truepg Posted May 26 Share Posted May 26 12 hours ago, FiddySicks said: I do understand the greater distaste of trying to over force elements to a logo, but I have to disagree here on this one. Were there some forced elements to the last T Wolves logo? Sure. But what exactly were those “forced”elements? Trees! They were trees. It’s half of the team name. And this is a team that has a history of using the tree motif on their uniforms already. There are very few logos that I love to an irrational level, and that logo is one of them (oddly, two of them play in Minnesota, as I feel similar about the Wild logo. Bucs first flag is the other. I digress). The current logo is about as generic of a wolf logo as you could get. It might as well be painted on the court of a middle school gym it’s so generic. I don’t get why that ”hidden” tree in the previous logo is even talked about in all this. To tell you the truth, I don’t get it why they had to disgiuse a tree in the wolf’s neck to begin with, since there are trees in the background anyway, or you could place some literal trees at the front too, and it’s not an element you’d have to hide, it’s literally part of their identity. That being said, the tree is built in there seamlessly and doesn’t break nor disrupt the silhouette or the graphic in any way to be even brought up as an argument in this discussion. If there really is a ”T” in there too (which I never saw or knew of, btw), it is also worked-in with the shape of the ear much better than the lousy way the ear is drawn in the new logo. The previous logo is so much better in quality as an illustration and as a logo/graphic. The yellow eye and neither the red tongue that the primary logo used to have ever bothered me at all and always looked fitting in the identity. 3 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adsarebad Posted May 26 Share Posted May 26 How can Chicago still have their original logo, when teams like the wolves have to have 4-5 different logos and uniforms in the same timespan? I prefer the KG era uni for sure, but the original logo and unis they have used these past 2 games are still way better than the current style they have...... :censored:, i can't even remember all the current uniforms they wear now 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adsarebad Posted May 26 Share Posted May 26 Mavs are a joke as well, boring crap and with a horse with an emo haircut as main logo WTF? - A nice clean uniform with a logo in the style of the bulls and Lakers.. and the color scheme is great, and unique, how many teams in pro sport uses blue, green and white, not many. now take a look at this current garbage 3 1 1 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted May 26 Share Posted May 26 Arched italic serif lettering: just because no one else is doing it doesn't mean you should. Anyway, there's a great Timberwolves logo just under their noses: Much clearer spiritual successor to the original logo, having the text run from about six o'clock to one o'clock would be novel among other primaries. 18 2 1 2 Quote ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eRay Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 On 5/23/2024 at 2:41 PM, shaydre1019 said: Reposting what I put in the other thread bc it felt relevant re: Mavs' identity. I never really thought about it or questioned that the Mavs' only hav blue black and silver on their logos. But their primary uniforms have always had royal, navy, and silver no black. Like BFBS doesn't even exist for them, if anything it's NFNS. I can't believe I never noticed that. Is there a story on the conception of their 2000s rebrand? I'm very curious how they ended up going those routes. Speculation: they wanted to be a little bit like the football team in their city. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lights Out Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 On 5/23/2024 at 3:41 PM, shaydre1019 said: Reposting what I put in the other thread bc it felt relevant re: Mavs' identity. I never really thought about it or questioned that the Mavs' only hav blue black and silver on their logos. But their primary uniforms have always had royal, navy, and silver no black. Like BFBS doesn't even exist for them, if anything it's NFNS. I can't believe I never noticed that. Is there a story on the conception of their 2000s rebrand? I'm very curious how they ended up going those routes. If I recall correctly, the NBA had a policy at the time of not allowing the use of black in logos or uniforms during rebrands anymore. Dallas was able to convince the league to let them use black in their logo, but for whatever reason, they wouldn't budge on the uniforms. So the Mavs settled for navy instead because it was close enough. Ironically, the Sonics' rebrand at around the same time had the opposite situation. They were allowed to use some subtle black trim on the uniforms, but the logos were strictly green and gold. On the other hand, the Suns' redesign from the year before was the same situation as the Mavs: black in the logos, but not the uniforms. Maybe the real policy was that they'd let you have one or the other but not both. 1 Quote POTD: 2/4/12 3/4/12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCall Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 41 minutes ago, Lights Out said: If I recall correctly, the NBA had a policy at the time of not allowing the use of black in logos or uniforms during rebrands anymore. Dallas was able to convince the league to let them use black in their logo, but for whatever reason, they wouldn't budge on the uniforms. So the Mavs settled for navy instead because it was close enough. Ironically, the Sonics' rebrand at around the same time had the opposite situation. They were allowed to use some subtle black trim on the uniforms, but the logos were strictly green and gold. On the other hand, the Suns' redesign from the year before was the same situation as the Mavs: black in the logos, but not the uniforms. Maybe the real policy was that they'd let you have one or the other but not both. I'm not sure if any of this is true. And where did the Sonics have any black trim on their uniforms at the time? Quote https://dribbble.com/MakaioCall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 53 minutes ago, McCall said: I'm not sure if any of this is true. And where did the Sonics have any black trim on their uniforms at the time? There was some thin black trim around the arches. I think it was just to set yellow off from white. It wasn't much, though. As for the no-black rule, we've never seen any real documentation of it, only that there stopped being black alternates and redesigns for a while after Malice, most notably with the Cavaliers wearing navy blue when you would have expected black. 1 Quote ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnclearInitial Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 2 hours ago, The_Admiral said: There was some thin black trim around the arches. I think it was just to set yellow off from white. It wasn't much, though. As for the no-black rule, we've never seen any real documentation of it, only that there stopped being black alternates and redesigns for a while after Malice, most notably with the Cavaliers wearing navy blue when you would have expected black. The Cavs LeBron era identity had navy heavily featured in the logos and as trim on the uniforms, up to having navy numbers at home. This article about the 2000 rebrand and the ones they almost had before Cuban bought the team says the NBA wouldn't allow black uniforms or logos but eventually relented on the logos because the Mavs insisted it looked better than the alternatives. Doesn't say much about the 2000 rebrand other than that though https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/1011612/2019/06/05/how-the-mavericks-passed-on-a-quintessential-90s-look-and-ended-up-with-todays-logo/ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pepis21 Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 I wouldn't deliberate too much on Timberwolves logo, because this isn't a problem. The problem are uniforms which were bad since first day and absolutely, definetly need or even must be changed. First of all trees should comeback not only on unis but also on court. Second thing, wordmarks needs to be a little bit more aggresive, alternate shirt has it going into good direction. Third thing use some green it's your freakin' color! 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SantosD_ Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 teams I would like to see redesigned uniforms next season: Houston Rockets Dallas Mavericks Utah Jazz Minnesota Timberwolves 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adsarebad Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 On 5/27/2024 at 12:43 AM, The_Admiral said: Arched italic serif lettering: just because no one else is doing it doesn't mean you should. Anyway, there's a great Timberwolves logo just under their noses: Much clearer spiritual successor to the original logo, having the text run from about six o'clock to one o'clock would be novel among other primaries. Why the neon green though? The previous green was due to the trees right?, trees like, timber?.... and the wolves who live in the forest full of that timber? Why is neon green better than something that made sense to the city and team name? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truepg Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 2 hours ago, adsarebad said: Why the neon green though? The previous green was due to the trees right?, trees like, timber?.... and the wolves who live in the forest full of that timber? Why is neon green better than something that made sense to the city and team name? It's not. That neon green doesn't make sense for the Timberwolves. And neither do we need any of that added Northern star BS in the identity that they tried to justify that shade of green with.. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kolob Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 3 hours ago, truepg said: It's not. That neon green doesn't make sense for the Timberwolves. And neither do we need any of that added Northern star BS in the identity that they tried to justify that shade of green with.. I don’t mind the North Star imagery. That fits any Minnesota team’s narrative. However, the Wolves current identity feels like Nike’s attempt at replicating the Seahawks identity in the NBA, especially when they broke out the neon green jerseys in the rollout. Personally, the double blue makes the whole set drab, regardless of how much Nike tries to throw the neon green in there to liven it up. 5 Quote "I always wanted to be somebody, but now I realize I should have been more specific." Lily Tomlin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lights Out Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 22 hours ago, The_Admiral said: There was some thin black trim around the arches. I think it was just to set yellow off from white. It wasn't much, though. As for the no-black rule, we've never seen any real documentation of it, only that there stopped being black alternates and redesigns for a while after Malice, most notably with the Cavaliers wearing navy blue when you would have expected black. This was pre-Malice. I don't recall any sort of crackdown on uniform aesthetics after Malice since the Celtics introduced their BFBS alternate the next season and the gold/black Wizards uniform came the season after that. Quote POTD: 2/4/12 3/4/12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truepg Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 19 minutes ago, Lights Out said: This was pre-Malice. I don't recall any sort of crackdown on uniform aesthetics after Malice since the Celtics introduced their BFBS alternate the next season and the gold/black Wizards uniform came the season after that. How is the color black in the uniforms even associated with the Malice? Neither of the teams involved wore black. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 2 hours ago, Lights Out said: I don't recall any sort of crackdown on uniform aesthetics after Malice since the Celtics introduced their BFBS alternate the next season and the gold/black Wizards uniform came the season after that. I don't recall any crackdown, either (I'm on the side that this ban on black uniforms was misconstrued or made up), but it did directly give us the dress code. Quote ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WizFanPolarBear Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 (edited) deleted Edited May 30 by WizFanPolarBear deleted post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFGiants58 Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 1 hour ago, The_Admiral said: I don't recall any crackdown, either (I'm on the side that this ban on black uniforms was misconstrued or made up), but it did directly give us the dress code. And then we spent the early-mid 2010s with guys seeing how close they could get to dressing like this: 2 Quote MLB: Project 32 (Complete), MLB: The Defunct Saga (Complete) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 This was the other go-to look in 2012: 2 1 Quote ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.