NFL 2010-2011

[IceCap]

I get that, but given the limited use the Conference logos see, I have to believe that the stars outside the A (AFL style) wouldn't have been a problem at all.

It doesn't even seem like the decision to place the stars in the A was made for practical purposes. The NFL's over-hyper OCD just wanted it to mimic the NFC logo. Yet it fails in that because the different angles of the stars is really glaring when seen side by side. Plus, with all the stars on one side, it looks really unbalanced. So yeah, downgrade on all fronts to me.

But honestly, when are they ever seen side by side, except in the style guide (as seen above). I can't really think of a good example.

Given that they butchered a fantastic AFL homage to make the AFC logo like the NFC mark, the difference in angles of the stars is really striking. They went for consistency, and came up short.

Again, I don't see how the stars on the outside of the A but on the inside of the N was some big problem that HAD to be rectified. They could have used the four stars and new font with the same basic AFC design, and it would have been consistent enough to work.

[Quillz]

I get that, but given the limited use the Conference logos see, I have to believe that the stars outside the A (AFL style) wouldn't have been a problem at all.

It doesn't even seem like the decision to place the stars in the A was made for practical purposes. The NFL's over-hyper OCD just wanted it to mimic the NFC logo. Yet it fails in that because the different angles of the stars is really glaring when seen side by side. Plus, with all the stars on one side, it looks really unbalanced. So yeah, downgrade on all fronts to me.

But honestly, when are they ever seen side by side, except in the style guide (as seen above). I can't really think of a good example.

Given that they butchered a fantastic AFL homage to make the AFC logo like the NFC mark, the difference in angles of the stars is really striking. They went for consistency, and came up short.

Again, I don't see how the stars on the outside of the A but on the inside of the N was some big problem that HAD to be rectified. They could have used the four stars and new font with the same basic AFC design, and it would have been consistent enough to work.

Probably the person who designed the AFC logo wasn't around during the AFL days. Or maybe the NFL feels the subtle reference to the AFL just wasn't that important any more.

I think it's going to be an issue where most people won't even care, because there were probably a good amount of people who didn't know the old AFC logo was a reference to the AFL in the first place. But I do agree that I would have liked to at least see a concept logo that featured four stars outside the letter, kind of like the original AFC logo.

[tohasbo]

I'm not sure how many people are aware of this, but this is also an official Browns' secondary mark:

It's labeled as a "vintage" logo, and there are four different variations of it...different outlines, reversal of colors, etc. Note the darker "Burnt Orange" and Tan as well.

And, the "Brownie" logo is also considered a "vintage" mark. Different variations include Tan or no Tan:

ColorWerx, would you mind re-posting these images in question?

[TruColor]

ColorWerx, would you mind re-posting these images in question?

Hmmm...I must have renamed them - sorry:

[tohasbo]

Thank you sir

and yeah they are nice as vintage logos. The doozy here is all of the different types of secondary/wordmark logos the Browns have. It's nuts. Are those 8 posted? I know you have one of them here...

[BigEd76]

I know the Eagles went full-green shortly after making the switch to their current color scheme. I believe it was a Monday night game against the Cowboys.

They went all green against the Redskins once, and at least one other time (I think against the 49ers.) IIRC, both games were the final home regular-season games of those seasons. Not sure if they wore it a third time, but I def don't recall them playing Dallas in all green.

It was the MNF game in November 1997 vs the 49ers that Eagles fans remember as the "flaregun game"...

[IceCap]

I get that, but given the limited use the Conference logos see, I have to believe that the stars outside the A (AFL style) wouldn't have been a problem at all.

It doesn't even seem like the decision to place the stars in the A was made for practical purposes. The NFL's over-hyper OCD just wanted it to mimic the NFC logo. Yet it fails in that because the different angles of the stars is really glaring when seen side by side. Plus, with all the stars on one side, it looks really unbalanced. So yeah, downgrade on all fronts to me.

But honestly, when are they ever seen side by side, except in the style guide (as seen above). I can't really think of a good example.

Given that they butchered a fantastic AFL homage to make the AFC logo like the NFC mark, the difference in angles of the stars is really striking. They went for consistency, and came up short.

Again, I don't see how the stars on the outside of the A but on the inside of the N was some big problem that HAD to be rectified. They could have used the four stars and new font with the same basic AFC design, and it would have been consistent enough to work.

Probably the person who designed the AFC logo wasn't around during the AFL days. Or maybe the NFL feels the subtle reference to the AFL just wasn't that important any more.

Right after a season long "HEY WASN'T THE AFL GREAT?" celebration that left even avid defenders of throwbacks to say enough is enough? I doubt it. I think that when push came to shove the NFL's hyper-active OCD came into play and they decided to lose a nice, subtle, homage to the league that was the forerunner to the AFC in favour of something that was needlessly consistent.

Now I love consistency. Had they changed the font of the A to the new font and cut the stars down from 6 to 4, but kept them on the outside, that would be fine. My problem is when a party is so obsessed with consistency that they ruin an otherwise fine logo. This had everything to do with the NFL's desire to STANDARDIZE EVERYTHING EVAR!

I think it's going to be an issue where most people won't even care, because there were probably a good amount of people who didn't know the old AFC logo was a reference to the AFL in the first place. But I do agree that I would have liked to at least see a concept logo that featured four stars outside the letter, kind of like the original AFC logo.

Yes, most people won't care, or even notice the Conference logos are new unless it's pointed out to them. This, however, is a community where discussions concerning the width of sock stripes and the shrinking of helmet logos by 4% are considered legitimate topics of discussion. So given that, I think the criticisms I made concerning the new AFC logo are valid.

[rentz]

So... I've been following this thread for a while, but haven't seen anything regarding new jerseys (besides new alts/throwbacks for a couple of teams)

Does anyone know if any teams are going to get new jerseys next year? It seems like we knew about the 49ers, Jags and Lions much earlier last year.

Also, I agree with some about the AFC/NFC logos. I don't think they are an improvement, but they are growing on me. My initial reaction was terror but I think they look pretty nice (especially now that I see them in a pic that isnt HUGE like the first one). I think the main problem is that the diagonal-star thing just works better with the N than the A, and trying to shoehorn the stars into the A just looks forced. There's no reason they couldn't have used the new font with the stars on the outside.

[Gothamite]

Not aware of any new looks, except the Packers' new blue throwback alternate.

And based on Packers president Mark Murphy's comments, the designs aren't finalized and the NFL's deadline hasn't yet passed.

[BBTV]

There are 8 (?) teams in the AFC who were in the AFL. If that number is right, then there are 8 that weren't. Of the ones that weren't, at least two were part of the NFL during the AFL days (and therefore trying to bury the league), and the rest would have been added after the AFL's demise. It's time to move on. Have AFL throwback weekend every few years. There's nothing wrong with consistency. I'm not a fan of the way the stars were done, but making the logos similar is fine with me.

*not sure about my numbers, so I'm not stating that as fact.

[The_Admiral]

Ten AFL teams: the original eight and the expansion Bengals and Dolphins, plus the shifted Colts/Steelers/Browns, then the NFL expansion Ravens/Jaguars/Texans (the latter being a return to an AFL town). Consistency's fine, but an A with an arc of stars didn't stop being a good design after 50 years, so what's the point?

[illwauk]

Not aware of any new looks, except the Packers' new blue throwback alternate.

And based on Packers president Mark Murphy's comments, the designs aren't finalized and the NFL's deadline hasn't yet passed.

[The_Admiral]

I'm a little iffy about the Green & Gold stepping away from the, well, the green and gold (as I am with any team so tied to its colors), but if they're going all-out old-timey with these throwbacks, it could be a sweet one-off for Thanksgiving or something.

[rams80]

So are the Rams putting the "Tony Banks Throwbacks" away, or are they still planning on paying homage to those teams next season?

[tohasbo]

So are the Rams putting the "Tony Banks Throwbacks" away, or are they still planning on paying homage to those teams next season?

I THINK it was only for the 2009 season. I could be wrong here....

[andrewharrington]

I get that, but given the limited use the Conference logos see, I have to believe that the stars outside the A (AFL style) wouldn't have been a problem at all.

It doesn't even seem like the decision to place the stars in the A was made for practical purposes. The NFL's over-hyper OCD just wanted it to mimic the NFC logo. Yet it fails in that because the different angles of the stars is really glaring when seen side by side. Plus, with all the stars on one side, it looks really unbalanced. So yeah, downgrade on all fronts to me.

But honestly, when are they ever seen side by side, except in the style guide (as seen above). I can't really think of a good example.

Sometimes during the playoffs, you'll see networks that display a playoff bracket, with a conference logo at the top of each bracket. NFL's own website also has all the teams in a long horizontal list, with the conference logos preceding each grouping of 16 teams.

Oh... yeah. You mean that graphic where the conference logos are so small that the difference in the angle of the stars will be nearly invisible to the naked eye. I just don't see why they have to be judged against each other. Two logos each representing a group of member organizations. Who cares if the angle of the A is different. It doesn't take anything away from the A itself. Could it have been done better? Sure, but operating within their own constraints, this is about as good as it could have been. Maybe I'm too open minded.

[Quillz]

I get that, but given the limited use the Conference logos see, I have to believe that the stars outside the A (AFL style) wouldn't have been a problem at all.

It doesn't even seem like the decision to place the stars in the A was made for practical purposes. The NFL's over-hyper OCD just wanted it to mimic the NFC logo. Yet it fails in that because the different angles of the stars is really glaring when seen side by side. Plus, with all the stars on one side, it looks really unbalanced. So yeah, downgrade on all fronts to me.

But honestly, when are they ever seen side by side, except in the style guide (as seen above). I can't really think of a good example.

Sometimes during the playoffs, you'll see networks that display a playoff bracket, with a conference logo at the top of each bracket. NFL's own website also has all the teams in a long horizontal list, with the conference logos preceding each grouping of 16 teams.

Oh... yeah. You mean that graphic where the conference logos are so small that the difference in the angle of the stars will be nearly invisible to the naked eye. I just don't see why they have to be judged against each other. Two logos each representing a group of member organizations. Who cares if the angle of the A is different. It doesn't take anything away from the A itself. Could it have been done better? Sure, but operating within their own constraints, this is about as good as it could have been. Maybe I'm too open minded.

No, you're not. The logos have grown on me, and now I quite like them a lot. There were many ways to approach the challenge of updating the older AFC logo. The solution the NFL came up with is going to be liked by some and vilified by others. But I think in the end, most people will just forget what the big deal was in the first place after a season or two.

I recall there was similar discussion when the 2008 season brought the new NFL shield... Some really hated it, others really liked it. Perhaps what the NFL should have done was introduced both the new shield and new conference logos together, rather than have two seasons between them.

[IceCap]

Maybe I'm too open minded.

Sheesh. Here we go. The underhanded "I'm better because of my opinion" stance. Was that needed? Really?

I get that, but given the limited use the Conference logos see, I have to believe that the stars outside the A (AFL style) wouldn't have been a problem at all.

It doesn't even seem like the decision to place the stars in the A was made for practical purposes. The NFL's over-hyper OCD just wanted it to mimic the NFC logo. Yet it fails in that because the different angles of the stars is really glaring when seen side by side. Plus, with all the stars on one side, it looks really unbalanced. So yeah, downgrade on all fronts to me.

But honestly, when are they ever seen side by side, except in the style guide (as seen above). I can't really think of a good example.

Sometimes during the playoffs, you'll see networks that display a playoff bracket, with a conference logo at the top of each bracket. NFL's own website also has all the teams in a long horizontal list, with the conference logos preceding each grouping of 16 teams.

Oh... yeah. You mean that graphic where the conference logos are so small that the difference in the angle of the stars will be nearly invisible to the naked eye. I just don't see why they have to be judged against each other. Two logos each representing a group of member organizations. Who cares if the angle of the A is different. It doesn't take anything away from the A itself. Could it have been done better? Sure, but operating within their own constraints, this is about as good as it could have been.

Who cares if the angle on the A is different? A couple answers for you.

1) This is a community where the width of stripes on a sock is a viable topic of discussion. So I do believe the angle of the stars in the new AFC mark is something that can be discussed.

2) The NFL threw out a clever homage in the old AFC logo in the name of consistency. That was entire point of this redesign, to achieve a level of consistency between the AFC and NFC logos, and the Conference logos and the NFL logo. And they came up short. They did not accomplish what they set out to do. The attempt is evident, but the outcome? Not to good.

3) You ask who cares if the stars in the A are at a different angle? I'll counter that with "who cares if the stars in the AFC logo are on the outside while the stars in the NFC logo are on the inside?" Like I said, I'm all for the new font, and the decision to standardize the number of stars in each logo. All fine by me. My problem is with the loss of a nice, subtle homage in favour of a failed attempt at needless consistency.

[cmm]

The new AFC logo looks naked without the stars on the outside. It will take a little getting used to.

[Gothamite]

Paul Lukas posted the whole kit and kaboodle on Uni Watch this morning. Taken directly from the Style Guide:

Conference logos:

"Preseason Logo System":

New conference trophies:

New playoff logos:

New standardized Super Bowl logo: