New Paul Brown Stadium field

[waltere]

I like the new field mainly because they are using a logo on the field instead of the helmet or that hideous Bengal.

Not to be pedantic but doesn't the full body tiger, regardless of how you think it looks, count as a logo.

I definitely think some kind of tiger should be on the field though, whether it's the full body leaping tiger or just the head. The B is kinda ugly and, despite the stripes, just looks generic.

Also I definitely second Buc's concept of taking the wordmark out of the endzone and just having the stripes.

[andrewharrington]

identity design is about separating yourself from competitors, and having an instantly recognizable mark.

Those are two aspects of identity design, yes, but that's not all identity design is about. Sometimes appealing to your core consumers (in this case fans) is what it's about. Other times, it might be about representing your locale and the people who live in it (this situation is probably applicable to the Brooklyn Nets). I think in general, a sports team needs a balance of all four of these things (with certain aspects given priority, of course), and maybe other things that we haven't mentioned. Given that, I'd look to create a C that conveys the idea of tiger and stays very far away from the style of the Bears' logo.

I just cannot imagine myself going by predetermined "rules" while entering a project.

Then you haven't truly 'designed.' Whether you're aware of it or not (it seems you are not), every single project has predetermined rules (and there are absolutely no exceptions). Not taking those constraints into account when conceptualizing can inhibit the design process and in turn, the final product. Personally, I never want my design to have to be reigned in by the limitations at hand.

For example, I don't want to have to say, "You know, This poster really worked with Arches cardstock and 3M reflective inks, but if the budget won't allow it, then we'll just go with the glossy newsprint and standard black. Good enough." I'd rather design with the constraints in mind, because that allows me to 'push the limits of the limitations' so to speak and create a solution tailored to the constraints of the project. Creating a solution without constraints almost always yields bad results when the constraints are inevitably levied against it.

Some people even put constraints on their own work... for fun! The idea being that there's no challenge if there aren't limitations, and I'd wholeheartedly agree with that. Take John Smith for example. He's an origamist who I learned about from his paper airplane folding. When he designs a new airplane, it always must come from a square sheet of paper, and it must consist of only the simplest type of fold (the mountain/valley). For me, the limitations he places upon himself are what makes his work so stunning. Beautiful forms created using only the simplest forms and techniques. There's a purity about it.

JS Dart

It's fine to be creative and approach a project feeling like the sky's the limit when you're starting a project, and of course it's worth exploring like that early on, but sooner or later, you always have to come back down to Earth.

Probably most common scenario of using a letter as the logo is in baseball. Of the 30 MLB teams, only 4, the White Sox, Twins, Angles, and A's use letters that stand for the mascot not city. 22 teams hats have the letter(s) of their city on them.

Both of the Twins' caps represent their location. M for Minnesota, and TC for Twin Cities. I always thought the Angels' A was for Anaheim, myself.

[BrandMooreArt]

i probably could have worded my sentence of predetermined rules better. i didnt mean there are no limitations (like production issues or whatever may be in a brief. you could also flip it around that the NFL/Bengals may have wanted a B. thats a wild guess, but a valid example), but that i dont make up rules that would ever remove creative options before the project even starts. "a mark or monogram must only, or first, represent the city and im applying this to every project i do" is something i will never agree with. if it dosent follow design theory or principals then you dont need it. those theories and principals are "restraints".

[tBBP]

Me personally, I've always had this one guiding principle in mind regarding my work: "complexity within the confines of simplicity". In other words, just how much can I "trick out" a design within given constraints without overdoing it? To that point, Discrim was spot on about the Rattlers' and SaberCats' original uniforms. Those took a basic Northwestern stripe style, tricked them out but didn't overdo it, and the result was something unique yet simple and basic.

Shoot, the previous-era Cincinnati Bengals' uniforms are a dang-near perfect example. Take a basic striping arrangement and apply tiger stripes to it. Simple yet distinctive. That's also what I tried to convey in that Bengals concept I posted a few weeks ago (by now its probably buried five or six pages back in the Concepts forum)...with their own unique number style to boot. (And those of y'all who know me know how I am about that.)

[BrandMooreArt]

Me personally, I've always had this one guiding principle in mind regarding my work: "complexity within the confines of simplicity". In other words, just how much can I "trick out" a design within given constraints without overdoing it? To that point, Discrim was spot on about the Rattlers' and SaberCats' original uniforms. Those took a basic Northwestern stripe style, tricked them out but didn't overdo it, and the result was something unique yet simple and basic.

that seems to be a stylistic characteristic, or at least something that gives you a definition of who you are as a designer. im great with that. everyone has them, and it dosent eliminate any creative solutions before you even receive a project, which is my biggest hang up.

[Buster]

Downgrade, the cat was better.

A helmet would even look better than that 'B'.

Or, if the whole tiger is too big, use his head:

[illwauk]

As for the Bengals' field...what they should do is leave the tiger stripe pattern in the endzones...MINUS the scripts. Those stripes are strong enough to stand on their own.

Co and Sign!

[TheOldRoman]

Just so you all know, I suggested the stripes without wordmark for the endzone first.

Seriously though, they did that when the field was grass, the only difference being the entire endzone wasn't painted in and the tiger stripes were black with orange outlines. It looked unique.

[andrewharrington]

Me personally, I've always had this one guiding principle in mind regarding my work: "complexity within the confines of simplicity". In other words, just how much can I "trick out" a design within given constraints without overdoing it? To that point, Discrim was spot on about the Rattlers' and SaberCats' original uniforms. Those took a basic Northwestern stripe style, tricked them out but didn't overdo it, and the result was something unique yet simple and basic.

that seems to be a stylistic characteristic, or at least something that gives you a definition of who you are as a designer. im great with that. everyone has them, and it dosent eliminate any creative solutions before you even receive a project, which is my biggest hang up.

It's not about eliminating creative solutions. It's just a personal philosophy. Creatively, you can do anything with a C that you can with a B. Many people just prefer a letter logo to represent the city as opposed to the team name for previously stated reasons; reasons which are perfectly valid and quite compelling from a logical standpoint.

I mean, just looking at football here:

TEAMS THAT USE A LETTER OR LETTER LOCKUP AS PART OF THEIR LOGO (not counting complete words)

Baltimore uses a B.

Chicago uses a C.

Green Bay uses a G.

Kansas City uses a KC.

New York Giants use an NY.

San Francisco uses an SF.

Tennessee uses a T (and it stands for Tennessee because it makes my point stronger).

New York Jets use an NY as a background element of their logo.

and finally, that leaves the Bengals as the lone team using their team initial, a B.

I'm not saying that you can't break 'The Rules,' and there's always at least something to be said for being unique, but it is a pretty well established precedent that letter logos represent their cities, and it's one that I (and many others) care not to see broken. It's nothing more than a personal preference rooted in historical precedent. We have a lot of those, even in design. We can be creative to a point where you must ask, "Is that a rule I really should be breaking? Have I gone too far? Does this ruin the integrity of my piece?"

The Bengals' B doesn't feel 'proper' to me, for lack of a better term, and I don't think a team identity (something that is supposed to appeal to a mass of people) is the place to test the limits of appropriateness and creativity in many cases. It should be a design 'for the people,' that is to say, one that follows conventions to a certain degree.

Creativity is like salt. A sprinkle is all you need to bring out the flavor in your dish or design. Too much will make it taste like s#!t.

[BrandMooreArt]

Me personally, I've always had this one guiding principle in mind regarding my work: "complexity within the confines of simplicity". In other words, just how much can I "trick out" a design within given constraints without overdoing it? To that point, Discrim was spot on about the Rattlers' and SaberCats' original uniforms. Those took a basic Northwestern stripe style, tricked them out but didn't overdo it, and the result was something unique yet simple and basic.

that seems to be a stylistic characteristic, or at least something that gives you a definition of who you are as a designer. im great with that. everyone has them, and it dosent eliminate any creative solutions before you even receive a project, which is my biggest hang up.

It's not about eliminating creative solutions. It's just a personal philosophy. Creatively, you can do anything with a C that you can with a B. Many people just prefer a letter logo to represent the city as opposed to the team name for previously stated reasons; reasons which are perfectly valid and quite compelling from a logical standpoint.

I mean, just looking at football here:

TEAMS THAT USE A LETTER OR LETTER LOCKUP AS PART OF THEIR LOGO (not counting complete words)

Baltimore uses a B.

Chicago uses a C.

Green Bay uses a G.

Kansas City uses a KC.

New York Giants use an NY.

San Francisco uses an SF.

Tennessee uses a T (and it stands for Tennessee because it makes my point stronger).

New York Jets use an NY as a background element of their logo.

and finally, that leaves the Bengals as the lone team using their team initial, a B.

I'm not saying that you can't break 'The Rules,' and there's always at least something to be said for being unique, but it is a pretty well established precedent that letter logos represent their cities, and it's one that I (and many others) care not to see broken. It's nothing more than a personal preference rooted in historical precedent. We have a lot of those, even in design. We can be creative to a point where you must ask, "Is that a rule I really should be breaking? Have I gone too far? Does this ruin the integrity of my piece?"

The Bengals' B doesn't feel 'proper' to me, for lack of a better term, and I don't think a team identity (something that is supposed to appeal to a mass of people) is the place to test the limits of appropriateness and creativity in many cases. It should be a design 'for the people,' that is to say, one that follows conventions to a certain degree.

Creativity is like salt. A sprinkle is all you need to bring out the flavor in your dish or design. Too much will make it taste like s#!t.

i can agree to disagree with all of that (not saying any of it is "wrong") except for your point about creativity. because thats a very hard thing to define and 10 people might have 10 different answers, but i dont think it means a huge leap from the status quo or purposely breaking ANY rules or pushing envelopes. i certainly dont believe you can have too much. to me, creativity is visual intelligence. it can be subtle. Milton Glaser's "I love N Y" mark is a good example

what about the Cleveland Browns "B" mark? is it an official mark being used currently?

[IceCap]

The Browns' =B= mark is being used, yes. Though not as a primary logo. In fact I believe it's only designated to be used on women's apparel. So while it does break the "letter logos should represent the location not the nickname" rule it's not held to the same standard as the Bengals' B logo. The Bengals' B logo is their primary mark. People care that it bucks a long-held rule of sports aesthetic design. The Browns' B logo is used on tank tops. No one really cares.

More to the point, I'm with andrewharrington on this. Creativity is always good, but there's a time and a place for everything. There are plenty of avenues to go down if you want to push the envelope and "test the limits" of design. Sports branding, simply put, isn't one of those avenues. Not to say that people who work in that field shouldn't be creative. They most definitely should be. Given how sports teams often have their looks rooted in tradition and a history of passionate fan support, however, it's not the most ideal place to try "pushing the envelope" just for the sake of excess creativity.

[DaytonBlue]

The B doesn't bother me as much as the business in the endzone. Agree with those above saying the endzone should just have the stripes.

I also think this is a rare situation where the helmet logo at midfield would work as well, since they have one of the most unique helmets in the league.

[andrewharrington]

The Browns' =B= mark is being used, yes. Though not as a primary logo. In fact I believe it's only designated to be used on women's apparel. So while it does break the "letter logos should represent the location not the nickname" rule it's not held to the same standard as the Bengals' B logo. The Bengals' B logo is their primary mark. People care that it bucks a long-held rule of sports aesthetic design. The Browns' B logo is used on tank tops. No one really cares.

More to the point, I'm with andrewharrington on this. Creativity is always good, but there's a time and a place for everything. There are plenty of avenues to go down if you want to push the envelope and "test the limits" of design. Sports branding, simply put, isn't one of those avenues. Not to say that people who work in that field shouldn't be creative. They most definitely should be. Given how sports teams often have their looks rooted in tradition and a history of passionate fan support, however, it's not the most ideal place to try "pushing the envelope" just for the sake of excess creativity.

To further the point many of us are trying to make: would it be appropriate for the Missouri Tigers football team to use a striped T at midfield? To each his or her own, but most would think that to be strange. That team represents its university just as the Bengals represent Cincinnati.

Anyway, Ice_Cap, you are spot on with both paragraphs. To elaborate: too much creativity is never a bad thing, that is, when going through the process of developing the work, but it's not desirable to jam all of that great work, all of those great ideas, into the final product. Brandon, you say creativity is visual intelligence. In sports design, being bombarded with all that 'intelligence' can make people feel like they're not smart enough for the brand they're trying to relate to. Other designers will probably get it, they might love it, might tell you how creative and how new and different it is, but a lot of the people you're actually trying to appeal to won't get it, or worse, they won't care.

Milton Glaser's 'I (Heart) NY' concept is a perfect example. It's not creative in the least bit. There's absolutely nothing new, revolutionary, visually intelligent or unique about it. It simply appeals to people and it does so on such a large scale that nothing else is needed.

[BrandMooreArt]

yea i would be fine with a "T" for a Tigers team. that really depends on a handful of things which i think is important to consider rather than instantly arriving at the conclusion of "they need an M because its their universities first letter.". how many other "Ms" are out there? are there any other tiger stripped letters? what's the history of this universities logos? etc. i dont view the city/team as separate entities as much. i see it all as 1 whole and a mark should represent the whole in the best way, and you have to account for whats already out there. having a visual style is unavoidable, but having an "idea style" is very detrimental. if all your creative solutions to problems are the same, then they really arnt very creative at all. i mean, what are you going to do, draw 100 different M's for the 100 (i know thats a random number) universities out there?

i think you guys have a different definition of what creativity is than i. thats fine, but i think the "I love NY" logo is a good example of creativity (breaking down the details of a heart symbol, the colors, and a typewriter font reveals the simplicity and elements which already were, but the thing as a whole is clever) because it does what it does so well. its a timeless design that has become almost synonymous with NYC. i just dont think you have to go all Oregon on something for it to be creative.

i wish we had more threads/discussions like this here

[IceCap]

Hehe, Oregon is the first team to come to mind when I think of "excess creativity." Sure, their brand pushes the envelop of design, but they're also the prime example of why, in my opinion, you can't always do that when it comes to sports branding.

Agreed though, the discussion has been great.

[tBBP]

Hehe, Oregon is the first team to come to mind when I think of "excess creativity." Sure, their brand pushes the envelop of design, but they're also the prime example of why, in my opinion, you can't always do that when it comes to sports branding.

I can agree and disagree with that. True, Oregon's stuff has been pushing the envelope...but aside from funky colors, a mirrordome helmet, and irridescent jersey numbers (and a to' up number font), they're still, on the whole, pretty darn simplistic.

Now there's pushing the envelope, and then there's holding it up, saying "F%#K a envelope!", taking a match to it and yelling out "BURN, BABY?BURN!!!"...which is pretty much what Under Armour did with Maryland this past year.

[andrewharrington]

yea i would be fine with a "T" for a Tigers team. that really depends on a handful of things which i think is important to consider rather than instantly arriving at the conclusion of "they need an M because its their universities first letter.". how many other "Ms" are out there? are there any other tiger stripped letters? what's the history of this universities logos? etc. i dont view the city/team as separate entities as much. i see it all as 1 whole and a mark should represent the whole in the best way, and you have to account for whats already out there. having a visual style is unavoidable, but having an "idea style" is very detrimental. if all your creative solutions to problems are the same, then they really arnt very creative at all. i mean, what are you going to do, draw 100 different M's for the 100 (i know thats a random number) universities out there?

i think you guys have a different definition of what creativity is than i. thats fine, but i think the "I love NY" logo is a good example of creativity (breaking down the details of a heart symbol, the colors, and a typewriter font reveals the simplicity and elements which already were, but the thing as a whole is clever) because it does what it does so well. its a timeless design that has become almost synonymous with NYC. i just dont think you have to go all Oregon on something for it to be creative.

i wish we had more threads/discussions like this here

I'm more of a purist, I suppose. Using a T logo for the Missouri Tigers football team is totally inappropriate to me. The T doesn't tell me who or what they represent. A nickname isn't official to me, like a university or locale name is, and as such doesn't work for a letter logo. It's confusing, because people are accustomed to seeing a letter in sports and having it stand for the school or city name. There's a deep history of that, and I know I'm not the only one who thinks that when design starts to confuse people (don't get me wrong, that has it's place, but not in sports) you're getting into a bad situation. My approach would always be to find a new and unique M if given the choice you've outlined above. If I need 100 different Ms for 100 different schools, then I need 100 different Ms. That's the problem that needs to be solved through design. I'm not going to take the easy way out and say, "I'll make this one a T instead."

Of course I'm strictly referring to a situation where I'm calling the final shots. If a client wants a letter logo for a team nickname, I either make the best out of it and get paid, or I stick to my guns and let the project go. Both decisions have their pros and cons.

As for the I (Heart) NY logo, because 'it does what it does so well' doesn't make it creative. That makes it successful, effective, appropriate maybe, but that doesn't make it creative. Sometimes the least creative things can be the most effective, simply because people relate to them on a much grander scale.