Jump to content

Super Bowl 50 Aesthetics


CreamSoda

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:


Yes; yes; and a very big yes. Indeed, I think Yankee Stadium had the league logos painted on the field in the 1977 World Series.

 

Did you ever think that maybe the teams didn't like it?

 

That they want to be the ones featured, not the conference or league?  It's not an All Star Game comprised of players from all teams inside the conference... its just one team from that conference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 422
  • Created
  • Last Reply
25 minutes ago, CreamSoda said:

Should the NHL put conference logos on the ice for the Stanley Cup too?  Should the NBA on their court?  How about two giant AL and NL logos for the World Series...

 

 

 

Do those sports have a large area of largely unused space on the field of play that is traditionally adorned with graphics? No, no, and also no.

OldRomanSig2.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, CreamSoda said:

Should the NHL put conference logos on the ice for the Stanley Cup too?  Should the NBA on their court?  How about two giant AL and NL logos for the World Series...

 

 

 

So all leagues must have the same presentation style?  I must have missed that memo. 

Smart is believing half of what you hear. Genius is knowing which half.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, TheOldRoman said:

 

Do those sports have a large area of largely unused space on the field of play that is traditionally adorned with graphics? No, no, and also no.

Do those sports play their games at a neutral site? No. 

 

I'd be in favor of the visiting dugout getting the NL/AL logo on the on-deck circle in the World Series. This may already be happening. It'd look really cool if instead of the always crappy World Series logo if we got the NL/AL logos in foul territory down the first and third baseline during the WS. 

PvO6ZWJ.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

Do those sports play their games at a neutral site? No. 

 

I'd be in favor of the visiting dugout getting the NL/AL logo on the on-deck circle in the World Series. This may already be happening. It'd look really cool if instead of the always crappy World Series logo if we got the NL/AL logos in foul territory down the first and third baseline during the WS. 

 

That would be cool. And they could put the WS logo behind homeplate. I don't normally like when teams paint logos behind homeplate (my Sox started doing so last year), but I think it would look great to have league logos on the baselines leading to a bigger WS logo behind homeplate.

OldRomanSig2.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

im not a fan of the conference logos having a presence on the field either. i think a field/court/rink/pitch should be completely minimal - its harder to follow the game with a bunch of logos and graphics overlaid onto the playing surface. adding in logos, just makes it that more complex, and when that logo is 4th or 5th in hierarchy of importance, its best to just not have it at all. that said, i'd like to see the conference logos featured on the team jerseys. more specifically, designed into the SB patches. or, have a small decal on the back of the helmet with red/blue incorporated into the SB patch. 

 

GRAPHIC ARTIST

BEHANCE  /  MEDIUM  /  DRIBBBLE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, BrandMooreArt said:

im not a fan of the conference logos having a presence on the field either. i think a field/court/rink/pitch should be completely minimal - its harder to follow the game with a bunch of logos and graphics overlaid onto the playing surface. adding in logos, just makes it that more complex, and when that logo is 4th or 5th in hierarchy of importance, its best to just not have it at all. that said, i'd like to see the conference logos featured on the team jerseys. more specifically, designed into the SB patches. or, have a small decal on the back of the helmet with red/blue incorporated into the SB patch. 

I'd buy that line of thinking if the field didn't already have graphics filling the space where a conference logo would otherwise be placed. Or that it didn't already have two super ugly Super Bowl logos. Like that's necessary. 

 

No vote to the conference logos being worn on the uniform. Then we're getting into a discussion on cluttering the uniform versus cluttering the field. I'd rather clutter the field, personally. 

PvO6ZWJ.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How the heck can a field with 19,080 square feet in play be cluttered with a few logos, but adding those logos to jerseys which are little more than tanktops is cool? I like Super Bowl patches in general, but each year of Nike shrinking the jerseys further makes them more onerous. Then you have to worry about teams which stupidly have full-time patches on their jerseys (pretty much just the Steelers, since the Jets, Chiefs and Jaguars aren't going to make a Super Bowl anytime soon), and the incredibly awful captains patches, and I'm about ready to just call it quits on the SB patches. Plus, as long as they're sticking with these awful silver logos for the games, the conference logos would look really out of place.

OldRomanSig2.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No to the AFC/NFC patches on the jersey....

 

The individual teams are important, not the conference.   Nobody cares what conference you played some of your games in.   This isnt the old AFL and NFL.  The teams play cross conference games all season long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

So perhaps I should have posed as some kind of football fan?  Nonsense. 

 

My having once followed the sport, my ongoing interest in uniforms, and my being an observer of the culture entitle me to make comments on this. It's not necessary to care who wins the game.

 

The "too long; didn't read" version: the conferences matter because they have historical standing.
 

Just want to say I read what you wrote, and I agree with it. I've always felt strongly about conferences and leagues in football and baseball. I feel strongly about divisions, too. Just like people argue which conference is stronger, I hear people argue all the time about which division is the strongest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All conferences have is history now. They're largely irrelevant in football. In the NFL they're basically just an arbitrary grouping of teams that is somewhat similar to the time when there were two competing leagues. But even that is flimsy, given the number of original NFL teams in the AFC and teams like the Seahawks that have swapped conferences. Everyone also plays 1/4 of their schedule against the other conference now, so it's not like the Super Bowl is come clash of winning teams that never see each other all season like MLB used to be or like the UEFA Champions League or something similar where you root for the team because its from your "league."  .  

 

MLB is basically the same thing nowadays anyway with teams swapping leagues (Brewers, Astros) whenever it suits their alignment and every day interleague play. Once both leagues eventually adopt the DH, they'll be completely unrecognizable from one another. 

 

In the NHL and NBA at least the conferences make sense from a travel and geography standpoint. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, CreamSoda said:

No to the AFC/NFC patches on the jersey....

 

The individual teams are important, not the conference.   Nobody cares what conference you played some of your games in.   This isnt the old AFL and NFL.  The teams play cross conference games all season long.

 

I agree that patches on the jersey wouldn't look good, but I disagree that anybody cares what conference teams play in. I care. I basically ignore the NFC during the regular season. Why? Because my team plays in the AFC, all our rivals are in the AFC, all our rival fans I have to deal with are in the AFC, and to make it to the end of the year tournament I only need to worry about teams in the AFC. The same is true with me and MLB. I don't care about what's happening in the American League. When I found out the Astros were in the playoffs last year I was floored. 

 

Conference affiliation matters and many people, like myself, care what conference you play 12 out of 16 plus playoff games in. They only play 4 non-conference games. You only play a team from the other conference once every 4 years. You have to go through the gauntlet of your conference to make it to the Super Bowl and the Super Bowl is the literal meeting of the conference champions. That's the only way to play in the game. If my team is in the Super Bowl I'm proud to see the AFC logo in the endzone next to my name. 

PvO6ZWJ.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

 

I agree that patches on the jersey wouldn't look good, but I disagree that anybody cares what conference teams play in. I care. I basically ignore the NFC during the regular season. Why? Because my team plays in the AFC, all our rivals are in the AFC, all our rival fans I have to deal with are in the AFC, and to make it to the end of the year tournament I only need to worry about teams in the AFC. The same is true with me and MLB. I don't care about what's happening in the American League. When I found out the Astros were in the playoffs last year I was floored. 

 

Conference affiliation matters and many people, like myself, care what conference you play 12 out of 16 plus playoff games in. They only play 4 non-conference games. You only play a team from the other conference once every 4 years. You have to go through the gauntlet of your conference to make it to the Super Bowl and the Super Bowl is the literal meeting of the conference champions. That's the only way to play in the game. If my team is in the Super Bowl I'm proud to see the AFC logo in the endzone next to my name. 

 

 

I agree that they matter and winning the conference is a big deal but I am not that concerned with them removing the logos from the field.  It looks cleaner and gives more prominence to the individual team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

This kind of identity of the NFL conferences is fundamental to being a fan of a team.  (For this reason I have often wondered how fans of the Colts, Browns, and Steelers dealt with going over to the AFC after the merger. It must have been difficult to suddenly acquire a whole new set of rivals.)  Fans of a team root against their division and conference rivals all year, and then must root for them in the Pro Bowl.  

 

I believe the Browns and Steelers were already each other's biggest rivals prior to the merger, so there was nothing really lost there. Considering the proximity of Baltimore to both, it may have made geographic sense to include them. Of the three teams, Baltimore seems like they might have been the most reluctant.... maybe the NFL wanted to punish them for losing to the Jets B)

 

As it turns out now, the Ravens probably are more hated in both cities than the Colts ever were.

 

It is easy to forget considering the success they have had since, but prior to the 1970s, the Steelers were arguably the worst franchise in the NFL and they would have had less clout in the negotiations. I think those teams would have also been compensated financially for migrating.

 

Otherwise the merger preserved the divisions pretty well (like the AFC West and NFC East and North), most of them still exist fairly close to what they were.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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