Bill81361

Report: Cleveland Indians to Drop Name

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Digby said:

Who decides what "looks good" means, and what happens when reasonable people disagree on it?

 

In a perfect world, I would decide what looks good and what doesn't. I would not consider it reasonable to disagree with me. Punishment would be severe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, infrared41 said:

 

In a perfect world, I decide what looks good and what doesn't. I would not consider it reasonable to disagree with me. Punishment would be severe.

 

We're more alike than you'll ever admit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BBTV said:

 

We're more alike than you'll ever admit.

 

That's the nicest thing you've ever said to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, infrared41 said:

 

That set will always be my idea of what a committee meeting would look like if it were a football uniform - good ideas ruined by too many people having input.

 

Which is pretty much my opinion on the Titans' current look...

 

17 hours ago, CS85 said:

Welp, this was about the Cleveland *Indians.

 

Karna for all the Clevejacking of other threads in the past? 😄

 

10 hours ago, Digby said:

 

Oh boy. Hard disagree. Does Bucco Bruce have that reputation just because that many people hate creamsicles? What is the difference between brutally-dated 1995 Patriots and brutally-dated 2001 Patriots? Why are brand changes so often hitched to big personnel shifts or new stadia or city moves? Who decides what "looks good" means, and what happens when reasonable people disagree on it?

 

Not really. Coming from one who grew up a fan of the Bucs from the late '80s onwards...Bucco Bruce has that reputation because from '84 to '93, the Bucs were not just bad--they were comically bad. (And yet the Colts might've been the one team worse than then for much of that stretch--but that's a different issue.) There's a reason they came to be named the "Yuccaneers". That stench, plus the stench of 0-26, plus the super-bright orange, plus a winking pirate for a team already dubbed "soft", plus new ownership, is what ultimately did Bruce in.

 

To answer the last few questions, I submit this--which was the very reason the Buccaneers did it: culture change. The Bucs are probably the best example of a full-scale rebrand coinciding with a full-scale culture change. But that stuff is ultimately decided by whoever signs the checks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:


There’ll be flair-ups during the season, undoubtedly. Heck, if the team starts wearing their navy jersey (the “Cleveland” jersey) for every home game, we’ll know something is very up.

Last year, it was because the players acknowledged that Indians was not considered a good name going forward. They publicly announced that for the first game of the year. 

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/indians-wear-road-uniforms-with-cleveland-on-the-chest-on-opening-day-as-team-name-discussions-continue/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, tBBP said:

 

Not really. Coming from one who grew up a fan of the Bucs from the late '80s onwards...Bucco Bruce has that reputation because from '84 to '93, the Bucs were not just bad--they were comically bad. (And yet the Colts might've been the one team worse than then for much of that stretch--but that's a different issue.) There's a reason they came to be named the "Yuccaneers". That stench, plus the stench of 0-26, plus the super-bright orange, plus a winking pirate for a team already dubbed "soft", plus new ownership, is what ultimately did Bruce in.

 

To answer the last few questions, I submit this--which was the very reason the Buccaneers did it: culture change. The Bucs are probably the best example of a full-scale rebrand coinciding with a full-scale culture change. But that stuff is ultimately decided by whoever signs the checks. 

 

I think we agree, though. I think it's silly to consider brands strictly on their aesthetic merits, when those are subjective and they come and go, and more importantly the very nature of branding is that the aesthetics mean something.

 

If it was just about aesthetics than every team would converge on the same platonic ideal of what a team looks like. (MLS seems to be trying this, though.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, infrared41 said:

 

In a perfect world, I would decide what looks good and what doesn't. I would not consider it reasonable to disagree with me. Punishment would be severe.

I'm sensing a power struggle within the Majestic XII.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, McCall said:

I'm sensing a power struggle within the Majestic XII.

Great. Now we have to keep all 27 of you apart again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, people always make fun of the Buccaneers' old logo for looking gay, but no one ever says anything was gay about the rainbow Nuggets. Had to be the losing.

Share this post


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

You know, people always make fun of the Buccaneers' old logo for looking gay, but no one ever says anything was gay about the rainbow Nuggets. Had to be the losing.

Always the losing part, huh? What the hell happen with the good old fashioned 'rainbows=gays' mindset? I guess being 'gay' equates to having a terrible season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Hey the post I was writing when the thread was briefly locked remained intact!)

 

On 12/29/2020 at 3:12 PM, infrared41 said:

 

It was a few unnecessary elements away from being a very solid look. It wasn't terrible, there was just too much going on with it.

I also think it got very stale and if the Pats had just been another team, they'd have gone away more quickly. The jerseys, anyway. 

 

On 12/29/2020 at 2:39 PM, the admiral said:

I think a winning/losing legacy can swing middle-of-the-pack uniforms one way or the other, but has no effect on the extremes. Case in point, the Patriots, whose 2000-2019 uniforms were never great in and of themselves, but the run they had in them makes me look more favorably upon them such that their more traditional uniforms now look like a clear downgrade. Conversely, the mid-'90s Brewers had uniforms that were not the best but not without merit, but the team's incompetence of that era stains them to the point that there's no real appetite for any throwbacks to that stuff outside of completists and contrarians. 

 

This is where I tend to lean. I agree with Infrared that more often than not "good is good" and "bad is bad." And certainly, if a classic team like the Dodgers goes on an abysmal run, we're not likely looking at an overhaul.

 

But people are going to associate the creamsicle Bucs with historic ineptitude. The above-mentioned Brewers with being forgettable. And while the Broncos had some success in the Orange Crush, the Super Bowl results in those vs. the drab blues is going to come into play.  I suppose the question is "should it?"  I can go both ways. Had the Jags won five Super Bowls in their two-toned helmet, I'd still have said they need to change it the minute the league allows. But as much as I love the creamsicle Bucs and the 1990s Brewers, changing back to those would seem odd for on-the-field reasons. The Broncos? Well, their orange crush uniform looks better and they were not exactly an irrelevant team, so I do think those could fly.

 

In the 1990s both the Penguins and Rockets changing it up so quickly after back-to-back titles seemed wrong to me. (Of course they were both downgrades and the Rockets made a particularly awful choice).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/29/2020 at 8:18 PM, BBTV said:

 

We're more alike than you'll ever admit.


Before I saw who posted that, I was positive it was coming from you 😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/30/2020 at 2:21 PM, Digby said:

 

I think we agree, though. I think it's silly to consider brands strictly on their aesthetic merits, when those are subjective and they come and go, and more importantly the very nature of branding is that the aesthetics mean something.

 

If it was just about aesthetics than every team would converge on the same platonic ideal of what a team looks like. (MLS seems to be trying this, though.)


I like this take. It’s why you should always have a good idea to back up good aesthetics, because that’s what ultimately separates one identity from another.
 

Teams are always going to pick up on branding trends and copy each other. They see the look, they see the traffic, and they see the success, then they want to emulate it because they think the look begets the success, but that’s rarely true. it’s the idea behind those aesthetics, and more importantly, the work done by a team’s own creative department, that often makes the biggest difference in whether that success is realized (talking independently of on-field success right now, because we all know that’s the biggest factor).

 

Anyway, yeah. Start with ideas. It’s never a bad thing to use intellectual substance to guide the work, even if it might ultimately be lost on some (or even most) fans. Different people understand, interpret, and engage with design in different ways, and you’re only going to broaden that appeal by building a stronger, more intelligent identity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/27/2020 at 4:06 PM, SFGiants58 said:


Fred Durst did direct the closest thing we’ll get to a Chris-Chan biopic.

 

spacer.png

was listening to Movie Sign with the Mads (Trace Beaulieu and Frank Conniff from MST3k) and they reviewed that film (along with Carrie too) and Frank said in a later episode that this was the opening line:

 

Share this post


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

Cleveland Asthma Pimps feels like a winner.


They sound terrible on the basepaths 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/30/2020 at 8:16 PM, the admiral said:

You know, people always make fun of the Buccaneers' old logo for looking gay, but no one ever says anything was gay about the rainbow Nuggets. Had to be the losing.

 

To me, Bucco Bruce always looked like it would be the logo of one of those awful dive bars you see on Bar Rescue. And not even one of the success stories - one of the ones where the owners immediately revert back to their old failed business model as soon as Jon Taffer leaves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/9/2021 at 7:47 PM, DNAsports said:


To save a click,

spacer.png

How about Cleveland Pumpkins? There would be some brand unification with the Browns, whose helmets look like pumpkins. 

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.