Pharos04

Super Bowl LIII logo

Recommended Posts

On 1/24/2018 at 4:32 PM, Pharos04 said:

I'm again going to point out that the "Regional" Logos have been much better at differentiating the Super Bowls during this bland and uninspired era of Super Bowl logos.  And that they're being used on the Programs and other merchandise feels like (to me) that the NFL realized how crappy the System Logo has been since XLV when it started (which is the only one without a "Regional" Logo").  These all seem to have a bit of "Local Flair" or differing fonts that don't seem to fit with the System Logo.  These are done in official capacity. Why the two differing fonts?

 

51U17shAj7L.01_SL_.jpg51CaRQnMJjL._SY300_.jpgs-l225.jpgs-l225.jpgs-l225.jpg

 

 

96583_big.jpgsuper-bowl-lii-2018-minneapolis-two-sideff_3038835_full.jpg&w=600

The only other one that didn't was 50 and that was more about the celebration of the game itself rather than the area.

 

These give a lot more life to the game and the location compared to the bland logos that were stale with the very first one.

 

What it also tells me is there are still logo sets with "local" flair being put into it.  This year it's heavily set on the Aurora theme of Blues and Purples.

 

I like the "alternate" logos on these a little better than the same template used every year as the primary.

BUT, I do see LIII looking pretty much the same again, just add another "I" Color though, I didn't really expect the baby blue for this years LII logo, they added Minnesota purple into the "sky aurora" design, other. So perhaps a dark red, maroon will be added in some way, not totally sure the color scheme for the Primary 

Vyv9B2p.png


Sample mockup - Alternate
6tB0p9e.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Mac the Knife said:

 

Why?  The teams that played well enough to do so in the 2017 collegiate football season earned berths in the 2018 Orange Bowl, the 2018 Rose Bowl and so forth, and there's never been any incoherence there on the part of football fans.  In fact, I think it'd serve the contrary purpose:  as it is, to remember NFL championship teams since its 1966 season, you've had to mentally (i) convert a roman numeral to an arabic one, then (ii) calculate the season by extrapolating it from a starting point of 1966 = 1.  And for good measure, it also has over time established a definitive line which I've always felt diminishes the achievement of pre-Super Bowl era championship teams; that's more a product of the "Super Bowl" branding versus that of the mere "NFL Championship Game," but using the year as a reference point would take a small step toward recognizing that the history of the NFL didn't begin on January 15, 1967.

 

Firstly .. why?   the Super Bowl is probably the most successful brand of all time. Its up there with the world cup and olympics as one of the most well known events of ANY kind -- not just sports. Name a music event, political event, entertainment event or anything else that is more well known than the Super Bowl?  So mediocre logo or not the last thing they need to be doing is re-branding.

 

Secondly... yes, but also yes.  There's a few reasons why this does make sense .. While the NFL did of course exist before the super bowl, it was a very very different league. especially early- on it was fledgling, it was second rate compared to college football. The AFL/NFL merger and the Super Bowl IS the modern era of the NFL.  The NFL championships before that would be akin to an NFC championship now, so its not really fair to say the providence steamrollers accomplished the same thing that the new england patriots did.  NBA and ABA merger added a handful of teams, so the pre-merger teams were still the NBA. But the AFL/NFL was a true merger, it basically created a NEW league.  The NFL had strong established branding so they went with that name instead of creating a new name, but the league almost doubled in size. They could easily have merged the NFL and AFL into a new brand say the United Football League. So its really a totally different new league that began in 1966 or 1970 however you want to look at it.   Also, baseball does the same thing with their pre-world series history.Its the modern era of MLB, so its not really fair to consider the pre-world series and pre-super bowl leagues as the same. 

 

The Super Bowl could use a BETTER standard logo, but they have the right idea-- create a consistent brand.  I'm actually surprised so many of the logo-nuts on these boards are against that.  Yes the yearly changes were fun but would we accept a watering down of a brand by changing logos every year in anything else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Super Bowl has been the most watched telecast almost every year for decades. They don't need to add 'brand awareness' to get people to know what it is. Overseas, maybe yes. But then the NFL could just call it the "Super Bowl" with one single marketing logo for international broadcasts where maybe Roman Numerals aren't as widely known or understood.

 

The part that seems lost in this is the fans of teams who DID make a Super Bowl love buying that year's Super Bowl gear. No matter how gaudy. But when it's the exact same, or nearly the exact same, it starts to lose its intrigue.

 

What the NFL is doing to the Super Bowl is akin to UFC's numbering system. Does anyone really remember with any specificity what happened in each one or have a particularly relevant memory that correlates with remembering the exact number? It becomes superfluous.

 

If somebody asks me about Super Bowl '42' in conversation, I can immediately picture it. If somebody asks me about the 2013 World Series I don't have a clue. Or the 1999 Stanley Cup Finals. The NFL had created an indelible image for each Super Bowl as its own individual event. What the Super Bowl is becoming, or wants to become, is a wash of everything that happened but generally unrecognizable from another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd laugh if they used the ode English method of writing out Roman numerals and brand the one after as Super Bowl LIIII!

 

(Mockups welcome! ?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/31/2018 at 9:14 PM, Sykotyk said:

The part that seems lost in this is the fans of teams who DID make a Super Bowl love buying that year's Super Bowl gear. No matter how gaudy. But when it's the exact same, or nearly the exact same, it starts to lose its intrigue.

I'd argue that fans of teams who WON a Super Bowl love buying that year's gear. I don't own squat from Super Bowl XXXII (maybe a program)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, I would wager that a ton of sales occur between the cfg and Sb - especially if it’s a team that rarely gets there. 

 

Im seeing tons of LII gear around Philly, just like I saw tons of XXXIX back when. 

 

Thats one of the best arguments against the “system” that I’ve heard, but I doubt its that important - or even if it doesn’t actually have the opposite effect. Not sure how to measure though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Nah, I would wager that a ton of sales occur between the cfg and Sb - especially if it’s a team that rarely gets there. 

 

Im seeing tons of LII gear around Philly, just like I saw tons of XXXIX back when. 

 

Thats one of the best arguments against the “system” that I’ve heard, but I doubt its that important - or even if it doesn’t actually have the opposite effect. Not sure how to measure though. 

 

I'd argue that it does, in fact, have the opposite effect because a logo from the old style of regionalized logos will never be quite as symbolic of the Super Bowl to the layperson as the "system" logos (especially compared to the new wave of "regionalized secondary" logos, which I actually think are very weak and watered-down on their own and are hardly indicative of their region at all). When you see gear that has that silver logo with the Lombardi in the center, that Super Bowl spark is lit automatically and you are now thinking about the Super Bowl without any second thought, which is, indeed, typical of a strong brand. Can the same really be said of the antiquated regional system (or lack thereof) of logos?

 

The truth is that the Super Bowl itself is massive in its ongoing legacy and it doesn't really matter which Super Bowl you've made it to or which city its in (unless if you were the Vikings this season, heh); it only matters that you have, in fact, made it all the way to The Super Bowl™️. That's why Philly fans will be buying a ton of gear with with that silver LII logo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/31/2018 at 12:49 PM, goforbroke said:

The AFL/NFL merger and the Super Bowl IS the modern era of the NFL.  The NFL championships before that would be akin to an NFC championship now, so its not really fair to say the providence steamrollers accomplished the same thing that the new england patriots did.

 

Maybe not the Steamroller, but every team that won the NFL championship between 1933 and 1965 sure did. There has been an NFL championship game for  eighty-five years, it just didn’t have the flashy name until the 1966 season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

Maybe not the Steamroller, but every team that won the NFL championship between 1933 and 1965 sure did. There has been an NFL championship game for  eighty-five years, it just didn’t have the flashy name until the 1966 season.

 

Exactly.  You can't tell me that the 1967 AFL Championship Game was any more modern than the 1965 AFL Championship Game, or that the 1967 NFL Championship Game moreso than the 1965 NFL Championship Game.

 

Baseball fans would never, ever discount the team that won the 1938 World Series in such a manner.  They might not remember who won it 80 years removed, but to view it as a lesser championship because it wasn't "modern" is an asinine argument; it's the same idiotic argument I'm hearing this week that Tom Brady's the "best quarterback ever."  Sports evolve over time, over generations.  No matter the era, performances and championships should be considered equal, because the games were played under similar conditions, under similar rules of their day.

 

Applying the "it isn't modern" standard, presuming the NFL's still around for a 150th season in 2069, Super Bowl LII will be considered ancient history.  The league might comprise 40, 48, hell 56 teams.  Does that diminish the accomplishments of today?  I say absolutely not.  And those teams that earned NFL, AFL, and particularly AAFC (because by all contemporary accounts, their level of play bettered that of the NFL) championships deserve appropriate recognition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tendency to discount the pre-Super Bowl period strikes me as analogous to the tendency in English football to dismiss the pre-Premier League days.  Now that the Premier League has been around for 25 years, people increasingly talk of records that pertain only to that period.  That has almost become the default, such that, if you want to be clear that you're not referring to the Premier League era only, you have to say "the top-flight record".  This phenomenon of ignoring the pre-Premier League period has led many annoyed observers and pundits to remind their listeners that football was not invented in 1992.

Regarding American football, the 1959 NFL Championship Game between the Giants and the Colts is still considered one of the all-time great games.  In fact, that game was pivotal because it was that game that elevated the NFL's status, and brought it unquestionably into the big time.  Before then, when people thought of football, they thought of college football; and the NFL was an afterthougth.  It's similar to how the MLL has a lower status than college lacrosse.

 

But I can recall that, when I was a kid in the 1970s, the newspapers would publish lists of past championships.  And the lists they published were headed "NFL/NFC Champions" and "AFL/AFC Champions".  So they were considering the conference championships to be on the level of the pre-Super Bowl championships of the two leagues, and the Super Bowl to be a new level of title. 

While this doesn't seem right, there's really no way to categorise the matter cleanly, because the first four Super Bowls were played before the merger, and were contested by the champions of the NFL and the AFL; it wasn't until the fifth Super Bowl that that game determined the NFL's championship.  So the Colts, who lost Super Bowl III, were nevertheless NFL Champions for 1968.  But, then they became NFL Champions again two years later by virtue of winning Super Bowl V.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gupti said:

 

I'd argue that it does, in fact, have the opposite effect because a logo from the old style of regionalized logos will never be quite as symbolic of the Super Bowl to the layperson as the "system" logos (especially compared to the new wave of "regionalized secondary" logos, which I actually think are very weak and watered-down on their own and are hardly indicative of their region at all). When you see gear that has that silver logo with the Lombardi in the center, that Super Bowl spark is lit automatically and you are now thinking about the Super Bowl without any second thought, which is, indeed, typical of a strong brand. Can the same really be said of the antiquated regional system (or lack thereof) of logos?

 

The truth is that the Super Bowl itself is massive in its ongoing legacy and it doesn't really matter which Super Bowl you've made it to or which city its in (unless if you were the Vikings this season, heh); it only matters that you have, in fact, made it all the way to The Super Bowl™️. That's why Philly fans will be buying a ton of gear with with that silver LII logo.

 

Plus, the silver logo just works better on merch than some purple/yellow/green New Orleans-themed logo, or a bright RWB 'murica themed logo, or that ridiculous Jacksonville logo.

 

People complain about the "system" logos, but honestly the pre-system logos weren't really that creative or that unique.  A lot are just some variation of a RWB "patriotic" theme, some of the super-region-specific ones are tacky, there's some like XLIII that were not "inspired" or prestigious at all (seriously - anyone's going to argue that logo over a system logo?), and some like the "pylon" logo, that don't look  anything like a big-game logo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

The tendency to discount the pre-Super Bowl period strikes me as analogous to the tendency in English football to dismiss the pre-Premier League days.  Now that the Premier League has been around for 25 years, people increasingly talk of records that pertain only to that period.  That has almost become the default, such that, if you want to be clear that you're not referring to the Premier League era only, you have to say "the top-flight record".  This phenomenon of ignoring the pre-Premier League period has led many annoyed observers and pundits to remind their listeners that football was not invented in 1992.

Regarding American football, the 1959 NFL Championship Game between the Giants and the Colts is still considered one of the all-time great games.  In fact, that game was pivotal because it was that game that elevated the NFL's status, and brought it unquestionably into the big time.  Before then, when people thought of football, they thought of college football; and the NFL was an afterthougth.  It's similar to how the MLL has a lower status than college lacrosse.

 

But I can recall that, when I was a kid in the 1970s, the newspapers would publish lists of past championships.  And the lists they published were headed "NFL/NFC Champions" and "AFL/AFC Champions".  So they were considering the conference championships to be on the level of the pre-Super Bowl championships of the two leagues, and the Super Bowl to be a new level of title. 

While this doesn't seem right, there's really no way to categorise the matter cleanly, because the first three Super Bowls were played before the merger, and were contested by the champions of the NFL and the AFL; it wasn't until the fourth Super Bowl that that game determined the NFL's championship.  So the Colts, who lost Super Bowl III, were nevertheless NFL Champions for 1968.  But, then they became NFL Champions again two years later by virtue of winning Super Bowl V.

 

 

 

This is the NFL's own accounting of their history. If you look at their records, even though a team won an "NFL championship", they really don't regard them as NFL Championship Games. This is partly due to how the AFL/NFL merger took place. In order to not completely remove the AFL from everything, they kept the AFL's history. Well, if the NFL took the NFL Championship Game history as the lineage of the Super Bowl, it means the AFL Championship Game is second-fiddle. To 'correct' this they just relabeled the league titles as conference titles.

 

For me, though, I count what they called at the time of the game. The first four Super Bowls were not NFL titles. The Minnesota Vikings were champions of the NFL in the 1968 season. Or the Colts of 67. The first Super Bowl that crowned an NFL title was the Colts-Cowboys, which just so happened to feature TWO former NFL teams against one another. It wasn't until Super Bowl VI that a former AFL team won an NFL title.

 

But, it's the same whitewashing that the NFL made it "Super Bowl I" when that name was nowhere to be found.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

Plus, the silver logo just works better on merch than some purple/yellow/green New Orleans-themed logo, or a bright RWB 'murica themed logo, or that ridiculous Jacksonville logo.

 

People complain about the "system" logos, but honestly the pre-system logos weren't really that creative or that unique.  A lot are just some variation of a RWB "patriotic" theme, some of the super-region-specific ones are tacky, there's some like XLIII that were not "inspired" or prestigious at all (seriously - anyone's going to argue that logo over a system logo?), and some like the "pylon" logo, that don't look  anything like a big-game logo.

Bingo. People are ignoring the fact that "regionalized" logos were only a thing at all for a twelve-year span from 1992 to 2004 (only about a fifth of all Super Bowls!). For the ones before 1992, they simply tried to see how many diffferent ways they could draw the word "Super Bowl" next to some roman numerals, and the ones after 2004 are pretty much the same thing but with some generic football motifs thrown in. The regional logo system was not built to last and the varied-but-generic logos are butt-ugly and poor branding. None of that is coming back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sykotyk said:

The Minnesota Vikings were champions of the NFL in the 1968 season. Or the Colts of 67

 

Just to be clear: the Vikings were NFL champs of the 1969 season, as they played in Super Bowl IV in early 1970.

 

And the Colts were NFL champs of the 1968 season, advancing to Super Bowl III in early 1969.

 

 

3 hours ago, Sykotyk said:

In order to not completely remove the AFL from everything, they kept the AFL's history. Well, if the NFL took the NFL Championship Game history as the lineage of the Super Bowl, it means the AFL Championship Game is second-fiddle. To 'correct' this they just relabeled the league titles as conference titles.

 

Ah, good point. So this relabelling is the price we pay for the recognition of AFL history. There are some "NFL records" that took place in AFL games before the merger.

 

(And I have corrected my error in my previous response regarding when the Super Bowl became the NFL championship.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sykotyk said:

But, it's the same whitewashing that the NFL made it "Super Bowl I" when that name was nowhere to be found.

 

Not sure what you mean - the name was used extensively at the time.  It’s just that the NFL didn't tlike the name, so they downplayed it and avoided using it as long as they could. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

While this doesn't seem right, there's really no way to categorise the matter cleanly, because the first four Super Bowls were played before the merger, and were contested by the champions of the NFL and the AFL; it wasn't until the fifth Super Bowl that that game determined the NFL's championship.  So the Colts, who lost Super Bowl III, were nevertheless NFL Champions for 1968.  But, then they became NFL Champions again two years later by virtue of winning Super Bowl V.

 

I think there’s a very easy way to categorize these - World Champions. 

 

The 1933 title game determined who would be the World Champions.  So did the 1952 game.  And the 2017 game.

 

Thats almost always been between NFL teams, since the NFL has represented the highest level of competition in the sport.  For the few years in which there was a recognized competitor to that claim, the game was played between the champions of the NFL and the AFL.  But when the AFL teams were absorbed into the NFL, the World Championship went back to being determined by the winner of the league.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Just to be clear: the Vikings were NFL champs of the 1969 season, as they played in Super Bowl IV in early 1970.

 

And the Colts were NFL champs of the 1968 season, advancing to Super Bowl III in early 1969.

 

 

 

Ah, good point. So this relabelling is the price we pay for the recognition of AFL history. There are some "NFL records" that took place in AFL games before the merger.

 

(And I have corrected my error in my previous response regarding when the Super Bowl became the NFL championship.)

Ah, my bad. I was looking at years not dates of the games when I was thinking which was what year.

 

As for the relabeling. Yes, once the NFL decided to merge was when the AFL-NFL title game was created. Even though they operated independently and slowly 'morphed' together with a 1970 target for completing the merger, so the NFL did begin to recognize the AFL records (game records) as part of their own. Plus, once the AFL/NFL merger was announced, future expansion teams were placed in the league to help even things out. Not because they necessarily wanted to be in one league or the other. They all knew they'd eventually all be NFL.

 

11 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

Not sure what you mean - the name was used extensively at the time.  It’s just that the NFL didn't tlike the name, so they downplayed it and avoided using it as long as they could. 

But it wasn't official. The day of the game, that wasn't its official name. It would be the same as major college football relabeling all the BCS Championship Games as College Football Playoffs featuring two teams instead of four.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

I think there’s a very easy way to categorize these - World Champions. 

 

The 1933 title game determined who would be the World Champions.  So did the 1952 game.  And the 2017 game.

 

Thats almost always been between NFL teams, since the NFL has represented the highest level of competition in the sport.  For the few years in which there was a recognized competitor to that claim, the game was played between the champions of the NFL and the AFL.  But when the AFL teams were absorbed into the NFL, the World Championship went back to being determined by the winner of the league. 

 

I can see that argument.

 

However, consider the years 1960 through 1965, when the NFL and the AFL competed at comparable levels, and those from 1946 through 1949, when the NFL coexisted with the AAFC. In those years there was no "World Champion", or, as it was termed in years when the NFL was the only high-level league, "champion of pro football".

 

Ultimately no formulation can adequately account for it all. For me the most satisfying way to frame it is to consider the first four Super Bowls as different from the rest, as the only instance where the NFL champions advanced to another playoff round. They represented a level of championship that no longer exists, one that would be possible again only if the NFL were to agree to have its champion (the Super Bowl winner) play against the champion of another league. 

 

In every year other than the seasons of 1966 through 1969, the NFL champions either were the champions of pro football or were of equal status with the champions of another league.

 

So the Packers' victories in the first two Super Bowls are fundamentally different from their victories in two latter-day Super Bowls. And their NFL championship in 1965 (before the Super Bowl) and in 1966 (the season of the first Super Bowl) are equivalent to their victories in the two latter-day Super Bowls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2018 at 3:32 PM, Pharos04 said:

I'm again going to point out that the "Regional" Logos have been much better at differentiating the Super Bowls during this bland and uninspired era of Super Bowl logos.  And that they're being used on the Programs and other merchandise feels like (to me) that the NFL realized how crappy the System Logo has been since XLV when it started (which is the only one without a "Regional" Logo").  These all seem to have a bit of "Local Flair" or differing fonts that don't seem to fit with the System Logo.  These are done in official capacity. Why the two differing fonts?

 

51U17shAj7L.01_SL_.jpg51CaRQnMJjL._SY300_.jpgs-l225.jpgs-l225.jpgs-l225.jpg

 

 

96583_big.jpgsuper-bowl-lii-2018-minneapolis-two-sideff_3038835_full.jpg&w=600

The only other one that didn't was 50 and that was more about the celebration of the game itself rather than the area.

 

These give a lot more life to the game and the location compared to the bland logos that were stale with the very first one.

 

What it also tells me is there are still logo sets with "local" flair being put into it.  This year it's heavily set on the Aurora theme of Blues and Purples.

 

 

 

On 1/24/2018 at 6:19 PM, Dolphins Dynasty said:

I'm actually somewhat content with how they're doing it now. You keep a consistent theme to the Super Bowl logo, but also have a colorful alternate logo for the host city yearly (which is also mainly used on merchandise).

 

I remember the NFL's explanation after the reveal of Super Bowl XLVI (I think it was around that) on how they wanted to create a consistent brand surrounding the event. Some people wrote them off as just being lazy, but after several years with this, it's clear what their intention was.

 

I'll miss the logo style of the early 2000's (and of course I wish one of those logos were associated with MY team <_<), but eh, I also understand the branding point behind all of this. I still, however, think they could've went with a better design for the newer ones. Chrome isn't something that can stand timeless.

I must say, being fortunate enough to travel up to the Twin Cities for the Super Bowl festivities I can say the purples and blues that you mentioned are literally everywhere around town, and it's just beautiful branding. The cool colors inspired by the aurora lights really fit the area pefectly I believe. And even though the Super Bowl logo itself might be a bit boring, I can see the reasoning behind wanting to establish a consistent "brand," and presenting the logo behind all these gorgeous colors really livens it up considerably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.