Jump to content

New Paul Brown Stadium field


santoleri3

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I think the "B" is a good logo for a team that plays in Boston, Baltimore, Boise, etc. But it has always seemed dumb for a team based in Cincy.

ive never understood why people think that. damn the Bears, an orange "C" would be a better solution?? those kinds of "rules" only hinder creativity and cancel any chance of executing a proper solution. if the goal is to differentiate your team from others, doing something that already has been done is not a good solution. i cant even see why the B is considered bad aesthetically. i think its very well done

i like the logo. i like the field. the tiger logo is a bit silly. the tiger head is great, but a leaping tiger is just very "high school sports" to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the leaping tiger was better and that the Bengals should be using a C and not a B. You know what's ironic though? When Paul Brown actually owned the Bengals, he insisted that there be no markings on the playing surface at Riverfront Stadium, claiming that the people were there to see a football game, not a circus. The Bengals current playing field stands for nearly everything the man its named after was against.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the leaping tiger was better and that the Bengals should be using a C and not a B. You know what's ironic though? When Paul Brown actually owned the Bengals, he insisted that there be no markings on the playing surface at Riverfront Stadium, claiming that the people were there to see a football game, not a circus. The Bengals current playing field stands for nearly everything the man its named after was against.

I think the problem is that the bengals are way too late to the game to have a initial or monogrammed logo...the B is stupid for reasons explained above...a stylized C is already owned by chicago and a CB would immediately invoke the browns imo...for that reason the bengals should have a graphic based primary, either use the leaping tiger or tiger head and commit to it moving forward...it's unique and 99% of the population already knows what a tiger looks like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the "B" is a good logo for a team that plays in Boston, Baltimore, Boise, etc. But it has always seemed dumb for a team based in Cincy.

ive never understood why people think that. damn the Bears, an orange "C" would be a better solution?? those kinds of "rules" only hinder creativity and cancel any chance of executing a proper solution. if the goal is to differentiate your team from others, doing something that already has been done is not a good solution. i cant even see why the B is considered bad aesthetically. i think its very well done

i like the logo. i like the field. the tiger logo is a bit silly. the tiger head is great, but a leaping tiger is just very "high school sports" to me.

I disagree with pretty much everything you said. If using an initial, it should be for the city and not the team name. That's why they should use a "C" and not a "B". Plus, a "C" with stripes is almost clever, representing Cincinnati while still alluding to the Bengals name with the stripes. A "B" for Bengals with stripes says, "Hai guys! "B" iz for Bengals and we also have stripes onit cuz Bengals have stripes!" As it is, I think the front is horrible to begin with. I thought the full body tiger was the best logo they've had, but the disembodied head was pretty bad. Also, I think the endzones sucks. There is just too much going on. They could do solid stripes with no name, stripes with solid white letters, black with striped letters, or just striped letters. As it is, there is just too much going on there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.