2013 NFL uniform/logo changes

[Sport]

This is not a logo. It's a collection of free-floating shapes.

Actually, contrary to what you think, this is a logo and there is nothing you can do about it. And I realize some people can't think outside their own little world, but not every logo has to be connecting shapes. Free floating shapes can be a logo. I was told many times by multiple art, graphic design teachers, and many people in the buisness of graphic design, "You don't have to connect shapes, people are smart enough to finish a shape and know what it is."

They can go without an outline if they want to and it'll still be a logo, but it won't look as good or be as identifiable from far away.

[CrazyAnna]

Beautiful and unique. Love it!

[udubs03]

While there are certain aspects of the Panthers' logo update that could still use a little work, I really like the lack of a keyline. The biggest criticism I hear of sports logo design when reading other general design blogs is it's reliance on keylines. Not everything has to be outlined in white to make it 'pop' and I think Carolina's update proves that.

[Gothamite]

Looks like no changes for the Browns next year:

Except, hopefully, for finally removing that stupid "AL" patch. We get it, the previous owner had daddy issues. Time to move on.

[Lights Out]

This is not a logo. It's a collection of free-floating shapes.

No, it's a badass logo, especially on the black background.

[TheOldRoman]

Wow, those are some inconsistent socks.

Yep, it looks horrible. If I were the commish, it would be: a written warning to #25 for wearing his socks too low, a $5,000 fine to #30 for not wearing them up to the knee, a $30,000 fine to #21 for showing the white at the top like that, and #31 would be donating his entire gamecheck to the United Way for deciding to look like an and wear plain sweat-socks.

It's a uniform. It should be uniform. It's not that hard, NFL. Start seriously fining guys, to the point of taking away their entire gamechecks for repeat offenders like Charles Woodson who laugh at the $15,000 fine they supposedly get each week. When the alternative is playing for free, they will resume wearing the uniform like it's supposed to be worn.

[dennisbergan]

Wow, those are some inconsistent socks.

The Bills are one of the sloppiest looking teams in the league. Maybe the sloppiest.

Take a look at all the different color shoes the Bills are allowed to wear too. Just looks horrible.

Thank goodness there are still several teams, who don't look like a rec league team out there. Uniformity is a good thing, NFL.

[Gothamite]

Wow, those are some inconsistent socks.

Yep, it looks horrible. If I were the commish, it would be: a written warning to #25 for wearing his socks to low, a $5,000 fine to #30 for not wearing them up to the knee, a $30,000 fine to #21 for showing the white at the top like that, and #31 would be donating his entire gamecheck to the United Way for deciding to look like an and wear plain sweat-socks.

It's a uniform. It should be uniform. It's not that hard, NFL. Start seriously fining guys, to the point of taking away their entire gamechecks for repeat offenders like Charles Woodson who laugh at the $15,000 fine they supposedly get each week. When the alternative is playing for free, they will resume wearing the uniform like it's supposed to be worn.

I couldn't agree more.

[guest23]

Wow, those are some inconsistent socks.

Yep, it looks horrible. If I were the commish, it would be: a written warning to #25 for wearing his socks to low, a $5,000 fine to #30 for not wearing them up to the knee, a $30,000 fine to #21 for showing the white at the top like that, and #31 would be donating his entire gamecheck to the United Way for deciding to look like an and wear plain sweat-socks.

It's a uniform. It should be uniform. It's not that hard, NFL. Start seriously fining guys, to the point of taking away their entire gamechecks for repeat offenders like Charles Woodson who laugh at the $15,000 fine they supposedly get each week. When the alternative is playing for free, they will resume wearing the uniform like it's supposed to be worn.

I couldn't agree more.

granted players take liberties with their socks but in terms of the balance of color/white how do you measure it? understanding that the white should come up to the bottom of the calf, how do you ensure that a sock fits totally uniform across 53 different bodies and leg dimentions...how many sizes of socks would a team need?..would players need to get their socks custom tailored to ensure the proper balance of white/color?..can you have a level of tolerance say 1/2-1" on either side of the calf to account for anatomical variance?..what if the socks start to sag during the game?..how many plays is a player entitled to have unbalanced socks if it's no fault of their own?..is it the ref's job to stop play and send the player off the field?..does the ref stop a running clock in the last two minutes of a half and send a player off the field if a sock falls down?

all I'm saying is that sock rules are tricky to enforce in game...the only thing that you can do is have increasingly more punitive fines if you are hellbent on matching socks.

[Lights Out]

Plus, Goodell is already way too anal-retentive as it is WITHOUT making himself the one-man sock police.

I'm pretty sure a team's socks being slightly mismatched has never ruined the viewing experience for the average NFL fan.

[CDixonDesign]

Plus, Goodell is already way too anal-retentive as it is WITHOUT making himself the one-man sock police.

I'm pretty sure a team's socks being slightly mismatched has never ruined the viewing experience for the average NFL fan.

EDIT: Removed at poster's request.

[TheOldRoman]

Plus, Goodell is already way too anal-retentive as it is WITHOUT making himself the one-man sock police.

I'm pretty sure a team's socks being slightly mismatched has never ruined the viewing experience for the average NFL fan.

EDIT: Removed at poster's request.

So, you're saying the average fan does care about the socks?

[oldschoolvikings]

This is not a logo. It's a collection of free-floating shapes.

Actually, contrary to what you think, this is a logo and there is nothing you can do about it. And I realize some people can't think outside their own little world, but not every logo has to be connecting shapes. Free floating shapes can be a logo. I was told many times by multiple art, graphic design teachers, and many people in the buisness of graphic design, "You don't have to connect shapes, people are smart enough to finish a shape and know what it is."

Gestalt Theory.

http://graphicdesign.spokanefalls.edu/tutorials/process/gestaltprinciples/gestaltprinc.htm

"Gestalt is a psychology term which means "unified whole". It refers to theories of visual perception developed by German psychologists in the 1920s. These theories attempt to describe how people tend to organize visual elements into groups or unified wholes when certain principles are applied."

Give it a read ... interesting stuff for anyone into design.

[Mevins31]

Plus, Goodell is already way too anal-retentive as it is WITHOUT making himself the one-man sock police.

I'm pretty sure a team's socks being slightly mismatched has never ruined the viewing experience for the average NFL fan.

EDIT: Removed at poster's request.

So I have to ask--I always wonder what your avatar means (Nobody Knows)

[hawk36]

The Panthers logo doesn't need a keyline on silver, but it does on blue or black. Having the logo disappear into its surroundings like a waiting predator is too clever by more than half.

Remember (I believe we've covered this here; if not, on my own blog), the Panthers do have a separate version of their primary mark for usage on Blue:

I think the blue outline should just be at the bottom too so that it completely surrounds it. On the blue background, simply switch out the blue outline for a white one.

[twi]

Count me among those who definitely think the Panthers' logo needs a key line on a black background. Yes, I can discern what the logo is and it's general shape. I simply prefer the look of a self-contained logo; imo it just looks very disjoint when the background color bleeds into the logo (for lack of a better term).

This situation also makes the logo more difficult to manipulate graphically. For example, deleting the background of the Panthers logo also deletes the majority of the logo, due to the lack of key line or boundary, if you will. Perhaps this is a particular sore spot to me since my favorite team has always had a logo that has/had "unbounded" areas, making it more difficult to lift the logo off of a background and make graphics. Notice how the white background color is continuous into the logos posted below.

Short version: Without a key line, the Panthers logo looks amateur and incomplete.

[The_Admiral]

Actually, contrary to what you think, this is a logo and there is nothing you can do about it.

I...never said there was. Stop cutting promos on everyone, Ultimate Board Warrior.

[ARTnSocal]

Wow, those are some inconsistent socks.

The Bills are one of the sloppiest looking teams in the league. Maybe the sloppiest.

Take a look at all the different color shoes the Bills are allowed to wear too. Just looks horrible.

Thank goodness there are still several teams, who don't look like a rec league team out there. Uniformity is a good thing, NFL.

.

There's not much to fix as far as the Bills uniforms go .. Just a few minor issues IMO.

In my view, the toilet-seat collar is ALL WRONG (as it is with all teams donning it) .... the socks that are royal blue at the very top when wearing the blue pants are ALL WRONG too.

Each player should be wearing the same colored cleats (black for us), I agree it looks sloppy with all the different cleats and inconsistent socks that I'm seeing between players, but players on virtually all 32 teams are mixing up cleats and socks. This sloppiness is not singled out on just one team.

I hate what Nike has done with the top of the pants all the team pants, the belt covering up the striping on the pants. I do like how they leveled off the shoulder striping on the Bills jerseys compared to how Reebok had them on an angle last season. All Reebok had to do was move their logo above the stripes rather than below them ... Easy tweak really.

The stripe getting thicker on the backside I could take it or leave it, not a big issue with me, but if they reverted back to the '65-'83 helmet stripe then I'd like to go back to how the helmet decal was enlarged a bit in 1982 an 1983 before the red helmet switch. The logo was too small from '74-'81. Now it's sized between the two. The NFL made them downside it somewhat due to that helmet stripe getting thicker in the rear.

I would like the socks to look like these (below) with the blue pants, they can even reduce from 3 to 2 stripes to match the jersey stripes, either would be fine IMO.

Here's from last seasons Madden before the Nike switch as to how I think the socks should look to bring out the very best in the blue away pants: (KC and NE have the right idea on socks when wearing their away pants)

[ARTnSocal]

.

Would really like to see the the top part of the socks above the top white stripe Photoshopped from royal blue to white to see how much better the blue pants would look then.

BTW, the Panthers updated logo, love it!! Would never change the helmet color. I've very anti-monochrome, but I liked theirs mono-look with the black pants on Sunday, just as long as they use it very sparingly just as AZ does with their cardinal-red mono-look.

[TheOldRoman]

I posted this a few weeks back, but here you go: