2013 NFL uniform/logo changes

[pittsburghsports16]

THIS MUST BE SEEN.

It literally looks like they put it in MS Paint and skewed it down vertically to 70 from 100. That's unbelieveable how bad the perspective is.

[agoodfella]

The black backgrounds makes a world of difference. I love it! This is badass!

Anyone else think this logo looks like it is collapsing with the extra gold.

I am not a professional designer but have studied many professional designs & this package just reeks of inexperience.

Seem to be way to many flaws execution wise.

It looks like the bastard child of a Jag and the UPS sign...

[Sterling84]

[phutmasterflex]

On the team page, the Jags have a poll on the new logo and this image was the background for the poll. Looks similar to their old jerseys so I won't look too much into it, but maybe it could be a sign of new things to come?

[Captain Poncho]

This is a cartoon illustration - not a logo. There is a stark and apparent difference between the two kinds of artwork, and it simply doesn't hold up to any real scrutiny. The old mark was vastly superior in very measurable ways.

[JaxTim]

On the team page, the Jags have a poll on the new logo and this image was the background for the poll. Looks similar to their old jerseys so I won't look too much into it, but maybe it could be a sign of new things to come?

This is the jersey circa '98 - 08

[hugevolsfan]

Really like this update to bad the team did not go this route.

Still not a fan of the two golds the white lower parts looks the best.

[Chawls]

On the team page, the Jags have a poll on the new logo and this image was the background for the poll. Looks similar to their old jerseys so I won't look too much into it, but maybe it could be a sign of new things to come?

I saw that too, but I disregarded it because we heard that their primary jersey would be black.

[Gothamite]

This is a cartoon illustration - not a logo. There is a stark and apparent difference between the two kinds of artwork, and it simply doesn't hold up to any real scrutiny. The old mark was vastly superior in very measurable ways.

So let's measure them. Because no matter how often that first sentence is repeated, it does not become any more true.

[BBTV]

I totally understand the point that there is a difference between an illustration and a logo. Granted, a logo generally is an illustration, but not all illustrations make good logos. We're talking about things like the "book cover" test, which IMO is an important thing, but maybe not to everyone.

I prefer flat simple logos to detailed 3d pictures. Just personal preferance. This new logo certainly isn't bad, but it's not my cup of tea, especially when put up against the now former logo, which IMO looked just perfect on the black helmet. Will wait to see in context though before making full judgement.

[Billy B]

This is a cartoon illustration - not a logo. There is a stark and apparent difference between the two kinds of artwork, and it simply doesn't hold up to any real scrutiny. The old mark was vastly superior in very measurable ways.

So let's measure them. Because no matter how often that first sentence is repeated, it does not become any more true.

Yeah, if the old logo was vastly superior in very measurable ways I want to see those ways and just how much better it was. It's kind of surprising that a professional football team would downgrade in so many ways when there are obvious facts saying the old logo was better.

[Captain Poncho]

This is a cartoon illustration - not a logo. There is a stark and apparent difference between the two kinds of artwork, and it simply doesn't hold up to any real scrutiny. The old mark was vastly superior in very measurable ways.

So let's measure them. Because no matter how often that first sentence is repeated, it does not become any more true.

Measurable way #1:

Embroidery applications.

How, exactly, are those spot details going to be embroidered onto any garment when reduced to a 3" area? Which line will you be removing/reworking/editing in order to achieve a logo that reproduces well at lower scales? The same holds true for the outer ear details and the tongue detail off to the side of the teeth.

With the thicker/bolder lines on the former mark, the logo could shrink down and still maintain visual integrity. This is not the case on the new mark.

Since it is functionally inferior, this makes the new mark inferior on the whole.

Measurable way #2:

With the new level of cartoonish detail - the illustrative style - when applying the new mark to playing surfaces, the fine detail work will be lost since blades of grass/synth turf are variable. When that fine detail is lost in the application of the logo, it changes the mark, and thus, makes it inconsistent. Inconsistent logos are inferior logos.

These are but a few of the measurable, quantifiable ways the new mark is inferior.

To Billy's point, the fact that a pro football team is implementing these logos doesn't automatically exonerate them from technical errors that will prove difficult for outside agencies/output houses/graphics companies/etc. to handle with consistency. Depending on where Khan went for this design, they may very well have not thought about each and every application of the mark. Or, he may have just really liked this Bugs Bunny style and ramrodded it through. I've dealt with similar phenomena throughout my time in sports logo and general logo design projects.

Regardless of the reason, the outcome is the same: A new mark that has problems in a very measurable ways.

[IceCap]

Now that's fantastic.

[Jt0323]

So... the only one we're (probably) still waiting on is the Vikings, correct?

Dolphins too... the leaked one could be it, others say its not, like the CEO, others are convince that its it

[BlueSky]

A previous poster hit the nail on the head by saying this looks like a female version of the old one.

One thing that bugs me is the arc-like curve across the top of the mouth. Anybody who has ever seen a house cat much less a jaguar knows that a distinguishing feature of felines is how the middle top of their mouths sweep up to a point:

So I really don't understand the curved mouth and to me that's one of the major fails of what is otherwise a fairly decent effort.

Here's one of the rejected concepts btw:

[Pizzaman7294]

On the team page, the Jags have a poll on the new logo and this image was the background for the poll. Looks similar to their old jerseys so I won't look too much into it, but maybe it could be a sign of new things to come?

The material of that jersey is Reebok's

[eRay]

Some of the things I've heard already refute my idea, but I thought I'd get it out there anyway.

When the logo was first released, and I saw the attention they paid to the detail in the dots, and noticed the jaguar's new coloring (Gold top, Dark Gold, White chin area) I started envisioning a gold helmet that faded down to white on the very bottom and was covered with these new detailed jaguar dots. With all the advances made in helmet graphic technologies in the past couple years this would be completely feasible and would make a huge splash in the NFL. Anybody else get this image in their head when they first saw the logo?

edit: something like this:

[pcgd]

This is a cartoon illustration - not a logo. There is a stark and apparent difference between the two kinds of artwork, and it simply doesn't hold up to any real scrutiny. The old mark was vastly superior in very measurable ways.

So let's measure them. Because no matter how often that first sentence is repeated, it does not become any more true.

No matter how many times you and others say it's an upgrade it doesn't make it true either. It might be true but just people saying doesnt make it so any more than people saying "illustration" makes that true. And that's been repeated a number of times without backup.

It's a legit commentary and something that is talked about in reviews of logos like this all the time. This isnt "needs stripes" or "worst logo ever!!". I dont know how many times I've heard or said "good illustration, needs to be more iconic" in design reviews discussing logos. Just because you disagree with it it doesnt mean its not a valid opinion. When it comes to design, this is more on the illustration spectrum than the icon spectrum while the previous was the opposite. I have yet to hear anyone in the industry suggest otherwise. That's a commentary on the design from a designer. This isn't designed for designers so you could argue our/my opinion is not valid.

This mark is better in shape and concept than the previous I've agreed from the beginning. It's worse in style however and has created some new issues where it corrected the old issues.

All of this is subjective of course, if design was black and white these forums wouldn't exist.

[Saintsfan]

This is a cartoon illustration - not a logo. There is a stark and apparent difference between the two kinds of artwork, and it simply doesn't hold up to any real scrutiny. The old mark was vastly superior in very measurable ways.

So let's measure them. Because no matter how often that first sentence is repeated, it does not become any more true.

Measurable way #1:

Embroidery applications.

How, exactly, are those spot details going to be embroidered onto any garment when reduced to a 3" area? Which line will you be removing/reworking/editing in order to achieve a logo that reproduces well at lower scales? The same holds true for the outer ear details and the tongue detail off to the side of the teeth.

With the thicker/bolder lines on the former mark, the logo could shrink down and still maintain visual integrity. This is not the case on the new mark.

Since it is functionally inferior, this makes the new mark inferior on the whole.

Measurable way #2:

With the new level of cartoonish detail - the illustrative style - when applying the new mark to playing surfaces, the fine detail work will be lost since blades of grass/synth turf are variable. When that fine detail is lost in the application of the logo, it changes the mark, and thus, makes it inconsistent. Inconsistent logos are inferior logos.

These are but a few of the measurable, quantifiable ways the new mark is inferior.

To Billy's point, the fact that a pro football team is implementing these logos doesn't automatically exonerate them from technical errors that will prove difficult for outside agencies/output houses/graphics companies/etc. to handle with consistency. Depending on where Khan went for this design, they may very well have not thought about each and every application of the mark. Or, he may have just really liked this Bugs Bunny style and ramrodded it through. I've dealt with similar phenomena throughout my time in sports logo and general logo design projects.

Regardless of the reason, the outcome is the same: A new mark that has problems in a very measurable ways.

Sorry but those aren't measurable, quantifiable reasons. They may be true, but that doesn't make them measurable.

I still think this is an upgrade for the Jags. Obviously that could change once its practical applications begin to be used, but I like it.

I don't get the cartoonish comments though. To me cartoonish suggests its less realistic, but this logo is more realistic that the old logo,

[Captain Poncho]

Sorry but those aren't measurable, quantifiable reasons. They may be true, but that doesn't make them measurable.

Actually, these are quite quantifiable. A mark that is utterly impossible to consistently reproduce in some of its major applications fails the benchmark of standardized logo design. A measurement of a good logo.