Why do people love the orange Bucs?

[Tygers09]

Yes...the San Antonio Gunslingers

[oldschoolvikings]

10 minutes ago, Reyes47 said:

 second i’m 19 so i won’t recognize any uniforms before the 90s.

 

Is that really how that works?  I can recognize lots of things from before I was born.

[Reyes47]

9 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

Is that really how that works?  I can recognize lots of things from before I was born.

you know what i mean

[Reyes47]

short documentary on the bucs uniforms 

 

[Ridleylash]

3 hours ago, Tygers09 said:

If red/ orange cant go together, then how do teams get away with the green/ blue color scheme? It's the same thing, let's not have a double standard here...

Hell, the Flames' retros get away with red touching yellow, which is just about the same damn thing as red/orange. Yet everybody praises the bejeebus out of them because they're amazing jerseys that don't rely on a million accent colors to look stunning when on the field of play. The Bucs don't need pewter, IMO; red/orange/white by itself is simply magnificent. Pewter detracts way more from the Bucs then it does add, especially since they've grown so insistent on making pewter, a very dark color, one of the main colors of the jersey.

 

That looks boring, especially in an outdoor stadium with lots of sunlight like there tends to be in Florida. At least the Bucco Bruce uniforms, for as bright as they are, are eye-catching.

 

6 hours ago, Reyes47 said:

You don’t need to do much to make a lightning bolt intimidating. The raptor torn basketball is badass and their old raptor logo was even better. Bears are old and historic so they’re out but even then their alternate bear logo is intimidating and awesome. Do you want the bucs logo to just be a B?

No, but you're making the opposite equivalence; that a logo that is trying massively too hard to be COOL and BADASS and GRITTY is better then a logo that, with refinement, is much more eye-catching and characterful. Which I don't like; a logo shouldn't be aggressive first, it should be iconic first. And, like it or not, Bucco Bruce is iconic.

 

Sports logos don't need aggression, they don't need intimidation. They just need to be iconic. They need to be the first thing you think of when you think of that team. When you think of the Bruins, you think of the Spoked B. When you think of the Red Wings, you think of the Winged Wheel. When you think of the Packers, you think of the G. When you think of the Bears, you think of the Wishbone C.

 

Quote

Again the orange and red mixed together is straight up ugly and gaudy

Different sport, admittedly, but this is pretty much the exact same color scheme as the Bucco Bruce-era Bucs, and it looks amazing with modern cameras. And look; it's a jersey with red touching yellow! And it doesn't look terrible! It's almost as if red, white and yellow/orange don't need a massive amount of what is essentially brown to actually work together after all.

 

Quote

Yeah because no other team has used a pirate head as the logo.

Yes, and I'm sure that no other professional sports franchise in the Big 4 has ever used a simple flag as a logo, not ever nosirree. Clearly the Bucs are 100% original about using a flag for their logo. /s

 

Quote

Like how is bucco bruce not overly detailed?

Again, that's why it's called modernization. You can easily make Bucco Bruce less complex while keeping the original charm of the logo and it'd be a more evocative brand then just "flag with sword".

 

Quote

And luckily the bucs don’t use it. Pewter looks nothing like brown. And i don’t want to be associated with gaudy orange and red

I mean, it's Florida. Why shouldn't it's outdoor franchises embrace being in the Sunshine State and have colors that are bright, vibrant and also perfectly suit the region? Oranges are an important aspect of Florida's economy, after all; shouldn't a Floridian team embrace orange as a team color, considering the importance it has to the state?

 

But nah, let's go with dark red, pewter and tiny hints of orange and white. Clearly that works for a Floridian team way better then a unique and bright color scheme. /s

 

Quote

And? What about the Broncos?

This just looks loud and gaudy and incredibly 70s.

And the current set looks dull and boring and incredibly late 90s. That's not a compelling argument as to why the current Bucs color scheme is better. Is navy, copper, white and red a better color scheme for the Oilers since royal, orange and white is "loud and gaudy and incredibly 70's" in comparison? No, not at all.

 

Quote

These are clean and concise and truly timeless not like a relic from the 70s. They’re not gaudy and the red and pewter work far better than the obnoxious cream orange and red. 

They're also the perfect encapsulation of late 90's design in a nutshell; ditch anything colorful for dark shades with darker shades to accompany them as an attempt to look serious and mature. Out with royal, in with navy. Out with bright red, in with maroon. Out with golden yellow, in with Vegas gold. Out with bright orange, in with pale copper. Out with kelly green, in with midnight green.

 

Quote

You saying it’s iconic doesn’t make it so 

You saying it's not iconic doesn't make it not so, either. Like it or not, the Bucco Bruce-era Bucs uniforms are the Wild Wings of the NFL; they're definitely garish and absolutely made in that era, but they're so unique that they become beautiful rather then ugly.

[IceCap]

56 minutes ago, Reyes47 said:

i said they were from the 80s. Surprised old school guys here like the unorthodox colors.

You shouldn't assume that someone who likes older aesthetics is doing so because they're old. I'm 32, meaning I was born in 1987. Which means I was the target demographic in the late and mid 90s when a lot of unorthodox designs came out.

Despite that I tend to prefer more traditional designs from the 1960s or earlier.

 

I specifically like the Heat's Vice look because I like vaporwave aesthetics, and 80s Miami goes very well with that.

 

In short? You shouldn't assume so much.

[Reyes47]

Just now, Ice_Cap said:

You shouldn't assume that someone who likes older aesthetics is doing so because they're old. I'm 32, meaning I was born in 1987. Which means I was the target demographic in the late and mid 90s when a lot of unorthodox designs came out.

Despite that I tend to prefer more traditional designs from the 1960s or earlier.

 

I specifically like the Heat's Vice look because I like vaporwave aesthetics, and 80s Miami goes very well with that.

 

In short? You shouldn't assume so much.

i didn’t say you were old

[Ridleylash]

7 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

You shouldn't assume that someone who likes older aesthetics is doing so because they're old. I'm 32, meaning I was born in 1987. Which means I was the target demographic in the late and mid 90s when a lot of unorthodox designs came out.

Despite that I tend to prefer more traditional designs from the 1960s or earlier.

Hell, I'm even younger then that; I'm just about to turn 21 in a few months, which puts me right in the midst of the late 90's-early 00's "everything must be dark" trend. And yet...I simply cannot bring myself to say I actually prefer that type of design. 

 

Sports organizations are all about building iconic brands. Teams using overall dark colors was a fad that died by the tail end of the 2000's, prolly even before then. There's a reason teams like the Oilers that adopted darker colors in that time period have been trending back towards brighter color schemes; it simply looks better. A team that's royal blue, bright orange and white looks much more visually interesting and much more iconic then a team that's navy blue, pale copper, red and white.

[IceCap]

1 hour ago, Lights Out said:

I also think both the '90s logos and the current logos are a big upgrade from the glorified dive bar logo they were using back in the Creamsicle era.

I've seen both you and the OP talk about how the logo sucks, and you know what? I'm going to go further from saying "Bucco Bruce needs to be cleaned up" and just say he works fine as-is.

 

Is he overly-detailed? Yes. Does he look like something you'd find on a dive bar's sign in Tampa? Yes. Are these problems? No.

Bucco Bruce works for some of the same reasons the Dolphins' retro logo works. The grimy unpolished kitsch present in the logos work as snapshots in time of a very specific sort of Florida. One that can be summed up by beachside resort towns, boardwalk dive bars, and cheesy roadside attractions.

And none of these are bad things, mind you. Every place changes, every place evolves, but sometimes it's cool when a team that's been in place for decades (and both the Bucs and Dolphins have been) act as something of a time capsule.

Like how in Toronto, the newer Raptors change their brand to reflect the young, multicultural heartbeat of the city while the much older Maple Leafs retain the old school crest that recalls Toronto's days as the cultural capital of English Canada.

 

Essentially, there is room for multiple types of logos in one city, or even one league. Bucco Bruce (and the old football helmet-wearing dolphin) are allowed to be a bit grungy and represent something not so clean and polished.

 

13 minutes ago, Reyes47 said:

i didn’t say you were old

All I said you shouldn't assume someone's preferences based on assumptions. Don't assume people only like what they grew up with, and don't assume that because someone likes one thing they can't like something else. Like you saying that you were surprised that people who liked "old school" stuff would like the Heat's Vice look. Or that I would like the Bucco Bruce set despite liking grey facemaks.

 

Nothing here is absolute, it's all subjective opinion, which allows for a lot of variety. 

[Reyes47]

24 minutes ago, DastardlyRidleylash said:

Hell, the Flames' retros get away with red touching yellow, which is just about the same damn thing as red/orange. Yet everybody praises the bejeebus out of them because they're amazing jerseys that don't rely on a million accent colors to look stunning when on the field of play.

Yellow and orange really aren’t the same. Everyone praised the bejeebus out of the bucs old uniforms and endlessly mocked their creamsicle jerseys. I agree the modern bucs uniforms are ugly but their previous set was amazing. All they needed to do was clean up some things which they did for the logo but nothing else 

24 minutes ago, DastardlyRidleylash said:

 

The Bucs don't need pewter, IMO; red/orange/white by itself is simply magnificent. Pewter detracts way more from the Bucs then it does add, especially since they've grown so insistent on making pewter, a very dark color, one of the main colors of the jersey.

Pewter is much more unique than red and orange. It adds so much more because no other team uses anything like pewter. Meanwhile more than a few teams use red and orange or dark yellow 

24 minutes ago, DastardlyRidleylash said:

 

That looks boring, especially in an outdoor stadium with lots of sunlight like there tends to be in Florida. At least the Bucco Bruce uniforms, for as bright as they are, are eye-catching.

I’d rather have boring than gaudy which is what i describe the current uniforms as well as the creamsicle. They look worse in modern HD. The previous set were bright enough 

24 minutes ago, DastardlyRidleylash said:

 

No, but you're making the opposite equivalence; that a logo that is trying massively too hard to be COOL and BADASS and GRITTY is better then a logo that, with refinement, is much more eye-catching and characterful. Which I don't like; a logo shouldn't be aggressive first, it should be iconic first. And, like it or not, Bucco Bruce is iconic.

I’d say the buccaneer flag is more iconic since they won a super bowl with it. The only thing iconic about Bucco Bruce is one of the worst records in nfl history and the most disastrous starts ever. Being old doesn’t make something iconic

24 minutes ago, DastardlyRidleylash said:

 

Sports logos don't need aggression, they don't need intimidation. They just need to be iconic. They need to be the first thing you think of when you think of that team. When you think of the Bruins, you think of the Spoked B. When you think of the Red Wings, you think of the Winged Wheel. When you think of the Packers, you think of the G. When you think of the Bears, you think of the Wishbone C.

You’re right but being aggressive doesn’t hurt them either. Lions, Jags, Panthers, Bears alternate and the Tigers old logos all were intimidating/aggressive and all look great 

24 minutes ago, DastardlyRidleylash said:

 

Different sport, admittedly, but this is pretty much the exact same color scheme as the Bucco Bruce-era Bucs, and it looks amazing with modern cameras. And look; it's a jersey with red touching yellow! And it doesn't look terrible! It's almost as if red, white and yellow/orange don't need a massive amount of what is essentially brown to actually work together after all.

yeah but red is the primary unlike the creamsicles. Pewter isn’t brown 

24 minutes ago, DastardlyRidleylash said:

Yes, and I'm sure that no other professional sports franchise in the Big 4 has ever used a simple flag as a logo, not ever nosirree. Clearly the Bucs are 100% original about using a flag for their logo. /s

I didn’t say no logo used flags (BTW the second one is an alternate) but a pirate head is far more common as i’ve shown 

24 minutes ago, DastardlyRidleylash said:

Again, that's why it's called modernization. You can easily make Bucco Bruce less complex while keeping the original charm of the logo and it'd be a more evocative brand then just "flag with sword".

because pirate head No 45 is more evocative than a saber cutting a flag. Find me a logo of a sword cutting a flag and i’ll concede 

24 minutes ago, DastardlyRidleylash said:

 

I mean, it's Florida. Why shouldn't it's outdoor franchises embrace being in the Sunshine State and have colors that are bright, vibrant and also perfectly suit the region? Oranges are an important aspect of Florida's economy, after all; shouldn't a Floridian team embrace orange as a team color, considering the importance it has to the state?

You seem to know more about florida than a native floridian. Peaches are important to Georgia should they start dressing up like peaches? Rats are everywhere in NYC should the Jets change their name to the NY Rats? The red is bright enough for florida and it’s not like the previous uniforms nuked orange from their color scheme so they were still colorful 

24 minutes ago, DastardlyRidleylash said:

 

But nah, let's go with dark red, pewter and tiny hints of orange and white. Clearly that works for a Floridian team way better then a unique and bright color scheme. /s

The current red is bright enough. Admittedly the 00s uniforms could’ve been a tad brighter but they look fine to me. Dark red is certainly an overstatement 

24 minutes ago, DastardlyRidleylash said:

 

And the current set looks dull and boring and incredibly late 90s. That's not a compelling argument as to why the current Bucs color scheme is better. Is navy, copper, white and red a better color scheme for the Oilers since royal, orange and white is "loud and gaudy and incredibly 70's" in comparison? No, not at all.

The current set was designed in 2013. Maybe those colors would be better since oil is black and copper gives a feeling of the earth but the oilers are fine. Why is it ok for 70-80s uniforms to look outdated but not the 90s onwards? Was everything better before the 90s?

24 minutes ago, DastardlyRidleylash said:

 

They're also the perfect encapsulation of late 90's design in a nutshell; ditch anything colorful for dark shades with darker shades to accompany them as an attempt to look serious and mature. Out with royal, in with navy. Out with bright red, in with maroon. Out with golden yellow, in with Vegas gold. Out with bright orange, in with pale copper. Out with kelly green, in with midnight green.

Good. Creamsicle orange is obnoxious and a sign of the 70s. Red was plenty bright hardly maroon especially now. 

24 minutes ago, DastardlyRidleylash said:

 

You saying it's not iconic doesn't make it not so, either. Like it or not, the Bucco Bruce-era Bucs uniforms are the Wild Wings of the NFL; they're definitely garish and absolutely made in that era, but they're so unique that they become beautiful rather then ugly.

Do you know how many winning season the bucs had with the cream in 20 years? 4 as well as a 26 game losing streak the longest in nfl history and third in sports history. How many notable players from the orange era besides Lee Roy? And no Young, Vinng and Doug Williams don’t count. Meanwhile during the red era we have Warren Sapp, Derek Brooks, John Lynch, Mike Alstott and plenty more. The seahawks lime green uniforms are unique do you think they’re beautiful? And again a super bowl victory. Which do you think is more iconic? 0-26 or a Lombardi?

[Reyes47]

47 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

Bucco Bruce works for some of the same reasons the Dolphins' retro logo works. The grimy unpolished kitsch present in the logos work as snapshots in time of a very specific sort of Florida. One that can be summed up by beachside resort towns, boardwalk dive bars, and cheesy roadside attractions.

And none of these are bad things, mind you. Every place changes, every place evolves, but sometimes it's cool when a team that's been in place for decades (and both the Bucs and Dolphins have been) act as something of a time capsule.

but why can’t modern logos do the same? You think in 50 years people will look back on current ‘trendy’ uniforms and logos and think of how great they are? And why is it bad for the 90s but not for the 70-80s? How do you know this isn’t a trend either? We can’t know what a decade will be defined by until decades later. the 2010s is about to close what will the 10s be defined by exactly?

[IceCap]

2 minutes ago, Reyes47 said:

but why can’t modern logos do the same? You think in 50 years people will look back on current ‘trendy’ uniforms and logos and think of how great they are? And why is it bad for the 90s but not for the 70-80s? How do you know this isn’t a trend either? We can’t know what a decade will be defined by until decades later. the 2010s is about to close what will the 10s be defined by exactly?

I have no idea what you're asking. You keep piling assumptions and hypotheticals onto each other.

[Reyes47]

12 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

I have no idea what you're asking. You keep piling assumptions and hypotheticals onto each other.

you’re insisting that it’s ok for things from the 70s and 80s to be outdated and should be preserved but why can’t the same be said for the 90s? Were all uniforms and logos perfect before the 90s? You admit the Bucs creamsicles jerseys are dated and not timeless but that is Ok yet everything past the 80s is not?

Quote

One that can be summed up by beachside resort towns, boardwalk dive bars, and cheesy roadside attractions.

And none of these are bad things, mind you. Every place changes, every place evolves, but sometimes it's cool when a team that's been in place for decades (and both the Bucs and Dolphins have been) act as something of a time capsule.

so why can’t the 00s bucs uniforms and logo be a time capsule?

[IceCap]

1 hour ago, Reyes47 said:

you’re insisting that it’s ok for things from the 70s and 80s to be outdated and should be preserved but why can’t the same be said for the 90s? Were all uniforms and logos perfect before the 90s? You admit the Bucs creamsicles jerseys are dated and not timeless but that is Ok yet everything past the 80s is not?

Again, you're assuming A LOT here, and not all of it is accurate.

 

1 hour ago, Reyes47 said:

so why can’t the 00s bucs uniforms and logo be a time capsule?

Ah, it we finally get to the point!

Anyway they can be, but I don't feel like the 1997-2013 set really captures the spirit of a "place" like the Creamsicles do. The world, especially since the 90s, has been growing closer and more interconnected. This isn't a BAD thing, but it does mean that local flavour is often in danger at being lost. 

Make no mistake. The 1997-2013 set is an excellent football uniform. I would love it if the team went back to it. That being said? I feel like it could be a uniform for a team in a variety of locales. The Creamsicles, for better or worse, feel like they could only be for a team from Tampa.

 

Anyway I'm bowing out. You asked why people like the Creamsicles. They answered. I was happy to provide my $0.02 but at this point? I feel like we're just going to talk in circles. I know why you dislike the Creamsicles, you know why I like them. Let's agree to disagree

[Lights Out]

15 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

Is he overly-detailed? Yes. Does he look like something you'd find on a dive bar's sign in Tampa? Yes. Are these problems? No.

 

They aren't necessarily a problem in a vacuum, but I just don't think it works well for a sports team. It also doesn't help matters that the logo is associated with historic loserdom on the field.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

20 hours ago, Tygers09 said:

The "Creamsicle" uniforms the Buccaneers use to wear made them stand out. Are the uniforms unique? Yes. This also makes them subject to ridicule and criticism, but when you mention the Buccaneers, these uniforms were the first thing that come to mind.

 

The ridicule was a phenomenon of the team's first years, particularly the first season when the team won only two games.  But that all ended when the Bucs made the 1979 NFC Championship Game and were one win from the Super Bowl.  

 

Incidentally, that game goes down as the most beautiful uni matchup in the history of NFL playoffs.

 

    

 

 

This is the Bucs' signature look, just as the Rams uniform pictured is that team's signature look.  This is in the category of the Padres and brown, just so damn obvious.

 

 

[Reyes47]

1 hour ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

This is the Bucs' signature look, just as the Rams uniform pictured is that team's signature look.  This is in the category of the Padres and brown, just so damn obvious.

So losing the NFC Championship is more iconic than winning the lombardi? It should’ve been 2 super bowls if the refs called that catch and catch. Sorry but i consider super bowl champions as more prestigious and iconic than one decent playoff run in 20 years of mediocrity. I’d say Rams v Bucs in 1999 and Bucs vs Raiders in 2003 were better looking 

 

Btw didn’t you criticize the Pewter for looking like brown? (maybe that was someone else) Yet the padres can wear brown and mustard and look amazing?

[Sport]

Don't start a thread with a loaded question and then argue when the answers aren't to your liking. That's the lesson of this thread. 

 

 

Having recently spent some time redoing Bucco Bruce I've been thinking a lot about the Buccaneers and their uniforms. A few things:

1. the original Bucco Bruce logo is ROUGH and would need some work to give it a facelift to make it a usable full-time logo in 2020. I did a version you can find somewhere on this website if you'd like. I won't post it here.

 

2. In 1996 much of the charm and love for the Bucco Bruce uniforms had been soiled by nearly constant losing, and we'd entered a period where bright colors were considered uncool and didn't sell as much merch, which was becoming a much more important part of uniform design. It made sense to switch the uniforms to something that would help reinvent the brand, change the culture inside the team, give it new life, give a little "tougher" and less "not tough" and less "bright" image and other euphemisms that were being thrown around at the time and in this very thread too. When the Bucs changed to what would become their super bowl winning uniforms I don't remember any backlash to them. I think the prevailing attitude was "finally, they got some cooler, more manly looking uniforms." I also think the later era unis with the orange pants combined with orange socks wasn't the best way to use the colors. 

 

3. I think it's with the benefit of time, a changed perception of bright colors in menswear both in sport and the larger fashion world, that the team's been a dumptruck on the field for over a decade, and as of a few years ago took the good Super Bowl uniforms and made them into the current hideous iteration - that people are looking at Bucco Bruce and the Bucco Bruce uniforms and are saying "you know, they actually had something there."

 

 

[IceCap]

1 hour ago, Lights Out said:

 

They aren't necessarily a problem in a vacuum, but I just don't think it works well for a sports team.

See, I don't think a sports team's brand has to be so narrowly defined. 

Now don't get me wrong- I see where you're coming from. I used to think a lot of these older logos needed to be cleaned up, touched up. That being a major league sports team meant having a very polished logo. And I still hold that opinion for some logos. In the NFL? Cardinals upgraded their logo with a nice facelift, and Pat the Patriot is just rough to look at. He needs some work if he's going to return in a full-time capacity. 

 

It's a thirty-two team league though. There's room there for variety. There's room there for kitsch and whimsy. There's room for a bit of roughness. 

@McCarthy did a wonderful update of Bucco Bruce, but I still think the original can work in its own way. 

[Hat Boy]