Jump to content

GFB

Members
  • Posts

    7,356
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Everything posted by GFB

  1. Or the pants could be stretched in different ways due to the different poses, pants template, photographic perspectives, muscular anatomy of the models, etc... If anything, your post goes to show that the two patterns are more similar than I originally thought. I'd be interested in seeing the new style guide to see if they are actually the same.
  2. Watching the Bengals yesterday, it dawned on me that this simple fix to the nameplate would really help fix the black dominance of the road uniforms:
  3. I'm a sucker for when teams do single color names in the outline color of the number... It's why I think this: ...has a better color balance than this:
  4. Doing a throwback is fine... However, doing a throwback of a throwback but putting it in your weird manufacturer's template from the same time period is a bridge too far for me.
  5. This kit just made me yell "YOU'RE NOT MY REAL DAD" aloud, which is a strange but accurate reaction.
  6. Man, I don't have a good grasp on where the line falls between cultural appreciation and cultural appropriation, but that Ajax kit feels like it lands on the wrong side of it.
  7. @_RH_ At that point, it comes down to artistic preference. Personally, I prefer not to get too heavy-handed with a design feature like this; I'd rather the grid go unnoticed and be a cool little feature for those that care rather than being more obvious and risk over-designing. But if you prefer clarity of concept, I think your suggestion works well.
  8. @Sport That combination really drills home the idea that they need to upgrade the white color rush pants to full time use and ditch the clownfish pants.
  9. This is an excellent question that I've been mulling over for the last few days. Here's where I landed... I don't think the 6 stripes works in this color scheme... if you had a color scheme with two colors of a similar brightness like red and royal blue, you might be able to pull it off; but here you can see that on the gold and white backgrounds the black stripes dominate the lighter color too much for an asymmetrical pattern to work. Like you figured out, what could work and would barely change the traditional Northwestern stripes is to use a six column grid rather than a pattern. I personally like the striping pattern on the gold pants because the white and gold are separated and do not bleed into one another. I think if you take the same approach with the white pattern, it works just as well there. That would make the guiding rule of the striping pattern that white and gold are not allowed to touch.
  10. I understand that there was some level of hyperbole/absurdity to your post @EddieJ1984, but there's probably a way to make your point without gatekeeping who is/was a real fan and who is not. For example, my personal fondness for baseball is tied more towards nostalgia and shared experiences with my dad more than anything that actually happens on the field. As for people aligning themselves with brands, I don't think it's all that strange. Human beings loved to define themselves by what they identify with and what they don't. It's why some people get Tupac or Taylor Swift tattoos, add a quote from their favorite movie or sitcom to their bio, or add a bumper sticker to their car of the person they are voting for. Someone who grew up always wanting Nikes but whose family were unable to afford them is going to react differently to a pair of running shoes with 8 swooshes on it than a person who grew up with a fresh pair of Nikes every school year. What one sees as a gross over-branding of a product, the other sees as a status symbol for their own personal journey. People are full of tangled, complex motivations. ... How very brave of you.... thank you for your service. Look, sarcasm aside, you're probably right: that's just the way the world works and this was probably inevitable. However, we are still passionate customers and consumers of the product, and if something is transpiring that makes us unhappy, we can still affect the outcome and create change (hello, European Super League). Will it happen in this case? Doubtful. But yelling from a soapbox at people who are upset to "get over it this is how the real world works" is weird and cynical and honestly a bit grim. Exactly. Owning a major league franchise is nothing more than a status symbol and a privilege for the uber wealthy... This notion that professional sports has always been a bottom-line business and that it must be profitable to survive doesn't sync with the fact today's owners are far wealthier now than at any previous point in history. And if an owner ever gets sick of throwing money down the pro sports hole, there's a hefty nine-to-ten figure parachute they can pull at any time by selling. Going back to my point earlier about how people love to define themselves by what they identify with... I choose to identify myself with the Red Wings. I have jerseys and t-shirts and memorabilia because I have created an emotional connection with the team for years and years. But now when I want to identify with the Wings, I now also have to identify with Chevrolet or Rocket Mortgage or Delta Airlines and my lack of fondness for those organizations is going to negatively affect my Wings fandom. Again, this is nothing new and something we've all been conditioned to ignore or placate to a degree, so there's no shock or pearl-clutching... It's just a bit of a bummer when you stop to think about it because it shouldn't be this way.
  11. That's a great word choice, BBTV. There's nothing wrong with being saddened by news like this and taking a moment to note that we're losing something intangible without slipping into extremes at either ends. This won't "ruin the game" or make me less of a fan, but I do value aesthetics more than most other fans and this endless endeavor to monetize every :censored:ing aspect of a sport I love so already wealthy owners can be even more rich just flat-out sucks. Nothing is untouchable and everything has a price and this is the way the world works and it bums me out. On a semi-relevant sidebar, there's been a subtle belief that has crept into the public over the last few decades with taxpayer-funded stadiums and CBA lockouts that owning a professional sports team is supposed to be a profitable endeavor. If you're wealthy enough to own a sports team, the benefit to ownership should be in the joy and perks of owning the team, just like the joy of having your name on a building at your alma mater, having a fleet Lamborghinis in your garage, or owning a villa in Ibiza would be. But like all of these things, owning a professional team should be treated like owning a very expensive toy, not like owning a very expensive business. No one is forcing owners to carry these expensive burdens and there are plenty of other rich people who would love have these toys that they could sell for wild profits, so I need owners to stop crying poor at every convenient turn. Thanks in advance. Posts like these are the worst. Everyone is entitled to feel however they want to. If you want to complain about it, great! This is probably one of the best places to do that because you're probably talking to someone else who cares. If you're personally unaffected, that's also awesome; you'll take every bit of this and future news in stride and never miss a beat! But you can also do that without demanding that the people who are bothered shouldn't be for *reasons* You can be a grim, cynical realist without being a condescending to everyone who isn't.
  12. Yeah, this sucks, plain and simple.
  13. They did. It's a consistent color pattern of red on the top, white in the middle, and blue on the bottom. The blue stripe simply "fades" into the blue jersey on the home uniforms and looks like a two-stripe pattern.
  14. Brian, in the only part of my post that you didn't pick apart, I explained this. Aspects of visual identity are not self-contained, they bleed into one another. That's why if I say "Flying Elvis" you think of silver and blue, but if I say "Pat" you think red and white. Are the colors blue and red responsible for the demise of the Indians brand? Of course not. But if (as you yourself pointed out) red and blue makes Clevelanders not only think of baseball, but also the Indians brand, Chief Wahoo, and everything that comes with that, then the colors have a little stain on them as well, even if they aren't the reason for the offense. Maybe there's not enough to have to throw them out entirely, but there's enough dirt that you might consider it and should at minimum give them a deep cleaning. Look, I'm a Detroit Lions fan and a comparable organization to the Indians/Guardians. I'm very familiar with a rich tradition despite decades of futility and bad luck. My grandfather would attend Lions games at Briggs Stadium; the honolulu blue and silver runs deep in my family, memory and nostalgia. If the Lions came out next week and said "We're turning a new page and with it we're changing our blue to red like the 1940s Portsmouth Spartans," I'd be fine with it. Sure, the Lions were the first NFL team to use blue and silver before the Cowboys and Oilers and Seahawks and Panthers and a lot Detroit fans would probably be shocked and confused, but I think the majority of fans would quickly appreciate the organization attempting to wipe the slate clean to a degree and trying to build something new. Now try to change the Red Wings or the Tigers colors and I'll go to war with you, but it's hard for me to feel attached to the silver and blue in the same way when all it's represented to me is 30 years of disappointment. I'm open to a fresh start and this is without the Detroit Lions brand having employed a racist and toxic identity for the last 2-3 decades.
  15. Perhaps! No one really knows what data they received or how the questions were phrased or how the answers were weighted... we're in the dark. I do want to quickly touch on the "the colors aren't problematic" issue, which is true to a degree. In a vacuum, blue and red are relatively neutral (I'll gloss over predisposition to certain colors based on societal and cultural influence -- red/blue in America stir different emotions than red/blue in Russia or red/blue in China), just like any other color scheme. But when you're talking about an identity, those aspects of a brand aren't self-contained: they bleed over into one another. The colors make you think of the logo which makes you think of a certain player which takes you back to a specific point in time. If I say "teal Pistons," your mind instantly tracks to the horsepower logo, Grant Hill, 90s NBA, other crazy looks from the same point in time, etc. If I say "volt," you think of Nike, Oregon Ducks, early 2010s, LaMichael James, Mariota, uniformz, etc... There's a level of connection to these things that goes beyond the vacuum. Speaking for myself only, I think the Guardians carrying over the red/blue is fine. I think creating a clearer mental break from the past would have better served the true purpose of the rebrand, but clearly the organization was clearly trying to keep the waves the transition created as small as possible. And perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but when your entire goal is to change as little as possible, that creates an appearance of resistance to the change and just wanting the whole thing to go away, which may be unfair but feels real. (FWIW, from the outside looking in, I do think that WFT is going about their rebranding in a better way with the hard stop of the name and logo, vs Cleveland who tried to slowly phase-out and phase-in an updated identity, which is a statement I couldn't have imagined making 18 months ago.) Where I will disagree with the majority is that the red and blue colors are untouchable for Cleveland's baseball team. This isn't a "bored designer" take, as I don't think Washington should move away from the burgundy and gold or that teams should mess with tradition for no reason at all. Rather, in this specific case, I don't think the colors should be untouchable. There's little connection to the city with those colors, outside of the Ohio/Cleveland flag. Multiple other MLB clubs share those colors and with more success (Red Sox, Braves, Angels, Nationals, Twins, etc.) The old brand was insensitive and actively hurt the brand's value. With all those factors considered, I think that's enough to move the needle to seriously consider a new color scheme, despite the 120 years of tradition. Also, a color change didn't have to be dramatic either like a move to green and gold. It could have been slight darkening of the red to a wine color like the Cavs use. It could have been lightening the blue and bringing it closer to alignment with the Cleveland flag. It could have been raising up an existing neutral color like white/grey to secondary status and using red as an accent color. Any of those things would have helped mentally divorce the Guardians name from the old era, which is the biggest shortcoming of the new brand (IMO of course)
  16. I never said that all fans who wanted to keep the colors wanted to keep the name; I said all the fans who wanted to keep the name wanted to keep the colors. It’s a “not all yellow fruits are bananas but all bananas are yellow fruits” statement
  17. Look, none of us know what questions, information and data that they are basing these decisions off of. But I think it's safe to assume that the Venn Diagram of fans who didn't want a change to the name/logo and the fans who wanted to keep red/blue is a perfect circle.
  18. My point is that they really should be. Because you're not moving from something neutral to something good; you're moving from something actively bad/toxic and hoping to neutralize it. If the current team had a mark or a cap that was synonymous with Cleveland baseball, then your point would have more weight. But as of today, this is currently a desolate brand devoid of ideas and the Guardians revamp doesn't add anything at all of substance. As you stated in your post, some fans are going to be upset either way and what's a little more change on top of a much bigger change? I don't think giving fans an opportunity to fully embrace a new chapter is a bad idea.
  19. If we're talking about the concept of self-identity and awareness, yeah I think some level of confidence and boldness is important.
  20. A good informative post, BiB. You outlined the history of Cleveland baseball lore, which is impressive... But everything in your post ultimately only boils down to tradition: it's the way things have been for 120 years and so they should remain that way. Obviously, tradition is a rich ingredient when it comes to brands (especially baseball), but usually there's some semblance of winning or positivity to go along with that legacy. The Cleveland MLB identity is all nostalgia and bittersweet memories, along with a heavy dose of insensitivity to flavor... Is that actually worth saving? You outlined some of the negatives in the recent past that have spanned decades, which I'd argue has removed any positivity surrounding the brand, and there's no tradition of winning either. Franchises like the Toronto Maple Leafs, Cleveland Browns, Detroit Lions and Sacramento Kings all have won championships since Cleveland won a World Series. From this list, of the top 10 players in franchise history, only two have suited up for the team in the last 50 years. Why is any of this is worth embracing and celebrating, other than pure nostalgia? Was not changing the colors really the right decision, or was it simply the easy one? It's not like changing the team name and colors would erase that tradition that you outlined. They'd still be able to trace their history back, but they'd also be able to turn a fresh page from any of the baggage that has built up over 75 years of incompetence and poor decisions. And if the new colors flopped, you could always go back to them later on and have a short-lived "phase," like red/green Red Sox or the blue/red White Sox. I believe that if you look at this rebranding from a distance, you'd see that there's no courage in it. There's no point where the team boldly stakes their flag in the ground and says. like-it-or-not. this is who we are now and this is who we will be in the future. Rather, this feels like an attempt to revise their past into something that allows them to skate by and that's cowardly, IMO.
  21. But maybe that slow, gradual change is why it feels like a Jedi mind trick. This wasn't a scenario where the team was caught with their pants down and had to whip up an identity in two months... this was a deliberate and methodical process spanning years where the prevailing sentiment turned out to be "only change what you absolutely have to." Like you mused, maybe an abrupt change would have been out of character for the organization, but if there ever was an understandable opportunity to take a risk, this would have been the time. If a bold, new identity or colors flopped, you could have done this exact identity as a retrace 5 years from now and everyone would have understood and welcomed it. As for the impression on the cultural zeitgeist, other teams like the White Sox had Michael Jordan, Obama, wild uniforms, etc. But when I think of Cleveland, I guess I think of the Albert Belle, Kenny Lofton teams of the mid-90s... but even then that's far, far down the list after Major League and having/defending a racist logo for decades. It just never struck me as a historic brand worth salvaging in the same way that a Dodgers/Giants/Red Sox/Yankees identity was.
  22. Count me in with the "Spiders > Guardians" crowd, but as far as names go, it's not bad. I think my biggest problem with everything about this brand is how much it reeks of "well actually, we still want our old name and identity." Between the -dians name, keeping all the touchstones of the identity the same (red "C" on a blue hat, new scripts are inspired by the old ones, another decades out-of-date sleeve logo), and keeping the colors the same, it feels like the organization's approach was an attempt to jedi mind trick the universe that there was never a change at all. The effect of that is like removing a controversial-but-popular painting in a museum and now we're left looking at a printed copy with all the controversial aspects cropped out, rather than simply going out and finding a new work of art to replace it with. Look, I realize that that the team has a history that it's mostly proud of and that there are some fans out there who are really happy that the bare minimum changed. But from an outside perspective, it's been almost 75 years since the team won a World Series and the biggest contribution of the team to the cultural zeitgeist since was a movie from 30 years ago. It's ok to let things die sometimes, especially when they've run their course. Some people will disagree and that's ok. I just wish this felt more like a trade of one identity for another rather than a simple whitewashing.
  23. Seattle has worn dark clash kits going back a decade: purple/black, black/pink, black/lime green, black/green/blue and it’s never been a real issue until now. Also, MLS is 30+ teams, which is more to juggle than the Premier League or Bundesliga where you’re only at 20. Look, I agree that the home team should never have to wear clash, but unless Adidas starts allowing every team a third shirt, you’re going to run into the odd game every now and then where you have to compromise a little.
  24. That’s not true in the least. Bright green/blue and purple/black have plenty of contrast. The problem is that Austin’s primary kits are half green and half black. Personally, I would live with the rare nights like tonight where both teams have to wear their clash kits than having even more MLS teams with bland white/light grey clash kits.
  25. Eh, I don’t think this is enough contrast. I’d have put Austin in white and Seattle in purple if I were the MLS.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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