sitboaf

3 hours ago, WSU151 said:

The red jerseys will be worn.

 

Since these official jerseys are for sale, it appears they are in the style guide, which is why they'll be ready for 2022

Well… color me surprised!

Don't misunderstand me–they're beautiful, and the fans will eat it up. I just thought current ownership had washed its hands of the pre-Parcells/Redcoat era. 

6 hours ago, willforgetmylogin said:

New England is bringing back Pat Patriot and the old red uni.

 

This would be surprising. The Patriots have gone out of their way to avoid red ever since it was pointed out that our Revolutionary  enemies, the British, wore red coats. We'll most likely see white Pat Patriot helmets over white & white.

3 hours ago, Carolingian Steamroller said:

 

I'm going to disagree with that sentiment.

 

It is mostly changing the name on the front to Southside but for a section of town that takes a lot of garbage, not just locally from North Side and suburban residents but on a national level, to openly proclaim yourself the Southside meant a lot. 

 

It wasn't mentioned in the reveal but the reverse pins also drew a lot of comps locally to the Chicago American Giants who represented Black Chicago and played only a few yards away from 35th and Shields.

 

To blend in with that the association with the Sox brand and its connection to hip hop with the Polo G song in the reveal struck a nerve in terms of pride of place. It's messy because there's a lot of chicken/egg stuff going on since the gothic font has been used by the Sox for ages and that found its way into hip hop and then back into the uniform but its there.

Excellent points, and I thank you for dropping some knowledge on us.

I will amend my assessment of the ChiSox to "drew on several local inspirations to make a beautiful uniform that, to an outsider, might appear as just another alternate set." 

Certainly the team was aware they were not creating something fully unique, and that might dampen outside sales, but the ultimate arbiter is the team's own purchasing base, and I'm guessing in that regard, the money will talk–loudly.

On 6/9/2022 at 5:24 PM, Pharos04 said:

Yeah I’m from Boston and I can’t stand the blue/yellow. It honestly feels like a massive attempt at cashing in on the feelings people have about the Marathon and the attack. It feels empty. When I think of Boston one of the last things that comes to mind is people running from Hopkinton to Boston.

 

Boston has much more historical and city-related concepts they could have pulled from. The entire center of the beginnings of the Revolution and the Sons of Liberty? Or something based around the USS Constitution that was built here. Hell they could’ve chosen to go off script that, since they are named for Boston, they could’ve gone with a Pine Tree motif to represent New England as a whole. Hell the MBTA is the first subway in the US if you want to get obscure with something the city has going for it. A uniform incorporating the 4 colored lines would be a visual nightmare but at least feel a bit more “connection” to the city. 
 

I see designs that some of the other teams (no not the Dodgers) and it makes me sad at what could’ve been. Highlighter yellow and powder blue do not make me think of Boston in any way. (And yes I’m aware of the colors of the Boston flag. It’s a bad flag)

Wow. Agree to really disagree I guess. I've spent my whole life about an hour outside Boston. My first thought about the city is the Freedom Trail, the start of the Revolution (Lexington, Concord, Paul Revere, etc.), and Patriots Day - Massachusetts' own unique holiday, on which the marathon is run. It's the unofficial start of Spring for the whole region. 

FWIW, I don't think about the bombing when the marathon comes up. At least not right away. The tradition of the race has not been overshadowed by it, IMO.

I'm kinda glad they didn't go straight up Revolution, since the Patriots and the MLS team are already there. Your MBTA idea is decent, but lots of MLB cities have subways, and it might be hard to see the MBTA-ness of a subway design.

10 minutes ago, Michael Bolton said:

Nah they're probably still delayed, Brady just loves stirring the pot in his old man IDGAF stage of his career.

He clearly un-retired just to wear the creamsicles. AND so we could add an entry to our "Right team, wrong uniform" post.

1 hour ago, gosioux76 said:

But at a surface level, the Boston uniform is the one out of the bunch that, visually speaking, doesn't immediately register as being representative of that specific team. The Chicago and L.A. looks, the Giants,  Astros, Royals, and even the Marlins, at first glance, are immediately recognizable as alternate uniforms of the teams they represent. The designs bear resemblance to the core brand. The Red Sox, and I'd say to a lesser degree the Nationals and D-Backs, can't say the same.

Good observation. There's a wide variation in approaches, for sure.

To me, succeeding at your City Connect lies in how well your uniform reflects the community, regardless of whether it looks recognizable as part of the regular brand. In other words, this is a chance to attach a secondary brand to your club. A city brand. Not a team brand. Whenever I see a comment here in New England like, "Boo! It doesn't look like a Red Sox uniform!" I say, "Good, Because it's supposed to reflect Boston."

Houston, Miami, SF, and KC landed in a middle ground, with city/history features AND recognizable brand elements. I can certainly understand that. But to me, the ChiSox and Angels failed, making delightful alts, while misreading the assignment. And the Dodgers? Were they trying at all? Their recent additions of black have at least helped draw a distinction, but to use your MLB-issued blank check to make essentially another Cactus League uniform?  Just why?

56 minutes ago, LMU said:

Quite frankly, the Angels didn’t get the memo on what City Connect is. This is more of taking a page out of the Rays’ book and coming out with a fauxback, as these look like what the team would have looked like if they’d appeared a decade earlier.

Exactly right. One of the better looking CC uniforms, but after reading the presser pointing out all the surf culture elements, I thought, great idea. But, uhhh… that’s it? This is just a mid-century PCL team. 

18 hours ago, Ridleylash said:

I mean, it's not unusual in the NHL; the Ducks did it in 2006, the Pens did it in 2016, the Coyotes did it in the bubble, the Flames did it. The fact that teams can choose which jerseys they want to use in the playoffs means playoff teams that want to change up their look the following season often use their postseason appearances to transition into that new look by replacing one of their jerseys from the previous branding.

 

The Caps and Canes are exceptions, but the Caps haven't changed their look since 2007 (though they really should) and the Canes just seem to have a penchant for wearing different jerseys and changing their jerseys even without an overarching brand refresh.

Just to toss out another idea as to why the Navy alts are being worn...

If the team has decided they are moving back to Royal and are done with Orange, then they're DONE. Why place a fresh order of playoff jerseys in orange when the team has decided to move on from that look?

10 hours ago, eegl75 said:

oh man i've been waiting a long time for this

 

finally mustered up the courage to post on here.

 

this is my first time designing jersey concepts and im too cheap to buy photoshop so i have to use paint 3d and im new at this so not everything is gonna be stunningly clean and HQ.

 

this is an idea i've had for a long time. i'll be designing new jerseys for every nhl team using colors that the franchise has never used before (if the team has a color in the name, e.g. golden nights, red wings; i can use that color)

 

any criticism, or adice is appreciated. i want to get better at graphic design but i've always been bad at artistic stuff

 

anyways, without further ado,  heres the first team, the minnesota wild.

i tried to give them an identity based on the northern lights and used a bunch of aurora-y colors to make a staged gradient. the alternate will be coming later

 

I don't mind the lower-rez constructions. Although the Flyers quality is noticeably better than the Wild's.

My issue with these Minnesota jerseys is that the color space seems to be in RGB, and the colors don't look like they are possible to produce using fabric. Not sure how Paint works, but I'm guessing you don't have a lot of control over your color modes. There are other cheap design programs out there (Affinity?) which might get you better results.

I'm interested to see where you will take the teams– and why.

4 hours ago, GhostOfNormMacdonald said:

As an Anglo Arizonan (originally from the Midwest but I've spent my entire short adult life here), not enough people care about the D-Backs. If anything a Spanish name would have probably made Anglo Arizonans more likely to keep following the team for the faux-thentic Mexican culture that all the suburban Scottsdale moms that took 10th grade Spanish seem to love more than their kids. And it might have actually won over more Hispanic fans instead of the community being split almost 55/45 in favor of the Dodgers. I can't wait for this team to move to Vegas so we can get a team with a better name down here. 2001 is a literal lifetime away for people like me, and the amount of people my age wearing D-Backs stuff is outweighed by people that wear Cubs/Dodgers/Whitesox/Angels/Twins/Brewers ect. Unless the D-Backs turn it around, they're dead in their own market

I feel your pain, but it's very wishful thinking to assume, in the event the D-Backs move, that you'll be anywhere near the top of the list for another team. Gary "Saguaro" Bettman isn't the commissioner of MLB, Rob freaking Manfred is.

Oh, that's nice. Dear Tampa Bay Lightning, Purple is wiiiiiiide open.

23 hours ago, spartacat_12 said:

 

I definitely agree with this. There are 4 red & black teams, 4 red & blue teams, 2 blue & orange teams, 2 blue & yellow teams, and 2 black & yellow teams. Pittsburgh & Boston are a little too similar in my opinion, but other than that the teams that share colour schemes are able to stand out on their own.

 

Philly is an orange & white team with black trim. Anaheim's alternates are orange & black with gold & white trim.

While we're at it, there are two 281C Blue teams! But that's a dead horse I'm almost tired of beating. Plus another team in Winnipeg that's 2 shades of Blue. That seems a bit crowded.

I think Seattle is more in a Teal & Blue space. They don't really look like anyone else, anyway.

It's really the Black & Red clump and the Red/Blue oversaturation (ha ha) which are problems 1A and 1B. I think we've actually got SIX red and blue teams (WAS, CBJ, FLA, NYR, MTL, COL). 

Colorado has unusual variations of both Red and Blue, so they're OK.

Florida embraces Gold enough to look distinct, but... Their red and blue shades are identical to both Columbus AND Washington, who don't have the benefit of a third color. Something has to give there.

Can I be color king for a day?

Tampa swaps to black and some neon shade (green? light blue? That yellow that Columbus used to use?).

Ottawa becomes Red & Gold/Yellow (only occupied by Calgary currently).

Carolina changes back to the Whale(r)s with Blue & Green (only Vancouver lives there).

Columbus embraces both the cannon and the navy/steel blue/cream triumph they've worn.

LA goes back to being the only purple team. 

Vegas, instead of Black & Gray, embraces Black & Gold (imagine that!).

and Winnipeg starts over again with new colors and a logo that wasn't made by a 14 year old.

I just solved a lot of problems! Taking the rest of the day off.

6 hours ago, Ridleylash said:

I posted this image last time this whole Ducks identity debate came up, but may as well do it again with a white version this time;

 

At this point, the orange is too tied into the branding of the team to completely remove it, so just swap out the silver stripe on the Mighty Ducks jersey for orange.  Plus the orange adds a pop of brightness to the jersey, ties into the Orange County thing that the owners have a predilection for and perfectly mixes both eras into one solid identity; it's not a bad element to have over the silver since that color was so minimal in the brand anyways.

 

Black and orange is too Flyers, gold is Vegas' schtick now, so why not just replace black and gold with eggplant and jade while keeping the orange as a tertiary color? Nobody in the NHL (or sports, really) owns that combo.

Perfect. These are gorgeous. Feels like the future.

Feels a bit weird to have arrived at this place in my heart, but to me, the Absolute Essence of Duck is both "black with orange and gold", AND the brilliantly silly original mask logo.  I too am glad the current color scheme and the old logo work well together. Seems inevitable that they become that.

Chris Ramirez nailed it in his Icethetics concept on June 22, 2020. Except maybe stick the Webbed D logo on the shoulder.

https://www.icethetics.com/concepts/anaheim-now-and-then

4 hours ago, AFirestormToPurify said:

And add gold and/or black trim on their jerseys. I'm guessing this is an unpopular opinion but the red and white jerseys are too plain imo

Yes, please. The SF and NYG white/red uniforms are so boring. They look right off the department store rack.

11 hours ago, monkeypower said:

 

I'm wondering if they questioned what the point of using (what could be viewed as) a slightly different orange would be. It's not like the Giants normal colours are navy and red where the International Orange would be a marked and intentional departure, it would just be kind of different where it may have just looked like a misprinted/miscoloured jersey. 

 

They may have just figured the Giants are famously already orange and figured it was good enough to bridge (ha!) the gap and get the point across.

That's a good point, but the city connect orange (2028) is, in fact, a slightly different orange than the standard orange (172). I am left baffled.

6 hours ago, WSU151 said:

 

When you were a kid, did you think Cleveland, Seattle, Minnesota, Atlanta, and St Louis (and even California) wore black? If not, why did they appear more navy than Yankees/Tigers even though they wore the same shade? 

As a casual Red Sox fan, I didn't really think of the other teams outside the AL East so much. Cleveland and California seemed dark blue (maybe the red helped set it off), and Boston uses a non-navy blue in so much of their marketing that I knew they used blue, too.  But until embarrassingly recently, I had incorrectly thought that Boston's away jerseys from the 1980s had black BOSTON lettering.

1 hour ago, coco1997 said:

 

Ah, but then that sounds just like something they'd wear every day of the season.

 

I'm starting to think the Giants just needed to go in a completely different direction for their City Connects. 

Yeah. The frustrating this is this: San Francisco HAS a color. I'm having a hard time thinking of any city that identifies with a single color better than SF does with International Orange, the color of the Golden Gate Bridge.  AND THEY DIDN'T USE IT.

5 hours ago, WSU151 said:

 

Really?

 

The Yankees...Red Sox...Tigers...none of those look good with navy? 

I kinda agree with throwuascenario. When I was a kid, I just assumed the Yankees and Tigers wore black. As an adult graphic designer, I understand that NY, Detroit, Boston, Cleveland, Seattle, Minnesota, Atlanta and St. Louis ALL wear 289c (Midnight Navy). If it's so dark you can't tell it's blue without being TOLD it's blue, it's too dark. 

But dark blue that's got, you know, some actual, observable HUE to it? That's fine.

16 hours ago, NicDB said:

 

I agree. This is too incredible to not base their regular look on it, and they need once since the current one is now tainted.

 

I feel like the hat could do without the orbit, though. 

My initial reaction was also happiness about the return of the sunrise palette, but that the hat seemed too busy. But the place my brain went to first was keeping the orbit and removing the star. 

14 hours ago, ramsjetsthunder said:

Logo-wise: (note that this doesn't mean what I want to happen, just what I suspect)

 

Not sure what leads you to believe the Dolphins or Cardinals might change. Going back into the 60s, we have a handful of small tweaks and 1 modernization (Miami in 2013). Those 2 seem pretty locked in. 

Good timing, all. I also have been meaning to do the NFL next.

One point I didn't really mention earlier: As I make all these assumptions of brands being settled in this age of so much changing merchandise: there is now LESS of a need for teams to overhaul the brand. If organizations continue to be allowed to have throwbacks, alternates, city editions, etc etc, and people will still buy those things, it takes the pressure off a team to overhaul its brand. So, while I predict we will see many more alternate looks, innovations in fabrics and textures, I think main branding elements will remain stable. 

Again, this is barring team relocations and new ownership, which can blow things up real fast. Anyhoo... the NFL:

Arizona Cardinals: 52 years and counting. DONE

Atlanta Falcons: Moderate tweak is now 19 years old. Basic idea has never changed. DONE

Baltimore Ravens: 23 years of the raven head. But it's a bird head, and not where they started. Going to go out on a limb and say this is a MAYBE. 

Buffalo Bills: 48 years. DONE

Carolina Panthers: 27 years. DONE

Chicago Bears: so DONE

Cincinnati Bengals: 18 years of the B. But this can't be where they stop. We want a kitty. WILL CHANGE

Cleveland Browns: Not a real logo. And colored "not brown".  Not the original franchise. But 52 years of orange helmet is enough evidence. DONE

Dallas Cowboys: DONE

Denver Broncos: The old D seems nearly as iconic as the current logo, 26 years later. WILL CHANGE 

Detroit Lions: 52 years. DONE

Green Bay Packers: DONE

Houston Texans: People hate on this logo, but 20 years makes it seem stable. MAYBE

Indianapolis Colts: DONE

Jacksonville Jaguars: ha! They may move before they swap the logo, but nothing here seems permanent. WILL CHANGE

Kansas City Chiefs: above my pay grade. But FWIW, it's ugly. UNSURE

Las Vegas Raiders: DONE

Los Angeles Chargers: You know what? It's hard to do a good lightning bolt. And this one is pretty good. Boring, but been around forever. I thought that maybe they'd try to resuscitate their AFL "shield/horsey/bolt" some day, but that treads on rival Denver's territory. The bigger question is "will either LA team ever leave light blue and yellow? Or will someone leave town first?" I guess DONE?

Los Angeles Rams: New logo is well-made, but lacks personality. WILL CHANGE

Miami Dolphins: Basically unchanged for 56 years. DONE

Minnesota Vikings: Basically unchanged for 61 years. DONE

New England Patriots: Flying Elvis is looking dated and will leave the building before too long. WILL CHANGE

New Orleans Saints: 55 years and only a color swap. DONE

New York Giants: 61 years ago, the "ny" came into being. The 1976-99 "GIANTS" was a monstrosity, IMO. They've gone back to the ny. And I think they'll keep it this time. DONE

New York Jets: Have gone back to their "football within a football" logo and have had it for  39 of their 59 years. They might add a plane icon back in there, but otherwise DONE

Philadelphia Eagles: 26 years of the current bird head. Still looks fresh. DONE

Pittsburgh Steelers: so DONE

San Francisco 49ers: 54 years of the "SF Oval". DONE

Seattle Seahawks: Basically unchanged since day 1. DONE

Tampa Bay Buccaneers: Quarter century of the Skull Flag probably means DONE

Tennessee Titans: 25 years in Tennessee, 23 with the same Titans logo. I'm sorry, but it's too ugly and outdated to last much longer. WILL CHANGE

Washington Commanders: Too new to make a call. Do people even like it? Will Dan Snyder ever sell the team? UNSURE

11 hours ago, who do you think said:

NBA. Uniforms are kind of a tough call here since all the Nike vomit means that all teams are wearing meme jerseys for about a third of their schedule... I'm doing this with only "primary" uniforms in mind. 

Never changing (bar minor tweaks): Celtics, Bulls, Heat

Logo/general identity here to stay, but uniforms will be "updated" semi-regularly: 76ers, Knicks, Lakers, Warriors, Grizzlies, Pelicans, Mavericks, Trail Blazers, Hornets, Pistons, Pacers

Will likely change/overhaul again in the next 5-10 years: Hawks, Jazz, Nuggets, Magic, Rockets, Clippers, Suns, Timberwolves, Kings, Wizards, Raptors

Wildcards (might keep their branding for the long haul, might go off and do something crazy tomorrow): Spurs, Thunder, Bucks, Nets, Cavs

This is a fine assessment. I did not dare to speculate about the NBA. Firstly, because it's the big four sport I follow least, and secondly, the league is becoming more and more merchandise driven. It is closer to some futbol leagues now, constantly adding new uniforms while exploring new branding. Who's to say, 10 years, and 5 looks from now, the 76ers don't stumble onto something that usurps their iconic 76 number lockup?  Or maybe their logo gets left alone and everything around it changes. There's just too many variables being added in the NBA to be sure about much of anything. I can totally see that league "pulling a Bieber" and introducing 30 hip-hop, country, and pop music jerseys in 2027. 

3 hours ago, Cosmic said:

Blackhawks kinda need to be in their own category, if you catch my drift.

Yep. Beyond my pay grade. 

My larger point is that the current logo has undergone many tweaks since 1935, but no overhauls. Today's Hawks logo would be instantly recognizable by a time-traveling hockey fan from the 1940s.

45 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

I agree with most of yours but...

...The Oriles and Brewers went back to silly (not necessarily bad, but cartoony) logos that are products of their time. I don't know for sure that they won't change but I think it's possible. The Blue jays have missed layups before...I really, really hope you are right about them. But the one I am most primed to disagree with you on from the "done" list is the Angles, depending on your definition of "change." I tend to agree that a halo-A will be used for good but I think the red-heavy balance and the grey/silver halo are polarizing. I'd predict a gold halo in the future and a huge change to the color balance (I guess the latter is more of a uniform issue...so if the gold halo possibility would mean "not done" then I'd disagree with you)...possibly a change to the shape of the "A" (back to the basics of the 1980s) . I left the White Sox (I agree with you) up there because I'm old enough to remember the beach blanket and even back then, I recognized them as a team that changes a lot. When they changed to the current look, I assumed it was chasing a trend and they'd be back to something blue/red soon. I was wrong and now it looks like they're not messing with it ever. Remarkable.

 

For your "not done" list, I feel like the Mariners may have kinda "White Soxed" their way into the current look.  Atlanta, I think will keep the look, but likely will ditch the tomahawk. I don't see the Pirates messing with the basics of their colors and the "P" on the cap...though the primary logo could definitely change.

 

I agree on the Padres. They'll be running from brown not long after the newness wears off.

The Rockies is an interesting case. Their general look is mediocre but has never change. Primary logo? Whatever, but I don't know if I see them changing the key pieces (colors and cap logo) of their identity.
 

I agree with all this. 

The Angels have followed the natural course of most logos (sports or otherwise) in our lifetimes–they boil things down to the core of what resonates. In other words, most logos get simpler over time as less and less information is needed to trigger peoples' brand awareness. Even at their inception, and thru the "state outline" period, we can see now, with retrospect, that the "A with halo" is their core identity. But you make a great point about the Angels' colors not being their "forever colors" currently. But I think colors aside, they are at a stopping point.

Your cap thought is a good one. The Pirates, Padres, and Rockies may very well go the way of the Yankees, retaining their cap lettering as a secondary logo (a "forever cap"?) while having a different main logo. All but the Yankees seem destined to change the main logo, but I can see the caps remaining constant.