Jump to content

GFB

Members
  • Posts

    7,356
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Posts posted by GFB

  1. 48 minutes ago, CreamSoda said:

     

    Second is each individual stripe placed over its new "counterpart:"

    sgjSlog.png

     

    (

     

    7E5ttqJ.png

     

     

     

     

    I don't expect anybody to admit the differences that haven't already, but how can you look at those two vector sets and claim they are identical? 

     

    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.

     

    6tn8kQ9.png

  2. @_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. 

  3. On 8/15/2021 at 2:58 PM, _RH_ said:

    Truth...was just hoping against hope that maybe this trend will change too.  (Why would Nike even bother to design the socks if the teams don't make players wear them?)

     

    Thinking more about my alma mater, I was trying to think how they could unify the pattern (and maybe make it more unique than a typical Northwestern pattern).  Since 6 columns have a historical meaning to the university, I wonder if they could've done something with 6 rather than 5 stripes:

    a4MAh8P.png

    Are there examples out there of the last two styles?

     

    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. 

     

    PU4HvTP.png

  4. 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. 

     

    1 hour ago, philly97flyer said:

    I’m not being condescending to anyone.

     

    🧐

     

    On 8/17/2021 at 1:42 PM, philly97flyer said:

    I love the morons on here...

    On 8/17/2021 at 1:51 PM, philly97flyer said:

    Welcome to the real world, bud.

     

    ...

     

    1 hour ago, philly97flyer said:

    I’m simply pointing out that stuff like this is going to happen no matter what we all think of it. 

     

    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. 

     

     

    1 hour ago, spartacat_12 said:

    I feel like a more apt metaphor is when a celebrity/public figure buys a restaurant/bar/club. They aren't buying it because it's a wise, safe investment, they want to have a fun place where they can hang out with their friends and enjoy all the perks that come with being the owner. Most of them aren't using it as their primary income source, but at the same time they won't want to sink their money into it for too long.

     

    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. 

     

     

    1 hour ago, spartacat_12 said:

    There's a difference between people wanting to wear apparel from an athletic/lifestyle brand that displays the logo and people wanting to wear apparel with the logo of a bank or airline slapped on it.

     

    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. 

     

     

  5. 14 hours ago, BBTV said:

    It's perfectly reasonable to lament ad creep in the 'sports logos' forum.  Any "you're not a fan" nonsense doesn't belong here.  Frankly, I'm not even sure if debating the financial aspect of it belongs in a forum dedicated to logos, uniforms, and general aesthetics, but I'm no mod.  

     

    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.

     

    21 hours ago, RichardWitham said:

    the sky is not falling folks. the end of the world is not here. welcome to  modern sports. the NHL will not be european soccer. if ya think that, you should go touch grass

     

    22 hours ago, philly97flyer said:

    Yes I am SHOCKED that the masses are not rushing to the streets to protest…(checks notes)…ads on NHL jerseys. Also the people who are complaining about this were probably the most pro-lockdown people over the last year+, so guess what? That lost money has to be made up somehow. Welcome to the real world, bud.

     

    18 hours ago, EddieJ1984 said:

    Sorry but if you've stopped watching MLB because of a Nike swoosh on the jersey (Oh no how DARE I say the name of the company!) you weren't a real fan of the sport to begin with.

     

    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 :censored: to everyone who isn't.  

     

     

     

  6. 9 minutes ago, tron1013 said:

    spacer.png


    they should’ve maintained the red-white-blue pattern from the frontal view of the white helmet across all color iterations of the jerseys and pants, or at a minimum did what Virginia does (above), but still a massive improvement.

     

    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.

  7. 2 hours ago, Brian in Boston said:

    However, the insensitive aspects of the old brand that actively hurt its value were a divisive team name and a logo that was a racist caricature. Said elements of the team's brand identity were eliminated. The team's traditional colors were retained because they weren't responsible for actively hurting the brand's value. 

    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.

     

    2 hours ago, Brian in Boston said:

    Paragraphs about winning

    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.

  8. 16 hours ago, spartacat_12 said:

     

    I also think that if you were to do a Venn diagram of fans who understood & accepted that the name/logo were problematic, and the fans who wanted to keep the colour scheme it wouldn't be far off of a perfect circle.

     

    Most of the people advocating for a colour change on these boards are mainly saying it because they want to see something original, not because they're concerned about some negative connotation being tied to the current colours. 

    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)

     

     

  9. 21 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

    I can tell you it isn't because I wanted the colors to stay, and I'm absolutely fine with Indians going away because that plain block C logo is the cheapest type of branding a team could have. And I root for a minor league team that sometimes uses a flaming sandal as their identity. 

    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

  10. 33 minutes ago, IceCap said:

    My point is that the team isn't trying to distance itself.

    My point is that they really should be.

     

    50 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

    Why is it that you would wish to toss out everything, when the parts that didn't need to be removed still remain?

    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. 

  11. 20 hours ago, Brian in Boston said:

    If I'm being honest, I didn't see there being much chance that Cleveland's MLB team was going to change colors when they dropped the Indians name. After all, Cleveland's MLB team wasn't seeking to jettison all of its history through this rebrand. Rather, it was recognizing and choosing to distance itself from the continued day-to-day use of a divisive team name and a former team logo that was so grotesquely exaggerated in its depiction of supposed characteristics that it crossed the line from caricature to racially-insensitive symbol.

    That said, Cleveland's AL franchise has taken the field representing said municipality in every season of American League competition since the circuit was recognized as a major league in 1901. If I'm not mistaken, it is one of just five MLB teams - Cleveland, Boston, Chicago and Detroit in the AL, Chicago in the National League - to have taken to the field in every season of competition in their respective leagues without relocating from their original markets. Maintaining some semblance of a tie to that legacy is important.

    So, how does a franchise that's committed to changing its name and logos maintain a tie to 121 seasons of history?

    Well, Navy and White have been featured in Cleveland's uniforms for each and every season of the team's tenure in the American League since the circuit's elevation to Major League status in 1901. Red first appeared in the home uniforms of the Cleveland Naps in 1904, disappeared from the franchise's set until resurfacing on the home jerseys for a single year in 1928, then joined Navy and White for an unbroken 89-year run beginning in 1933.  

    All of that being said, I completely understand the decision on the part of team ownership and management to maintain a color scheme of Navy, Red and White under the Cleveland Guardians brand. Said palette is as intrinsically linked to the history, identity, and legacy  of Cleveland's MLB franchise as any other aspect of the club. As such, I'd argue that those colors need not - indeed, should not - be cast aside.    
     

     

    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. 

  12. 28 minutes ago, -Akronite- said:

     

    I think you make some good points, but I think it was only a fool's hope (and I was one of those fools) that they'd make a complete overhaul.

     

    If we look back at how they handled this:

    • First they downgraded Wahoo
    • Then they started making the logo disappear for the most part
    • Then they officially dropped him
    • Then they announced an upcoming name change, but only after another season with it

    Everything has been gradual, they aren't interested in making a big splash or re-inventing the wheel. It's an old team with the same colors as every other baseball team and a recognizable enough uniform template. Guess we'll continue to settle for that. If they had won it in 2016 (or 07 or 97 or... oh god) I'm not sure it'd make it any better. 

     

    For the record, I'll take Major League since I'm not sure what pop culture impact most MLB teams are supposed to be making.

     

    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.

     

     

     

  13. 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.

  14. 8 hours ago, JTernup said:

    Really opposed to this idea. The home team should never have to wear a secondary because a team can’t design an effective one on their own. Remember, the goal isn’t to contrast your own kit it’s to contrast other kits that may clash with your primary. 
     

    This purple was ALWAYS a bad choice for Seattle because Portland and Austin both also wear green but their green is darker and clashes with purple. So that leaves an all green matchup with a clash or a dark colors matchup with clash.

     

    Seattle could go with tons of colors as they’ve shown in the past but they really should be light IMO. 
     

    But of course, with as many MLS teams as we have now, a third is necessary to avoid these scenarios.


    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.

  15. 1 hour ago, JTernup said:

    The real solution is to tell Seattle that their second kit needs to provide sufficient contrast in matchups like this. MLS should’ve stopped them from cosplaying as a Jimi Hendrix album cover.

    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.

  16. 14 minutes ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

    Austin is in their home green/black hosting Seattle...who is wearing green. The contrast is fine enough due to how black Austin is from behind, but still interesting. Seattle should probably have a white/much lighter set just for matchups like this.

    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.