rainmaker17 Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 http://www.uslsoccer.com/home/222914.htmlNot sure what I think. I guess the name is clever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrySmalls Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 http://www.uslsoccer.com/home/222914.htmlNot sure what I think. I guess the name is clever.Colorful logo and potentially ties in the Hispanic culture to the area but the soccerball is quite plain. Overall grade, A-. given that this is the USL and they have a lot of terrible logos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kid_17 Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 Well I'm insulted.Seriously though, thats a bad logo, its like they tried to appeal to both Texans and Mexicans (and only Mexicans as the Aztec Empire was entirely in Mexico) and to do that they literally took symbols of Texas (the flag and Astros star) and Mexico (the Pyramid) and clip-arted them together. Then they try to get hip and call the team "aztex" instead of "aztecs" and to further things they use about six different colors. Oh and the soccer ball really is horrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omnibus Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 Amen to above and i HATE alliteration (Cleveland Cavaliers, Seattle Sonics, Jacksonville Jaguires) Those teams never seem to sound right or have anything to do with the actual location (save Seattle) and seems forced. And again the Aztecs never made it that far north. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrySmalls Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 Amen to above and i HATE alliteration (Cleveland Cavaliers, Seattle Sonics, Jacksonville Jaguires) Those teams never seem to sound right or have anything to do with the actual location (save Seattle) and seems forced. And again the Aztecs never made it that far north.I repent, I like the Stoke City logo better than the AzTeX crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckymack Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 Yeah, that whole package stinks. I hate blatant misspellings like that. Actually, I hate ALL misspellings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jigga Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 Pure :censored:...plain and simple. Nice colors though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rainmaker17 Posted January 24, 2008 Author Share Posted January 24, 2008 And the jersey.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJM Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 And the jersey....Ah...when I thought the identity couldn't get worse, they release the jersey. Simply horrible. Looks like a Chivas reject jersey. Everything sucks about this...the colors, the name, the jersey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leopard88 Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 Aztecs.Texas.AzTEX.I get it. I don't like because it is incredibly contrived and reflects a culture that was never indigenous to Texas, but I get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordie_delini Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 bad name, bad logo, bad kit. back to the drawing boards, boys. if they rejected houston 1836, why isn't there more :censored:e being flung over this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illwauk Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 Is naming a team from Texas the Aztecs/Aztex really all that different from a team in Minnesota calling itself the Vikings?Still not sure if I think the name is creative as hell or reeks of pandering... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rams80 Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 bad name, bad logo, bad kit. back to the drawing boards, boys. if they rejected houston 1836, why isn't there more :censored:e being flung over this?Because this is a lower division soccer team, and most of Austin doesn't give a rat's arse about non-University of Texas sports reportedly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powersurge Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 Aztecs.Texas.AzTEX.I get it. I don't like because it is incredibly contrived and reflects a culture that was never indigenous to Texas, but I get it.Congratulations! You just walked yourself through the exact same FIVE second process the marketing team went through while creating this identity. The only difference is that little thing called 'sensibility' that was evident in your last sentence. If THEY had some sensibility, then maybe they would have canned this crappy idea and started over completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-kj Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 Looks like a Chivas reject jersey.Close, but no cigar. The red and white stripes are the scheme of Stoke City FC, of the Football League Championship in England, the parent club of this new team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBAD Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 whats an aztex?is that a displaced arizonian now living in texas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrySmalls Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 Sorry to bring this up from earlier in the year but, the Aztex have a new logo:http://usl1.uslsoccer.com/home/289033.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raysox Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 the new logo is MUCH better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leopard88 Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 the new logo is MUCH betterSadly, it is . . . . . . despite boring copperplate (or something damn close) text, a fairly uninspired bottom half of the crest and an out-of-place beveled gold star . . . and a silly, contrived name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfoster Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 I get it. I don't like because it is incredibly contrived and reflects a culture that was never indigenous to Texas, but I get it.Actually, Comanches are related to Aztecs. They come from the same language family.Is naming a team from Texas the Aztecs/Aztex really all that different from a team in Minnesota calling itself the Vikings?Not really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.