New Paul Brown Stadium field

[santoleri3]

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150669478233416&set=a.143175613415.115077.90555643415&type=1&ref=nf

[ns80]

Nice

[DC in Da House w/o a Doubt]

I liked the leaping Bengal at midfield better.

[Sport]

Major downgrade. I'm glad they resurfaced it because the orange was looking kinda old and faded, but that B logo is just awful.

[walkerws]

Weak. That "B" logo is terrible as a primary. it's almost as bad as the W for Winnipeg.

[neo_prankster]

Should've kept the tiger at midfield.

[Claystation360]

The Tiger was better.

[deliver2david]

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.

[ARTnSocal]

>>>

I liked when if first opened and they had a natural grass playing surface.

The 'B' logo is horrible

[NeedlesOnVinyl]

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.

I agree.

[chuckymack]

As do I.

[Cujo]

It's the Bengals we're talking about here. Being a total eyesore is kind of their thing.

[Slammersman]

Wish I could see it will have to wait till i get off work

[BrandMooreArt]

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.

[RedSox44]

Preferred the leaping tiger, but I like the new endzone designs.

[illwauk]

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.

[Sport]

Preferred the leaping tiger, but I like the new endzone designs.

They're very similar, if not identical, to the old endzone designs.

[MadmanLA]

I like the leaping bengal tiger, it's the only redeeming quality of their current identity that I like.

[guest23]

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.

[TheOldRoman]

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.