Unpopular Opinions

[ColeJ]

i'm pretty sure i like the new clippers stuff better than the new bucks stuff.

and that's not really much of a compliment towards the clippers, at all.

[Red Wine Pirate]

i'm pretty sure i like the new clippers stuff better than the new bucks stuff.

and that's not really much of a compliment towards the clippers, at all.

I agree. I don't think the LA Clippers redesign is great, but it is nowhere near as bad as everyone acts.

[Nyk33]

i'm pretty sure i like the new clippers stuff better than the new bucks stuff.

and that's not really much of a compliment towards the clippers, at all.

I am sort of in agreement with you.

I don't think the Bucks are worse than the Clippers by any means but I don't get why people are drooling all over it on here.

The Bucks rebrand is the epitome of "meh" to me.

[Midway]

Nowhere near as bad? You could have done what the Clippers did for ANY sports team, gave it the usual marketing spin, and it'd have the exact same lack of brand personality. Sometimes, bad design is just that.

[Red Wine Pirate]

Nowhere near as bad? You could have done what the Clippers did for ANY sports team, gave it the usual marketing spin, and it'd have the exact same lack of brand personality. Sometimes, bad design is just that.

That could be said for the Packers "G", Bears "C", Cubs, Indians "C", Yankees "NY", Dodgers "LA", and many others. All of those logos I just mentioned can be drawn by a child. None are special in any way. They are just generic scripts. Again, IMO the response has been an overreaction. There isn't much you can do with Clippers anyways. I don't see any lakes in the Lakers logo. That's a basic logo as well. Now is the new Clippers logo a great logo? Absolutely not! It's very plain and simple. But it is also nowhere near as bad as the cries have it to be.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Ice_Cap
make your point without insulting others or don't make it at all

[IceCap]

Nowhere near as bad? You could have done what the Clippers did for ANY sports team, gave it the usual marketing spin, and it'd have the exact same lack of brand personality. Sometimes, bad design is just that.

That could be said for the Packers "G", Bears "C", Cubs, Indians "C", Yankees "NY", Dodgers "LA", and many others. All of those logos I just mentioned can be drawn by a child. None are special in any way. They are just generic scripts.

They also have decades of tradition behind them. The LAC the Clippers are going with could work in some alternate reality where it's the decades-old logo of a Los Angeles Clippers team that is a storied franchise. That's not the case though, so the comparisons just fall flat.

There isn't much you can do with Clippers anyways.

Nautical flags. Sailing ships. Anchors. Rope. Sunsets. Waves. The ocean.

Aside from all of that though? You're right. Not much.

I don't see any lakes in the Lakers logo. That's a basic logo as well.

Again, it's a comparison that doesn't work. The Lakers' logo has decades of tradition and success behind it. The Clippers' new logo was introduced by a team that's historically been known for being both a laughing stock and tone deaf when it comes to their own fanbase. There's no honest comparison to be made between the new Clippers logo and the Lakers logo.

Which someone might say is the one blessing in this whole mess. That at the very least they got away from the LA Lakers knock-off logo. Thing is? I miss it already. It was lifeless, but it wasn't bad.

Now is the new Clippers logo a great logo? Absolutely not!

You obviously feel it's good enough to list as one of your favourite logos. Just saying.

[Red Wine Pirate]

So if a team is old, it's ok to use a generic logo? If so, then what's the official threshold time that makes a franchise "decades of tradition"? I mean, if there is an exact date, then I'm fine with this. But without an exact threshold time that makes a generic logo a "decades of tradition", then it isn't a valid excuse to have a generic logo such as the "G" Packers. So yes, unless there is an official time given by the logo-Gods, my comparison is valid and not flat.

I have the brand new LA Clippers logo listed as one of my favorites because I deeply respect the bold move to do something like this. Especially since there are so many teams out there with generic "a child can make that" logos (as mentioned in a previous post).

EDIT: I do apologize for using the word "childish" in the post you edited.

[IceCap]

So if a team is old, it's ok to use a generic logo? If so, then what's the official threshold time that makes a franchise "decades of tradition"? I mean, if there is an exact date, then I'm fine with this. But without an exact threshold time that makes a generic logo a "decades of tradition", then it isn't a valid excuse to have a generic logo such as the "G" Packers. So yes, unless there is an official time given by the logo-Gods, my comparison is valid and not flat.

No, your comparisons don't work. The Packers' G isn't generic because of that tradition. You may say otherwise, you may claim "tradition" doesn't mean anything and we should view all logos in a vacuum. That's your opinion, but it's one I disagree with.

There is no set time frame or cut-off date, but it is true that some logos garner enough cache that their relatively simple designs become so much more in the hearts and minds of fans. You may not agree with it, but you can't deny that it is a factor.

I have the brand new LA Clippers logo listed as one of my favorites because I deeply respect the bold move to do something like this. Especially since there are so many teams out there with generic "a child can make that" logos (as mentioned in a previous post).

So your argument is that tradition has no place in discussing the merits of certain logos. Well if that's the case then the Clippers didn't make a bold move. They simply released a logo like all of those other teams. Your own argument, taken to its logical conclusion, simply means the Clippers did what a lot of other teams have done. That's not bold. That's playing it safe.

[Billy B]

Nowhere near as bad? You could have done what the Clippers did for ANY sports team, gave it the usual marketing spin, and it'd have the exact same lack of brand personality. Sometimes, bad design is just that.

That could be said for the Packers "G", Bears "C", Cubs, Indians "C", Yankees "NY", Dodgers "LA", and many others. All of those logos I just mentioned can be drawn by a child. None are special in any way. They are just generic scripts. Again, IMO the response has been an overreaction. There isn't much you can do with Clippers anyways. I don't see any lakes in the Lakers logo. That's a basic logo as well. Now is the new Clippers logo a great logo? Absolutely not! It's very plain and simple. But it is also nowhere near as bad as the cries have it to be.

I'd argue that the Yankees and Dodgers (maybe Bears too, but the Reds logo is pretty much the same) have great logos regardless of the tradition behind them. You can have a great logo that can be drawn by a child.

And the name Clippers gives you plenty to work with. You could, I don't know, put a clipper ship in the logo. Saying a couple curved lines represent the ocean isn't enough when designing a logo representative of the team name is so simple.

[1insaneguy]

So if a team is old, it's ok to use a generic logo? If so, then what's the official threshold time that makes a franchise "decades of tradition"? I mean, if there is an exact date, then I'm fine with this. But without an exact threshold time that makes a generic logo a "decades of tradition", then it isn't a valid excuse to have a generic logo such as the "G" Packers. So yes, unless there is an official time given by the logo-Gods, my comparison is valid and not flat.

No, your comparisons don't work. The Packers' G isn't generic because of that tradition. You may say otherwise, you may claim "tradition" doesn't mean anything and we should view all logos in a vacuum. That's your opinion, but it's one I disagree with.

There is no set time frame or cut-off date, but it is true that some logos garner enough cache that their relatively simple designs become so much more in the hearts and minds of fans. You may not agree with it, but you can't deny that it is a factor.

I have the brand new LA Clippers logo listed as one of my favorites because I deeply respect the bold move to do something like this. Especially since there are so many teams out there with generic "a child can make that" logos (as mentioned in a previous post).

So your argument is that tradition has no place in discussing the merits of certain logos. Well if that's the case then the Clippers didn't make a bold move. They simply released a logo like all of those other teams. Your own argument, taken to its logical conclusion, simply means the Clippers did what a lot of other teams have done. That's not bold. That's playing it safe.

He might be saying that they're brave to do that despite the criticism of "a child can make that".

[Dynasty]

I still don't think the 76ers new uniforms are that much of an improvement over their previous ones.

[1insaneguy]

These are the Pistons best uniforms:

Dolphins Dynasty, on 22 Jun 2015 - 13:51, said:

I still don't think the 76ers new uniforms are that much of an improvement over their previous ones.

Ah, a throwback to the days when losing by less than 20 points was a bad thing.

Edited June 22, 2015 by 1insaneguy

[1insaneguy]

I still don't think the 76ers new uniforms are that much of an improvement over their previous ones.

Ah, a throwback to the days when losing by less than 20 points was a bad thing.

[OnWis97]

On 6/22/2015 at 3:27 PM, 1insaneguy said:

These are the Pistons best uniforms:

 

What does the 35 on the shorts mean?

[Pabig]

35th Pistons season.

[Ark]

I like that the Sixers are trying to make PHILA their thing

Sixers is always they if they want to switch colors, but PHILA is cool and unique. I also don't get the people who want them to put Philadelphia. Just like Los Angeles and Oklahoma City, Philadelhpia is too long to put on a jersey.

[1insaneguy]

I like that the Sixers are trying to make PHILA their thing

Sixers is always they if they want to switch colors, but PHILA is cool and unique. I also don't get the people who want them to put Philadelphia. Just like Los Angeles and Oklahoma City, Philadelhpia is too long to put on a jersey.

You're right Oklahoma City is way too long. How about Seattle? That fits on a jersey.

[TheRicSlick]

The inaugural uniforms and logos the Ravens used, might be the most overrated uniforms in NFL history.

I can't find any redeeming things in the whole set. The pants have that ugly white stripe, the helmets are a mess, and the jerseys are just plain ugly.

[mafiaman]

Just like Los Angeles and Oklahoma City, Philadelhpia is too long to put on a jersey.

Having PHILA on the jerseys also eliminates the potential for spelling errors.

[13DolphinsFan91]

The Clippers new logo and jersey are very ugly

I don't like the fact that the NBA is changing half of their teams look