MLB Changes 2020

[SFGiants58]

When I lived in Milwaukee, not a day went by without me seeing the BiG somewhere. It IS the central component to the fan-desired Brewers brand, whether you like it or not.

[packerfan21396]

5 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

When I lived in Milwaukee, not a day went by without me seeing the BiG somewhere. It IS the central component to the fan-desired Brewers brand, whether you like it or not.

I also live in the Milwaukee area, and I agree.  I'm not disagreeing with the idea that the majority of fans would want the BiG full time.  I'm just of the mindset that the Brewers look like a team called the Brewers when they wear the M wheat.

[itsmb8]

2 hours ago, packerfan21396 said:

None of them are, and like I said it's only a brand because of the success the Brewers had wearing it.  If you take away the context, the ball in glove is extremely generic.

 

Let's be clear, I'm not saying the BiG is a garbage logo, I'm just saying that the M wheat is the better aesthetic for a "Brewers" team.

 

2 hours ago, WSU151 said:

 

Which team do you really think of when you look at all those, though?

 

The BiG might be generic...but the Brewers really made it a brand.

 

If any of those teams are Brewers affiliates (I haven't checked, though the Braves and Marauders certainly aren't, and Mobile is going away)...would it be that bad if they wore it as an alternate?

 

You both are 100% correct.  If any of those teams became a Brewers affiliate, they probably SHOULD use that as a logo because of the classic look the Brewers made it and how trendy it would become right off the bat (pun fully intended).  But if the Brewers never used that BiG logo, it would still fit for any team with the initials MB, hell it would even work as an individual logo for a baseball player initialed MB.  But if the Brew never used the barley M, nobody could ever use it because its obviously for a beer-inspired team.

[MilSox]

2 hours ago, packerfan21396 said:

I don't suppose you think everyone that disagrees with you is "edgy"?  I'm not trying to be contrarian because it's "trendy" or "cool."  I genuinely think the M wheat fits the aesthetic of a team named Brewers better than a generic baseball glove.

 

I addressed this:

Longevity doesn't just make the ball in glove instantly better.  Montreal's M blob is a quite garbage, confusing logo with plenty of problems that manages to stick around as a "great" and popular logo.

 

The only thing that "dates" the current look is the drop shadow and non-MLB block.  But, drop-shadows and proprietary fonts, though rare, are not new to baseball.

No, I just find it amusing that every 2-3 months like clockwork, a new member pops up saying they prefer the Barley M as if it's such a unique and revolutionary point of view, then goes on to name the exact same criticisms wear of the BiG everytime this comes up:

-It's "generic."
-It's "too 70s" or "too 80s."
-It's "only" driven by nostalgia.
-It only has 4 digits and not 5.

...and so forth.  It gets incredibly old after awhile.  Especially when everyone who wants us to toss out the BiG because it's "dated" want us to accept the dated elements of the Barley M.

I'll grant you, had the Brewers gone with something more timeless, perhaps along these lines...

 

...we'd be talking about a BiG shoulder patch and perhaps an alt hat, but nothing more.  But as it is, the Barley M's trappings and dates excesses will render it as obsolete as the Germanic marks once the suspected BiG rebrand takes place.

[itsmb8]

2 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

When I lived in Milwaukee, not a day went by without me seeing the BiG somewhere. It IS the central component to the fan-desired Brewers brand, whether you like it or not.

 

Which is why its difficult to decide if they should adopt it once again full-time.  To me its mostly about merchandising.  One could argue the Brewers would make more with a look so loved by many.  But you could also argue that theyd make more because they would effectively have two brand looks that people would buy from.

[MilSox]

26 minutes ago, itsmb8 said:

 

Which is why its difficult to decide if they should adopt it once again full-time.  To me its mostly about merchandising.  One could argue the Brewers would make more with a look so loved by many.  But you could also argue that theyd make more because they would effectively have two brand looks that people would buy from.

I'm not sure it's actually working out like that, though.  One look into any crowd at Miller Park, and it's obvious which logo is exponentially more popular.  I doubt they would have made a navy version of the BiG if that weren't the case.

[packerfan21396]

9 minutes ago, NicDB said:

No, I just find it amusing that every 2-3 months like clockwork, a new member pops up saying they prefer the Barley M as if it's such a unique and revolutionary point of view, then goes on to name the exact same criticisms

I know my impact on this board is next to none, but I'm not really a new member.  Sure, I didn't join a decade and a half ago, but I also didn't join yesterday.

 

10 minutes ago, NicDB said:

Especially when everyone who wants us to toss out the BiG because it's "dated" want us to accept the dated elements of the Barley M.

I never once said I want the BiG gone...  I actually do like the throwbacks and wouldn't want them to get rid of them.  Also, the name Milwaukee Brewers calls back to over a century of baseball in Milwaukee and the birthplace of the American League, so I wouldn't want anything too modern for the Brewers anyways.

 

22 minutes ago, NicDB said:

But as it is, the Barley M's trappings and dates excesses will render it as obsolete as the Germanic marks once the suspected BiG rebrand takes place.

That's a bold claim considering its colors will remain on the left field stands on 4 of 6 postseason banners and has a history of successful seasons tied to it.  You can't say that about the Germanic era.

[packerfan21396]

2 minutes ago, NicDB said:

I'm not sure it's actually working out like that, though.  One look into any crowd at Miller Park, and it's obvious which logo is exponentially more popular.  I doubt they would have made a navy version of the BiG if that weren't the case.

 

Sure at field level, but I'd say it's more equal than you think.  It's also skewed this time of year because of the navy BiG postseason gear.

[Gothamite]

3 hours ago, packerfan21396 said:

Longevity doesn't just make the ball in glove instantly better. 

 

Nor does it make that awful script M any less terrible.  

[itsmb8]

2 minutes ago, packerfan21396 said:

 

Sure at field level, but I'd say it's more equal than you think.  It's also skewed this time of year because of the navy BiG postseason gear.

And with the amount the team wears its Navy jersey with the M-in-state outline patch, I think the org itself is still big on the current branding.

[Gothamite]

3 minutes ago, packerfan21396 said:

I'd say it's more equal than you think.  It's also skewed this time of year because of the navy BiG postseason gear.

 

And the Brewers have been consistently expanding the use of the BiG.  Even in the most high-profile places. 

 

That’s a pretty strong indicator of their estimation of its popularity.  

[Gothamite]

41 minutes ago, itsmb8 said:

 

Which is why its difficult to decide if they should adopt it once again full-time.  To me its mostly about merchandising.  One could argue the Brewers would make more with a look so loved by many.  But you could also argue that theyd make more because they would effectively have two brand looks that people would buy from.

 

They already have that, with the royal BiG and the navy BiG.  That’s a whole lot of double-dipping, they don’t need the script mess. 

[Gothamite]

3 hours ago, packerfan21396 said:

I also live in the Milwaukee area, and I agree.  I'm not disagreeing with the idea that the majority of fans would want the BiG full time. 

 

On that, at least, we agree.  

[_DietDrPepper_]

I’m sorry but I agree completely with @packerfan21396, and I see why saying that the BiG logo is worse than the M logo because it’s dated is hypocritical (like @NicDB said) but, and I’ve said this before, I’d rather have something that’s 20 years old than 40. Especially when it’s less generic and was around almost twice as long. The current look isn’t perfect, and I’ve been a fan of what they’ve been doing with the navy and yellow. But I’m so disappointed that the BiG will no longer just be the cool throwback to in my opinion, the ugliest set the brewers have worn (not saying it’s bad but that it just happens to be the least good of all of the brewers looks) id much rather them build on the solid identity they have now, use some cool fonts, more modern but timeless pieces and still focus on the barley/wheat/beer company idea rather than a generic, lame, and boring MB monogram

[Lights Out]

Can we all at least agree that there's a better option than the Ball in Glove or the Barley M?

 

[Gothamite]

20 minutes ago, BellaSpurs said:

I’d rather have something that’s 20 years old than 40. Especially when it... was around almost twice as long.

 

Script M:           2000-2019 (20 seasons)

Ball in Glove:    1978-93, 2006-19 (35 seasons)

 

You have it backwards - it’s the BiG that has been around almost twice as long than the script M. 

[packerfan21396]

12 minutes ago, Lights Out said:

Can we all at least agree that there's a better option than the Ball in Glove or the Barley M?

 

Lol quiet you

[MattMill]

I liked their 2012 barrelman set

[MilSox]

1 hour ago, itsmb8 said:

And with the amount the team wears its Navy jersey with the M-in-state outline patch, I think the org itself is still big on the current branding.

I think they wear the navy BiG version just as often.  Especially at home.

[_DietDrPepper_]

42 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

Script M:           2000-2019 (20 seasons)

Ball in Glove:    1978-93, 2006-19 (35 seasons)

 

You have it backwards - it’s the BiG that has been around almost twice as long than the script M. 

That’s on me, I must’ve got the dates mixed up, but my point still stands, I would rather have something that’s 20 years old than 40 years old.

17 minutes ago, MattMill said:

I liked their 2012 barrelman set

This would be great for a rebrand! Why haven’t I seen this?