Super Bowl 50 Aesthetics

[Cujo]

Just now, j'villejags said:

Funny -- I was just coming to post this: 

 

 

Great minds..... However, I was thinking below the hashes, like where the put the Play 60 logos and all that.

[j'villejags]

3 minutes ago, Cujo said:

 

Great minds..... However, I was thinking below the hashes, like where the put the Play 60 logos and all that.

Update:

[frosty06306]

That would be much better - I loathe the SB logos being placed between the hashes at both 25s. Really makes it cluttered.

[Luigi74]

46 minutes ago, Down Under Husker said:

 

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 

 

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.

 

If I remember the story right concerning the Colts, owner Caroll Rosenbloom was fine with the move to the AFC since the Colts would be in a eastern division(they were in the Western Conference pre-merger), the possibility of a strong rivalry with the Jets and the perk of being in a division with Miami. Having a "warm weather" team in your division was a big deal back then since the owners in cold weather cities would use it as an excuse for a vacation that they would write off as a business expense. 

 

The way Art Modell told the story concerning the Browns and Steelers switching was that he agreed to move the Browns for the good of the league but would only do so if Art Rooney moved the Steelers too. Modell supposedly on his death bed convinced Rooney to switch but the part of the story that Modell always left out was that Rooney didn't agree to move until he saw the amount the league was willing to give him to switch to the AFC.

[RayFinkle]

3 hours ago, Chauncey917 said:

Lots of discussion going on about the royal-ish shade of blue that was painted on the Broncos sideline area. Curious.

 

 

Maybe they'll add some darker blue paint later??  

 

I remember the Ravens/9ers SB, and up to a day or two before the game, the Ravens end zone was painted black.  Then on game day it was purple.  

 

Just spit ballin' here.

[Sykotyk]

3 hours ago, Down Under Husker said:

 

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 

 

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.

 

 

Browns-Steelers was a package deal. The NFL wanted some 'good teams' in the AFL/AFC to help make things even. The Browns, who had won 4 NFL titles in their 20 years in the NFL were a good pick. They also were an outlier. Prior to the merger (and long before the four-division NFL), Baltimore and the Cardinals were purposefully kept separate from the Redskins and Bears, respectively.  Why the Cardinals weren't bumped to the AFC was probably a product of their being a 'bad team' to get bumped. Baltimore greatly wanted to be back with Eastern teams. After the original Baltimore Colts folded (the AAFC team), the new Dallas Texans that folded were relocated to Baltimore, but were banished to the west to try and keep them separate from the Redskins and their market. So, of course Baltimore wanted to move. They get east coast teams. If it weren't for the Browns-Steelers rivalry, it probably would've been Browns-Cardinals making the move. Not many other options.

 

Which would've set up a bit better alignment:

 

NFC East:

Dallas Cowboys

New York Giants

Philadelphia Eagles

Pittsburgh Steelers

Washington Redskins

 

AFC Central

Cincinnati Bengals

Cleveland Browns

Houston Oilers

St. Louis Cardinals

 

[jc...]

I'm glad they chose to keep the league's in separate conferences for the most part. I'm not a fan of East vs West finals. Each conference covering the entire country is a better setup in my opinion. 

[BrandMooreArt]

7 hours ago, McCarthy said:

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. 

 

you mean in the endzone? for that space, i dont mind how much realestate is taken up by whats there. but i think if you can do it with 2 logos instead of 3, i just like that better. its less confusing that way - if you have 1 logo repeated 10 times, thats still a simpler overall design than haveing 5 different logos once because its less info to process.

 

i definitely agree about the 2 SB logos though. the field design's hierarchy is wrong. the most prominent logo should be the SB (at the 50) then maybe put 2 NFL shields out there.

 

yea we're just on opposite sides on field vs uniform. i think to "keep the game clean" and easy to follow the field needs to be easily readble and void of distractions, while every time you see a player, you see them representing the conference. then for the casual viewer theres no question of "which one does the Horse team belong to?"

[Lee Noire]

Y'all see that entrance set at the opening night event? Is this Wrestlemania or Super Bowl Media Day? Holy cow.

[j'villejags]

3 hours ago, BrandMooreArt said:

 

you mean in the endzone? for that space, i dont mind how much realestate is taken up by whats there. but i think if you can do it with 2 logos instead of 3, i just like that better. its less confusing that way - if you have 1 logo repeated 10 times, thats still a simpler overall design than haveing 5 different logos once because its less info to process.

 

i definitely agree about the 2 SB logos though. the field design's hierarchy is wrong. the most prominent logo should be the SB (at the 50) then maybe put 2 NFL shields out there.

 

yea we're just on opposite sides on field vs uniform. i think to "keep the game clean" and easy to follow the field needs to be easily readble and void of distractions, while every time you see a player, you see them representing the conference. then for the casual viewer theres no question of "which one does the Horse team belong to?"

I'm not surprised that the idea of a conference uniform patch is an unpopular opinion here. I think in a perfect world, we wouldn't have patches on uniforms. In most cases, they look like glorified ads. With that said, I tend to agree with your points. Especially if the goal is to bring back the pride associated with representing your conference in the Super Bowl. The conference patch could be worn as a symbol of that pride -- a badge of honor, if you will. It wouldn't be cluttering up the uniform any more than the Super Bowl patch already is. 

As you mentioned, I'd put all of the emphasis on the SB logo by placing it on midfield. A SB uniform patch would then become redundant. For the field -- the more simplicity, the better. I'd go for this personally:

[pagan696]

9 hours ago, Lee Noire said:

Y'all see that entrance set at the opening night event? Is this Wrestlemania or Super Bowl Media Day? Holy cow.

 

 

[BrandMooreArt]

8 hours ago, j'villejags said:

I'm not surprised that the idea of a conference uniform patch is an unpopular opinion here. I think in a perfect world, we wouldn't have patches on uniforms. In most cases, they look like glorified ads. With that said, I tend to agree with your points. Especially if the goal is to bring back the pride associated with representing your conference in the Super Bowl. The conference patch could be worn as a symbol of that pride -- a badge of honor, if you will. It wouldn't be cluttering up the uniform any more than the Super Bowl patch already is. 

As you mentioned, I'd put all of the emphasis on the SB logo by placing it on midfield. A SB uniform patch would then become redundant. For the field -- the more simplicity, the better. I'd go for this personally:

 

call be boring, but i think that's a great looking field. there's nothing over-done about it - it's as minimal as it can be and gets all the important info across. you also have to remember, you're going to see overlay graphics on that field during the game (1st down marker, down/distance marker, etc).

 

also, i didn't want to give them impression i wanted another patch on the jerseys, but that the conference logos would be designed into the SB patches. something like this 

[BrianLion]

18 hours ago, C-Squared said:

Call me crazy, but if conferences are important enough to bench an 11-5 team while allowing a 7-9 team to host a playoff game, they're important enough to acknowledge on the field of the league's title game.

 

that's more an issue with the Divisions than the Conferences. . 

[TheOldRoman]

21 minutes ago, BrandMooreArt said:

 

call be boring, but i think that's a great looking field. there's nothing over-done about it - it's as minimal as it can be and gets all the important info across. you also have to remember, you're going to see overlay graphics on that field during the game (1st down marker, down/distance marker, etc).

 

also, i didn't want to give them impression i wanted another patch on the jerseys, but that the conference logos would be designed into the SB patches. something like this 

 

I think that looks bad. The red (or blue) would really stick out on that logo. And it would look worse in future years when the logo is just black and silver again. If they went back to having decent logos with more colors, it might be doable.

[CreamSoda]

Hope you don't mind I used your template J'VilleJags, but I think something like this could work well.   Plus I just really like the way the NFL shield looks at the 25 yard line with the stripe coming out of the top and bottom of the shield.

 

[CreamSoda]

[Chauncey917]

Looks like the NFL started making stadium graphics before the Broncos faked 'em out with jersey choice.

[j'villejags]

57 minutes ago, CreamSoda said:

Hope you don't mind I used your template J'VilleJags, but I think something like this could work well.   Plus I just really like the way the NFL shield looks at the 25 yard line with the stripe coming out of the top and bottom of the shield.

 

I don't mind at all. 

Darth Brooks made the template -- all credit to him. 
http://darth-brooks.deviantart.com/art/Starter-Football-Field-342919504

[Lee Noire]

5 hours ago, pagan696 said:

 

 

Hahahahahaha! That's awesome.

[NJTank]

Is it me or is the NFL channeling Max Headroom with this backdrop