Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by NicDB

  1. On 4/10/2018 at 5:28 PM, Mac the Knife said:


    It's what you get to do when your league is built exclusively on the desire of fans to watch individual players, rather than giving a damn about home teams or who wins vs. who loses.


    In a way I think it's brilliant, in that it's innovative and places clear focus on putting forth an entertaining sports property.


    In another way though, I think it's asinine, in that it's telling people you're putting no real emphasis on being a competitive sport, but more like pro wrestling.

    I mean, I get your point.  But the point of these league was never to be an alternative to the NBA.  It's basically an organized streetball league for guys with name recognition. And in that sense, makes perfect sense to keep only the champs to stay together.  Becoming more like the NBA would be a death trap for this league and stigmatize it as the NBA seniors circuit.

  2. 19 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

    I’ve long proposed a way for MLB to diversify (for some teams):


    Red Sox: Forest Green/Red (simple color swap, no red caps after Bucky Dent killed them)


    Cleveland: Navy/Light Blue, Maroon/Orange, etc.


    Twins: Forest Green/Light Blue


    Rangers: Brick Red/Slate Blue


    Braves: Black/Red


    Phillies: Maroon/Light Blue accents


    Royals: Purple/Yellow


    Of course, a lot of these identities are too set in stone now to really change. The rest of the majors should have followed Charlie O’s example in the 1960s. If navy/red can’t go, color distribution, accent colors, and fonts will work well enough.

    I think the color swap you proposed for the Red Sox can also work for the Twins, only with purple replacing navy.

    As for the Royals, adding powder blue to their palette would separate them enough from other teams.

    The Braves briefly used a red, yellow and black combo when they were still in Boston.  I wouldn't mind seeing them going full circle to embrace that.

    Cleveland could easily adopt the colors of one of the other teams in town.  They're not that far off from the Cavs as it is, and if the Padres won't do brown and orange, why not Cleveland?

    100% on board with the Phils here.

    The Rangers are a tough one, since there's logic to them being a RWB team.  I can't think of too many symbols of the DFW area (Texas flag, Mobil Oil, SMU)  that don't lend themselves to that scheme.  Maybe Maroon and Burnt Orange might work if A&M and UT alums don't shriek blasphemy.

  3. 7 hours ago, Ray Lankford said:

    I don't see what the issue is:


    The wordmark doesn't blend into the jersey, largely because it has outline colors. 


    It seems like more of "Different = (insert negative adjective here)."

    I really think you're exaggerating how well they pull that off.  If their entire brand is built around being the team with a bunch of different colors, why is most of your wordmark on your road grays devoid of color except for a few splashes at the bottom?

    These would be much more tolerable if they limited it to the M on the chest.

    1 hour ago, BringBackTheVet said:


    It's the only aspect of their new uniform set that I really like, and I was hoping that other teams - specifically those with scripts - would give white a shot.


    I'd love to see some concepts of teams with white scripts either outlined or shadowed by their primary colors.  If the darker grays that the DBags tried ever caught on, white would be almost a necessity.

    I could see the White Sox pulling off something like this.  Maybe the Royals too if they went with powder blue.

    Not really sure about anyone else though.  

  4. 7 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:


    Wow, I totally disagree with this.  You may not like the uniform (I don't particularly love it myself), but I'm not sure how it's "amateurish" at all. 


    In what ways does it look like the designer didn't know what a baseball uniform looks like?


    Also, I happen to love the white lettering on the gray.  Makes the gray... "grayer", and is a unique feature.

    That's just it though... the gray needs to be darker to pull of a white wordmark.  As it is, it's not unlike all the low level collegiate teams I've seen that just slap the school's wordmark on to a template, hence, coming off amateurish. 



    6 hours ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

    The Marlins don't have unique uniforms. Unique logo? Yes. Unique uniforms? I'd argue against that. 


    The problem with the Marlins is their uniforms look incredibly amateurish. Like they were designed by someine who vaguely knew what a baseball uniform is supposed to look like, but not much else. The white script on the road grays is particularly jarring.


    Granted, a lot of that is rooted in how they tried to do way too much with their rebrand.

  6. 2 hours ago, Ray Lankford said:

    This is the default argument when it comes to the Padres going back to brown but is it really a good thing? The Diamondbacks have unique uniforms and most people dislike them. The Marlins have a unique look and most people disliked it when it came out (if not still). It doesn't seem like baseball fans in general are that receptive to uniqueness. 

    The Diamondbacks and Marlins are pretty far outside traditional baseball uniform parameters though.

    But I don't know of many people complaining about this, for example.

  7. 2 hours ago, flyersfan said:

    LA chargers logo a la 2 years ago?

    Eh, I don't think anything in the social media era qualifies.

    This would be more like the proposed 70s Patriots logo that was only discovered a few years ago.

  8. 15 hours ago, whitedawg22 said:


    My point wasn't that people wouldn't think of Wyoming, or that it would be a problem to look like the Steelers. My problem was that a yellow helmet with a brown jersey and yellow pants would be a whole lot of yellow. For instance, I always thought this West Virginia uniform combo was a bit much:


    Ah, gotcha.

    I grew up watching the Packers though.  The mass of yellow only ever bothered me when they played indoors.  That would only rarely ever be the case with Wyoming.

  9. 13 hours ago, NicDB said:

    Brown and orange have much better contrast than black and red.

    Plus, those are actually the Browns colors.  The Niners only ever used black as trim until it was shoehorned into their identity.


    6 hours ago, andrewharrington said:


    I think they have about the same contrast, just a shade brighter on both sides. Certainly not “much” better, if it’s better at all.

    Don't get me wrong, brown and orange is still far from ideal.  But I never seem to have a problem reading orange numbers on dark jerseys (see: Syracuse, Oregon State) as I did with the 49ers black jerseys.

  10. Brown and orange have much better contrast than black and red.

    Plus, those are actually the Browns colors.  The Niners only ever used black as trim until it was shoehorned into their identity.

  11. On 4/30/2018 at 9:10 AM, whitedawg22 said:

    I think it would, actually (the helmet part). That would be a lot of yellow. It might work if they wore it with white pants, kind of like the Steelers' yellow-helmeted throwbacks, but I think that would defeat the coordination you're going for.


    I don't think it would when Wyoming is the only team that uses their color combination (brown and athletic gold) in the FBS.  No matter what combination they wear, when you see those colors, you're gonna think of Wyoming.

  12. 3 hours ago, Mac the Knife said:

    I don't have a problem with fan-friendly, affordable entertainment.  Far from it.  If you want to market your team as the Fayetteville Fatbacks or the Pensacola Blue Wahoos or the Jacksonville Jumbo Shrimp?  I might cringe at the name you choose, but I get what they're trying to do.


    I have a problem with design firms whose work is by and large so similar that you can immediately identify who did the work upon seeing it.

    I get why they're doing it too.  I just don't see why MiLB can't be family friendly and still have uniforms and identities with substance and dignity behind them.

    Sure, it'd be nice if Brandiose diversified their style given how much work they're doing in the same platform.  But unless it's somehow being dictated to all these clubs to get a Brandiose rebrand, at what point do we blame the clubs for continuing to go to the same well rather than, say, a local designer who could put a little more thought behind these rebrands?

  13. 1 hour ago, MBurmy said:

    Name-the-team contest in MKE down to final 10:

    • Crop Dusters
    • Cheesers
    • Farmhands
    • Haymakers
    • Broilers
    • Barn Owls
    • Cow Tippers
    • Bovines
    • Milk Men
    • War Pigs

    Milk Men was actually the name I submitted...because of all the logo, mascot, uniform and promo possibilities.


    Good god, this is legit?  I can't honestly think of a better microcosm for the difference in mentality between Chicago's suburbs and Milwaukee's suburbs than the American Association.

    The team from Rosemont, IL is shoehorning the civic flag of another municipality into every single aspect of their identity.  Then you have the team that will be playing in Wisconsin's most populated county adopting an identity that suggests they play in the middle of nowhere.

    I was hoping that with this being the American Association and all, we might get an identity that hearkens back to Milwaukee's history with the original AA.  Instead we seem primed to get a team named after a fart joke.

  14. 7 hours ago, NicDB said:

    MiLB unis had some dignity before everything had to get "family friendly" (which apparently means cartoonish).


    3 hours ago, Mac the Knife said:



    I'm no fan of Brandiose, but if it weren't them, it'd be someone else.  It was with the new wave of ballparks in the 90s that minor league baseball became Affordable Family Entertainment™. 

  15. On 3/11/2018 at 10:42 PM, eastfirst107 said:

    Now that I think about it, in the early 90s, you could have had a whole league of clubs playing in major-league cities with MLB-caliber identities:

    (we're fortunate that the baseball card boom of that era gave us great visual evidence of all of these, and that the cards' photographers tended to take really boring shots of the players.)



    MiLB unis had some dignity before everything had to get "family friendly" (which apparently means cartoonish).

  16. On 4/30/2018 at 7:25 PM, SCalderwood said:


    The green rainbows looked fine in the 80s but did not age well into the 90s.  And actually, on that note, I will give the Bucks credit for something - they don't tend to hold onto looks for longer than they should.  They almost seem to anticipate when fans are starting to get a little tired of their look, and then they give themselves a makeover.  And it's never really a huge upgrade or downgrade, it's usually a change that makes them look a little different, and then we get used to it (you usually don't hear people strongly applaud it or condemn it), and then 10 years later they come up with something new so that we don't forget that they exist.


    I thought their purple look was fine.  It was appropriate for the time it came out, purple was a popular sports color around that time.  Would it have looked right in the 80s?  No.  Would it look right today?  No.  Did it look right when it came out?  Yes.  Not sure I understand the Power Rangers reference, I might be missing something there.  I also think the change to the head-on Bucks logo was fine, I don't really see how it's so much worse than the 80s Bucks logo.  NBA logos in the 90s got fiercer and more "in-your-face," I don't think that necessarily makes them better or worse but that's just the direction logos were headed in.  A smiling Buck spinning a basketball was not going to make it to today anyway, it might as well have died peacefully in the 90s like it did.

    I could have dealt with the loss of the rainbows if they'd kept the double green colors.  Part of what made the rainbows so great is you immediately knew it was the Bucks on when you saw them on TV.  They'd also teased a return to them the entire final year in the Christmas unis, only to go with the current ones.

    They could have brought it back and owned those colors.  Even tweaked them a bit and owned electric green the way the hawks own volt yellow. Instead we got unis that will be as expendable as the last... and the ones before that... and the ones before that. 

  17. This was announced a few months ago, but appears to have flown under the radar.

    A new ballpark being built in southwestern Milwaukee County will be home to UWM baseball and an American Association franchise.

    I don't know if the Wisconsin Timber Rattlers trademarked that Wisconsin Brats identity.  Nor am I a huge fan of this food-centric trend of minor league nicknames.  But can you imagine a more natural rival for a team called the Chicago Dogs?

  18. 3 hours ago, itsmb8 said:


    TBH, your concept has a MLB look to it.  This just screams "independent league."

    This.  What they actually went with barely looks like a baseball uniform and could have only maybe been pulled off in the pullover era.  The color balance on the homes in particular is pretty wonky.

    At least your concept stayed reasonably within traditional baseball uniform parameters.

  19. On 4/30/2018 at 5:43 AM, Gothamite said:


    Packers ruined their away uniforms the minute they adopted this rule. 

    Exactly.  The green "stems" are necessary on the homes so that the gold and white stripes don't become one big visual blob.

    But a lack of white on the road stripes is a perfect color balance.

    But it's all a moot point when they keep sticking with that dumb reduced stripe design.

  • Create New...

Important Information

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