Chicago Cubs

[speedy]

Alright, let me start off by saying this is nothing ground breaking. I've always had a huge problem with the Cubs road gear, that script is ridiculous, and white outlines is so 80-90's. They're in dire need of a make over.

I'll start off with the "new" primary. For a blue first team, there sure is a lot of red in their logo. I know blue "UBS" has been used for years, but not permanently. For whatever reason, the large blue outline seems incredibly dated to me so I toned it down a bit - made it less popping, I guess. Also, the "UBS" is in a new font.

Next up is a new cub. From what I've read, the walking cub is despised. Maybe I'm wrong, but either way I think it sucks. So using this and this, the next cub is born. I held off on a red circle because it just seems a bit too cluttered.

Here's the word mark. I'm 97% sure this type face already exists, or at least some variation of it, oh well.

Finally, the uniforms. General idea of the home hasn't changed, only difference is the inclusion of the new logos. The road uniforms takes a bit of a "duller" approach that hearkens back to the golden age of baseball, simple yet effective.

And here's a quick comparison between new and old.

You guys know what to do.

[sportstar1212]

Looks awesome! The only thing I'm not sold on is the red billed cap on the blue alt.

[BrandMooreArt]

its hard to beat their logo. its almost untouchable. the only change i think that needs to be made is switching the current font for the one you used. having the C and UBS 2 different colors gives the illusion the 2 are separated, or not related. it reads more as "cubs" when all the letters are the same. your logo has better color balance now with the blue "ubs" but once its all red the question is how do you get it back and keep the red from being too overbearing? the answer is making the blue stroke thicker and you end up at the original logo with an updated font

[bigbean24]

Looks awesome! The only thing I'm not sold on is the red billed cap on the blue alt.

The red bill goes better with this jersey IMO.

[McCall]

Agree with BrandMoore on the primary and in addition, having blue only lettering with the front number only red makes the roads too Dodgers-esque. And the extra colors on the bear head throw it off a bit as well.

Looks awesome! The only thing I'm not sold on is the red billed cap on the blue alt.

The red bill goes better with this jersey IMO.

The red bill hat doesn't go with any jersey. It is, was and always be a bad cap for the Cubs.

[pianoknight]

I disagree.

I have no knowledge of the Cubs other than they perennially suck, but the red bill is a good fit. It's much more aesthetically pleasing than blue or gray. Makes the red in the Cubs logo pop more.

[cohenj21]

The red billed cap looks perfectly fine to me, and is a good choice for an alternate hat IMO. Your script is a definite improvement, and your alternate cub head logo is excellent. Good job not being afraid to mess with a traditional brand. Would have loved to have seen a non-pinstriped home alternate, but that's really your call whether or not to include that. Really nice concept.

[TimEOBrien]

Why do all logos have to be angry these days? Why can't the bear cub be happy and benevolent? He's a baby bear, he shouldn't be angry, come on...

its hard to beat their logo. its almost untouchable. the only change i think that needs to be made is switching the current font for the one you used. having the C and UBS 2 different colors gives the illusion the 2 are separated, or not related. it reads more as "cubs" when all the letters are the same. your logo has better color balance now with the blue "ubs" but once its all red the question is how do you get it back and keep the red from being too overbearing? the answer is making the blue stroke thicker and you end up at the original logo with an updated font

The cubs should be sponsored by UBS [/sarcasm]

[Philsphan]

its hard to beat their logo. its almost untouchable. the only change i think that needs to be made is switching the current font for the one you used. having the C and UBS 2 different colors gives the illusion the 2 are separated, or not related. it reads more as "cubs" when all the letters are the same. your logo has better color balance now with the blue "ubs" but once its all red the question is how do you get it back and keep the red from being too overbearing? the answer is making the blue stroke thicker and you end up at the original logo with an updated font

Yes. He's completely right. I applaud you for trying but the Cubs logo is untouchable.

[cohenj21]

its hard to beat their logo. its almost untouchable. the only change i think that needs to be made is switching the current font for the one you used. having the C and UBS 2 different colors gives the illusion the 2 are separated, or not related. it reads more as "cubs" when all the letters are the same. your logo has better color balance now with the blue "ubs" but once its all red the question is how do you get it back and keep the red from being too overbearing? the answer is making the blue stroke thicker and you end up at the original logo with an updated font

Yes. He's completely right. I applaud you for trying but the Cubs logo is untouchable.

I'm sorry, but I hate when people say this on this forum. This is a forum for CONCEPTS. Let people try something different, something interesting. This forum isn't here so we can post the same logos every time. I applaud him for trying something different, and even though they might never change it in real life, this is, once again, a CONCEPTS forum. Please excuse my rant, it's just that he is posting his idea, and the whole untouchable argument annoys the heck out of me. Let him try something new for godsake.

[Dbroalexander]

As a Cubs fan I like the direction that this is headed. I'm not completely sold on the thinner outline on the primary, but I've grown up with that thick line. Also, I like the new bear logo. I feel like he could use some cleaning up though. If you're going to have that tan color in the bear logo you should try to use it somewhere else, otherwise I don't know if it fits in here. Great work though.

[McCall]

its hard to beat their logo. its almost untouchable. the only change i think that needs to be made is switching the current font for the one you used. having the C and UBS 2 different colors gives the illusion the 2 are separated, or not related. it reads more as "cubs" when all the letters are the same. your logo has better color balance now with the blue "ubs" but once its all red the question is how do you get it back and keep the red from being too overbearing? the answer is making the blue stroke thicker and you end up at the original logo with an updated font

Yes. He's completely right. I applaud you for trying but the Cubs logo is untouchable.

I'm sorry, but I hate when people say this on this forum. This is a forum for CONCEPTS. Let people try something different, something interesting. This forum isn't here so we can post the same logos every time. I applaud him for trying something different, and even though they might never change it in real life, this is, once again, a CONCEPTS forum. Please excuse my rant, it's just that he is posting his idea, and the whole untouchable argument annoys the heck out of me. Let him try something new for godsake.

And we are free to legitimately criticize the CONCEPTS. And historical purposes of a logo is a legitimate reason. When you post a CONCEPT on here, you can't demand only favorable comments. You have to take both the good and the bad. Any alterations to appease the criticisms is purely up to the designer, but it doesn't mean people can't be critical. Simply saying something is "stupid and ugly" would be a non-legitimate form of criticism. Saying a team's traditional logo is "untouchable" is a legitimate criticism. Those of us who have been here longer than 4 months know this.

[cohenj21]

its hard to beat their logo. its almost untouchable. the only change i think that needs to be made is switching the current font for the one you used. having the C and UBS 2 different colors gives the illusion the 2 are separated, or not related. it reads more as "cubs" when all the letters are the same. your logo has better color balance now with the blue "ubs" but once its all red the question is how do you get it back and keep the red from being too overbearing? the answer is making the blue stroke thicker and you end up at the original logo with an updated font

Yes. He's completely right. I applaud you for trying but the Cubs logo is untouchable.

I'm sorry, but I hate when people say this on this forum. This is a forum for CONCEPTS. Let people try something different, something interesting. This forum isn't here so we can post the same logos every time. I applaud him for trying something different, and even though they might never change it in real life, this is, once again, a CONCEPTS forum. Please excuse my rant, it's just that he is posting his idea, and the whole untouchable argument annoys the heck out of me. Let him try something new for godsake.

And we are free to legitimately criticize the CONCEPTS. And historical purposes of a logo is a legitimate reason. When you post a CONCEPT on here, you can't demand only favorable comments. You have to take both the good and the bad. Any alterations to appease the criticisms is purely up to the designer, but it doesn't mean people can't be critical. Simply saying something is "stupid and ugly" would be a non-legitimate form of criticism. Saying a team's traditional logo is "untouchable" is a legitimate criticism. Those of us who have been here longer than 4 months know this.

I see what you're saying, and anyone is free to criticize the concept if you are criticizing something about the actual concept. But simply saying it is untouchable isn't constructive criticism. Saying, well, don't change the Cubs logo because they've had it for a long time violates the creative spirit of anyone making a concept at all. If you the follow the "untouchable" comment with a suggestion on how to improve the concept then that is helpful constructive criticism. But simply saying the logo is untouchable so don't try to make something different is neither constructive nor helpful. I am fine with negative criticism, you don't see me making comments like my above comment on every piece of negative criticism. But what I am opposed to is negative criticism that doesn't offer suggestions for improvement, and says keep the status quo because it's been there forever. What if you had said that to Picasso when he was first starting to create his cubist art? Obviously a smaller scale than that, but if someone wants to try something new and you don't like it, at least offer a way to improve it, don't just tell them not to do something different. You could use that historical argument if the Cubs were actually considering changing their brand to this, but no one is suggesting the Cubs will actually use this. You can at least see a Cubs concept online that won't ever actually be used without jumping on it and saying that it's too untraditional. All I'm saying is try to be more constructive, because in my opinion "untouchable" is not constructive. Sorry for ranting again.

[McCall]

its hard to beat their logo. its almost untouchable. the only change i think that needs to be made is switching the current font for the one you used. having the C and UBS 2 different colors gives the illusion the 2 are separated, or not related. it reads more as "cubs" when all the letters are the same. your logo has better color balance now with the blue "ubs" but once its all red the question is how do you get it back and keep the red from being too overbearing? the answer is making the blue stroke thicker and you end up at the original logo with an updated font

Yes. He's completely right. I applaud you for trying but the Cubs logo is untouchable.

I'm sorry, but I hate when people say this on this forum. This is a forum for CONCEPTS. Let people try something different, something interesting. This forum isn't here so we can post the same logos every time. I applaud him for trying something different, and even though they might never change it in real life, this is, once again, a CONCEPTS forum. Please excuse my rant, it's just that he is posting his idea, and the whole untouchable argument annoys the heck out of me. Let him try something new for godsake.

And we are free to legitimately criticize the CONCEPTS. And historical purposes of a logo is a legitimate reason. When you post a CONCEPT on here, you can't demand only favorable comments. You have to take both the good and the bad. Any alterations to appease the criticisms is purely up to the designer, but it doesn't mean people can't be critical. Simply saying something is "stupid and ugly" would be a non-legitimate form of criticism. Saying a team's traditional logo is "untouchable" is a legitimate criticism. Those of us who have been here longer than 4 months know this.

I see what you're saying, and anyone is free to criticize the concept if you are criticizing something about the actual concept. But simply saying it is untouchable isn't constructive criticism. Saying, well, don't change the Cubs logo because they've had it for a long time violates the creative spirit of anyone making a concept at all. If you the follow the "untouchable" comment with a suggestion on how to improve the concept then that is helpful constructive criticism. But simply saying the logo is untouchable so don't try to make something different is neither constructive nor helpful. I am fine with negative criticism, you don't see me making comments like my above comment on every piece of negative criticism. But what I am opposed to is negative criticism that doesn't offer suggestions for improvement, and says keep the status quo because it's been there forever. What if you had said that to Picasso when he was first starting to create his cubist art? Obviously a smaller scale than that, but if someone wants to try something new and you don't like it, at least offer a way to improve it, don't just tell them not to do something different. You could use that historical argument if the Cubs were actually considering changing their brand to this, but no one is suggesting the Cubs will actually use this. You can at least see a Cubs concept online that won't ever actually be used without jumping on it and saying that it's too untraditional. All I'm saying is try to be more constructive, because in my opinion "untouchable" is not constructive. Sorry for ranting again.

Yes, a logo being "untouchable" IS a fair criticism because it effects the look of the concept. If it's not the traditional logo, then a design might look off, as is the case here. It just doesn't look right, and that's because when you look at a Cubs design and see an altered, inferior logo in place of the one deemed untouchable, mentally it just doesn't look right to you. And that is justifiable criticism. Doesn't mean the artist has to change it. But it's definitely not against the "spirit" of the concepts forum.

Stop making up your own rules and trying to make us abide by them. Unlike you, speedy's been here for awhile. He knows what's reasonable and what's not.

[cohenj21]

its hard to beat their logo. its almost untouchable. the only change i think that needs to be made is switching the current font for the one you used. having the C and UBS 2 different colors gives the illusion the 2 are separated, or not related. it reads more as "cubs" when all the letters are the same. your logo has better color balance now with the blue "ubs" but once its all red the question is how do you get it back and keep the red from being too overbearing? the answer is making the blue stroke thicker and you end up at the original logo with an updated font

Yes. He's completely right. I applaud you for trying but the Cubs logo is untouchable.

I'm sorry, but I hate when people say this on this forum. This is a forum for CONCEPTS. Let people try something different, something interesting. This forum isn't here so we can post the same logos every time. I applaud him for trying something different, and even though they might never change it in real life, this is, once again, a CONCEPTS forum. Please excuse my rant, it's just that he is posting his idea, and the whole untouchable argument annoys the heck out of me. Let him try something new for godsake.

And we are free to legitimately criticize the CONCEPTS. And historical purposes of a logo is a legitimate reason. When you post a CONCEPT on here, you can't demand only favorable comments. You have to take both the good and the bad. Any alterations to appease the criticisms is purely up to the designer, but it doesn't mean people can't be critical. Simply saying something is "stupid and ugly" would be a non-legitimate form of criticism. Saying a team's traditional logo is "untouchable" is a legitimate criticism. Those of us who have been here longer than 4 months know this.

I see what you're saying, and anyone is free to criticize the concept if you are criticizing something about the actual concept. But simply saying it is untouchable isn't constructive criticism. Saying, well, don't change the Cubs logo because they've had it for a long time violates the creative spirit of anyone making a concept at all. If you the follow the "untouchable" comment with a suggestion on how to improve the concept then that is helpful constructive criticism. But simply saying the logo is untouchable so don't try to make something different is neither constructive nor helpful. I am fine with negative criticism, you don't see me making comments like my above comment on every piece of negative criticism. But what I am opposed to is negative criticism that doesn't offer suggestions for improvement, and says keep the status quo because it's been there forever. What if you had said that to Picasso when he was first starting to create his cubist art? Obviously a smaller scale than that, but if someone wants to try something new and you don't like it, at least offer a way to improve it, don't just tell them not to do something different. You could use that historical argument if the Cubs were actually considering changing their brand to this, but no one is suggesting the Cubs will actually use this. You can at least see a Cubs concept online that won't ever actually be used without jumping on it and saying that it's too untraditional. All I'm saying is try to be more constructive, because in my opinion "untouchable" is not constructive. Sorry for ranting again.

Yes, a logo being "untouchable" IS a fair criticism because it effects the look of the concept. If it's not the traditional logo, then a design might look off, as is the case here. It just doesn't look right, and that's because when you look at a Cubs design and see an altered, inferior logo in place of the one deemed untouchable, mentally it just doesn't look right to you. And that is justifiable criticism. Doesn't mean the artist has to change it. But it's definitely not against the "spirit" of the concepts forum.

Stop making up your own rules and trying to make us abide by them. Unlike you, speedy's been here for awhile. He knows what's reasonable and what's not.

I suppose you're right about the artist not having to change it if he likes it anyway. I see your point of view. I do see why that is constructive criticism, it just isn't the kind I would give. I apologize for trying to impose my practice upon all of you, and I will try to keep my self-righteous rants to myself from now on. . I guess, being sort of a newbie, I should take a little more time to learn the practices of the board better. Truce?

[Buster]

Why do all logos have to be angry these days? Why can't the bear cub be happy and benevolent? He's a baby bear, he shouldn't be angry, come on...

its hard to beat their logo. its almost untouchable. the only change i think that needs to be made is switching the current font for the one you used. having the C and UBS 2 different colors gives the illusion the 2 are separated, or not related. it reads more as "cubs" when all the letters are the same. your logo has better color balance now with the blue "ubs" but once its all red the question is how do you get it back and keep the red from being too overbearing? the answer is making the blue stroke thicker and you end up at the original logo with an updated font

The cubs should be sponsored by UBS [/sarcasm]

The Cub has about 104 good reasons to be angry.

[raysox]

I love it Speedy, great work.

[Epiphanic]

Demonic Cub!

The red pupils are really jarring. Coupled with them being in the center of the eye (completely surrounded by white) makes them look buggy. He looks like he's tripping balls and not going to take it anymore. It's kind of unsettling.

Assuming you want to keep the red in that logo I suggest that you make the red part the iris of the eye and add a little white pupil a la the second logo you took inspiration from.

That's my only gripe about this set.

The uniforms are fantastic. Maintains the same look they've had and the "duller" approach really makes the whole set pop I think.

[speedy]

@cohenj21, I fully expected any backlash I received. While I don't think this is that much of a stretch, it's easy to see how it may be sacrilege to touch the Cubs logos. IMHO they need an upgrade, in others opinions they don't. Such is life. Anybody that tries a Red Sox concept on these boards will get a similar response from me that I've gotten here. Can't please everyone.

@Tim, well, he's a blue cub, I wouldn't be too happy either.

For others with qualms about the cub, yeah, he looks like a lunatic I know. Combing through a few different options to keep the general idea while also keeping red in the logo. I'll have the posted soon.

Also, I get the "UBS" being a different color than the C can confuse some people, however I'm going to leave it this way. The concept is trying to change the dynamic of the logo while keeping it the same.... if that makes sense. I will thicken the outline just a tad, but that's about all I'm going to do to it.

Thanks for the comments so far guys, I appreciate it.

[piratesfan16]

While I appreciate the effort made into upgrading the Cubs primary logo, your mark looks slightly more "corporate" or austere. It seems generic and bland which is in direct contrast to what I feel the Cubs logos/scripts should be: Colorful and bold, but traditional. So while I disagree with McCall about the general rules of how concepts should be judged, I think he is right when it comes to this particular example. Your logo is well-rendered, but it misses the mark when it comes to "identity". In other words, your logo just doesn't scream Cubs to me like the current logo does. What can you do? Nice try though.

What I absolutely love, however, is the script updates. I also like the update "Cub head" logo. However, part of it just seems unbalanced or off-centered. It's like the head itself is looking to it's right by about 5 degrees, but the facial features are perfectly alligned and centered at 0 degrees. It's weird.

As far as the uniforms go, the home looks great. The road however is a little bit like what McCall said. It's like Dodger east. I'd add a red outline to the script and make the front number match the script (blue script/red outline), or else I'd remove the front number altogether. The blue alternate is great and I think the red-billed cap is a nice little addition for a Sunday game maybe.

Overall, I think this is an improvement in most areas except for the primary mark. Great job on this.