Mercury News would have official graphics in their files. https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/03/31/san-jose-sharks-add-ncaa-division-is-leading-scorer-to-its-ranks/
  4. I've never been a fan of the triangle logos. I get what they're going for, I guess, but they've always seemed unmotivated. I think by trying to integrate the shark, they lose something. The Penguins do it better just by superimposing their logo against a triangle. This just works in a way that it wouldn't if they tried to depict him skating through the triangle, or tried to slant the triangle to give it, I dunno, speed or something. But as for the modern shark logos, the full-body is okay: Or, if you want one without the stick, use the other full-body logo and remove it from there. Would be a lot more balanced than the triangle versions, which have always been inferior to either of the full-body sharks.
  5. That "S", though. So amateurish.
  6. Those aren't pythons, they're cobras. And yes, I think @SFGiants58 is correct. To the extent there was actually a justification for the snakes other than "Looks kewl! And this is the 90s!"
  7. I really want to like the Bucks' new look. There are things about it that I like very much. But overall, it's just too much. And this is really the root of the problem: Agreed. The Irish Rainbows worked because the extra shade of green was only ever used as accent color, and the colors all complimented each other well. Overall, the Bucks then were a dark green/light green/white team. There's a really good balance there. I'd have taken it one step further, and removed all white except for the names and numbers. Doesn't need the white trim, or the white stripe on the rainbows. Maybe replace the white with a light shade of cream. Use this for the uniforms: But this for all other applications: And I think that would go a long way towards fixing the Bucks' problems.
  8. The WLAF was founded by the NFL. They didn't come in after the fact to buy an existing league, much less one that had already shuttered. That's my point - if they want a developmental league, they'll create their own again.
  9. But what would they get for their money? Used equipment and mediocre IP. If the NFL decides it should have a development league, they’ll create their own. Not pick up somebody else’s failed leftovers.
  10. Those are fascinating. I love the idea of using Mrs. O'Leary's cow, even though bovine iconography is pretty well covered in their neighbor to the north. Just to keep these Fire concepts in context, this was Nike's original plan for the club:
  11. The mothership has an article now about the Mets, who used to have their affiliates adopt logos similar to the big league club. https://news.sportslogos.net/2020/06/04/retro-repurposing-looking-back-at-mets-minor-league-logos/
  12. Fascinating look. Thanks! This is a little odd, though: You make it seem as though the team itself relocated, when it was just an affiliation switch.
  13. Guess mine is the unpopular opinion, because I think this is a downgrade across the board. The new blade reads less like a skate, and downplaying the diagonal makes the Q look more like an O.
  14. It was never about concussions. Anyone who mentions concussions, you know they’re not serious and are just trying to misdirect you. The real danger is the many subconcussive hits that happen on every single play of every single game. But even that isn’t what the one-helmet rule is about. It’s about not forcing players to wear helmets they don’t like. Say Matt Ryan loves the AwesomeTech Model X-21, but AwesomeTech phased it out last year in hopes that people will buy the new X-23 instead. Matt Ryan doesn’t like the X-23, it doesn’t fit his head properly and the fins interfere with his peripheral vision. Ordinarily, no problem; his X-21 still meets NFL specs, and he’s still allowed to wear it under league rules. But here’s where we see the problem; he only has a black one. He didn’t think to buy duplicates in every color of the rainbow when AwesomeTech discontinued it, so he doesn’t have a red one. If the Falcons want to hold a throwback game, he’ll have to wear a helmet he doesn’t like. The one-helmet rule is designed to protect players like Matt Ryan here. The league can force players into new helmet models under certain circumstances; if an old helmet breaks, or when a design fails to the league’s advancing safety standards. But they can’t force players to wear new helmets solely for aesthetic reasons. Or, worse yet, commercial ones.
  15. No, it wasn’t. It was a reorganization of Thames Ironworks after the club went bust, not a merger. Thames Ironworks was itself a reorganization of an older club whose name escapes me; could that be what you’re thinking of? Just as in Manchester, “United” was chosen not because it indicated the combination of two clubs, but solely because it sounded good, sounded “football-y”. The more things change...
  16. Makes as much sense for DC and Atlanta as it does for Manchester and West Ham, both of which chose the name solely because it sounded good.
  17. Forward Madison bills itself as "The World's Second Favorite Team". They have a wonderful sense of whimsy that more clubs should adopt. Right down to their mascot, the plastic lawn flamingo, which is also the official bird of the city of Madison (yes, the plastic one).
  18. Amen. When your regular uniforms look that good, you shouldn't clutter them up with alternates. The Giants are right up there with the Yankees and Dodgers. Or at least, they should be.
  19. If they are italicized, it’s not to the same degree. But that’s not really my problem with it at all - I couldn’t care less if they matched, I just don’t think italicized numbers look very good on a football jersey. The overall shape is boxy and rectangular, I personally think the numbers should fill that space. Don’t know if that’s an unpopular opinion or what, but it’s my objection to the Steelers. That and the overall spindly and insubstantial look of those particular numbers, which is illustrated in the picture you posted.
  20. Those oversized Bucs-logo horns are terrible, though. The segmented ones are much better, and actually fit on a helmet.