Lights Out

Charlotte Hornets?

Recommended Posts

Regarding this supposed rule which prevents teams from returning to discarded logos: didn't the Jazz and the Sixers do just that?

Not that I am complaining about the Hornets' new logos! But it seems to me that this rule must be pretty new.

The Jazz didn't discard their primary logo, though... they've recolored it, but it's been mostly the same as the '90s logo.

And the Sixers tweaked the font and added a box around their logo for the primary, so that isn't really the same as their old one.

I think the Sixers box was all about fitting the city name in there, as allegedly that's a rule when changing logos too. I guess technically it does make it a new logo though. Funny - you almost never see that logo used - >90% of merch uses just the ball. It's only the generic stuff where the manufacturers just pull whatever is listed "officially" as the primary logo and slap it on something that you see the box.

Evolution of Hugo:

hOcJu9r.png

Further illustrating how ridiculous that ball is. Why no stripes? It's nice that they brought back the pattern under his shoes though (are they Jordans of some sort?) but I miss his evil smirk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm impressed that people here like it. I always wait for people to criticize them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I may interrupt the circle jerk for a moment, I'd like to contribute some dissenting opinions.

1a - With all of the angles and straight lines in the wordmark, it's not reminiscent at all of the old Charlotte Hornets. It's more of an update to the New Orleans Hornets than the original Charlotte team. The Charlotte Hornets had a very "fun" look to them - Hugo, rounded / soft letters in the wordmarks, a ton of colors on the jerseys, etc. This is very serious, and dare I say, soulless.

I don't know how you say it's soulless when it's been around for less than a full day... The old Hornets had 20 years to build up its "soul," and you haven't given this look time to even see the uniforms... I'm guessing a lot of character and charm the original Hornets have in some eyes came from growing up and seeing this team play in teal and purple uniforms.

1b - The wordmark is of the same style as the Houston Texans, Atl Falcons, and (if you look at the way it's shaped in the primary logo) the Eagles. Many on the board have criticized those other teams for going with similar designs (can't remember if they all used the same designer) but that's what we got here as well (minus the small city name above it.) There's nothing new about this - it's like a lot of other recently-designed wordmarks used by NFL and college teams.

You're thinking of Mark Verlander's designs, but I don't see it in this. If I were to see any NFL team in this, it would be the old Cincinnati Bengals wordmark from the late 90s, but that's beside the point... which is that look has already spread to basketball and hockey and major universities. Go look at the last few NBA All Star Game designs and see those fonts. I will give you there isn't anything extremely unique about it, but it does fit the new look they are going for.

2 - The logos are all very well rendered. Can't argue that. However, angry / intimidating mascot logos just seem better suited for minor league or college rather than pro teams. The Admiral hit it on the head when he said it reminded him of minor league baseball logos. I do like the new Hugo logo, and would like to see that as the primary, and then use the other "fiercer" versions as supporting logos. That would be closer to the feel of the original franchise. Hugo, goofy / cartoonish as he is, has a soul. These are certainly not "corporate" marks like we've seen with teams like the Dolphins and Marlins, however they're pretty close.

And here's where we are on opposite sides of the room. I'm of the belief that the "younger" the age, the more whimsy there should be in the design and the minor leagues should be less-serious than the pros which should be, you know, professional. But your theory is so bizarre in my mind that I'd love for you to provide some examples or additional reasoning to try sell your point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolution of Hugo:

hOcJu9r.png

Further illustrating how ridiculous that ball is. Why no stripes? It's nice that they brought back the pattern under his shoes though (are they Jordans of some sort?) but I miss his evil smirk.

I never would've picked up on that, but it looks like they're the Jordan 11s (the ones from Space Jam). Awesome.

air-jordan-11-xl.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding this supposed rule which prevents teams from returning to discarded logos: didn't the Jazz and the Sixers do just that?

Not that I am complaining about the Hornets' new logos! But it seems to me that this rule must be pretty new.

Well the Hornets are a reincarnation, so to speak, of the Charlotte Hornets and not the original, so it's one thing for the original Hornets, who are now the Pelicans, to surrender their Hornets logos to the NBA. The jazz and Sixers are the same franchises that used those logos, so I don't see this rule applying to them. They're simply the same team returning to their own logos. That's not the case for these Charlotte Hornets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all of the angles and straight lines in the wordmark, it's not reminiscent at all of the old Charlotte Hornets. It's more of an update to the New Orleans Hornets than the original Charlotte team.

Well...they did bring this guy back, something that was exclusive to the original franchise only...

Hornets7-590x524.pngcmc6rbgd7rnhhi2p9h97kewik.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I definitely like the way this is going. A direct return to the old would have 1) reminded just how 80s/90s Hugo was and 2) (at the risk of opening a can of worms) muddied the historic lineage of Hornets/Bobcats/Pelicans reality.

This takes a bit of a Winnipeg Jets #2 direction, which I like. It acknowledges the nostalgia for a name and general color scheme without just saying "the team of LJ, Mourning and Mugsy is back!"

And while I am not quite there with "this is the best set in the league", it's top 5. I'd honestly prefer the not have the two cartoony hugo logos (the one with the "Hugo" wordmark and the one based on the old Hugo), but my aversion to campy logos is my issue, I guess. I could also do without "Buzz City", which seems a little forced but the remaining logos, the primary, and the colors are nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I may interrupt the circle jerk for a moment, I'd like to contribute some dissenting opinions.

1a - With all of the angles and straight lines in the wordmark, it's not reminiscent at all of the old Charlotte Hornets. It's more of an update to the New Orleans Hornets than the original Charlotte team. The Charlotte Hornets had a very "fun" look to them - Hugo, rounded / soft letters in the wordmarks, a ton of colors on the jerseys, etc. This is very serious, and dare I say, soulless.

I don't know how you say it's soulless when it's been around for less than a full day... The old Hornets had 20 years to build up its "soul," and you haven't given this look time to even see the uniforms... I'm guessing a lot of character and charm the original Hornets have in some eyes came from growing up and seeing this team play in teal and purple uniforms.

1b - The wordmark is of the same style as the Houston Texans, Atl Falcons, and (if you look at the way it's shaped in the primary logo) the Eagles. Many on the board have criticized those other teams for going with similar designs (can't remember if they all used the same designer) but that's what we got here as well (minus the small city name above it.) There's nothing new about this - it's like a lot of other recently-designed wordmarks used by NFL and college teams.

You're thinking of Mark Verlander's designs, but I don't see it in this. If I were to see any NFL team in this, it would be the old Cincinnati Bengals wordmark from the late 90s, but that's beside the point... which is that look has already spread to basketball and hockey and major universities. Go look at the last few NBA All Star Game designs and see those fonts. I will give you there isn't anything extremely unique about it, but it does fit the new look they are going for.

2 - The logos are all very well rendered. Can't argue that. However, angry / intimidating mascot logos just seem better suited for minor league or college rather than pro teams. The Admiral hit it on the head when he said it reminded him of minor league baseball logos. I do like the new Hugo logo, and would like to see that as the primary, and then use the other "fiercer" versions as supporting logos. That would be closer to the feel of the original franchise. Hugo, goofy / cartoonish as he is, has a soul. These are certainly not "corporate" marks like we've seen with teams like the Dolphins and Marlins, however they're pretty close.

And here's where we are on opposite sides of the room. I'm of the belief that the "younger" the age, the more whimsy there should be in the design and the minor leagues should be less-serious than the pros which should be, you know, professional. But your theory is so bizarre in my mind that I'd love for you to provide some examples or additional reasoning to try sell your point.

Agreed. The whole "whimsical is more major league/fierce is more minor league" is actually opposite of the way logos seem to go. Minor league logos rely on the cartoony, fun, family friendly logos. Major league logos go for either lack of emotion or fierce. The only cartoony ones are those of long standing tradition/use, like the Orioles returning to the cartoon bird.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd honestly prefer the not have the two cartoony hugo logos (the one with the "Hugo" wordmark and the one based on the old Hugo), but my aversion to campy logos is my issue, I guess. I could also do without "Buzz City", which seems a little forced but the remaining logos, the primary, and the colors are nice.

The new rendering of Hugo doesn't even have to be used anywhere on the uniforms/court. Neither does the Buzz City logo. Those logos are there because they want to acknowledge their history, not try to forget about it. And of course for promotional purposes too. But all in all, they will have 7 different secondary logos to choose from, when their jerseys are to be designed. The remaining logos can be used as much or as little as they want. If they make a mistake, they have levrage to fix things up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding this supposed rule which prevents teams from returning to discarded logos: didn't the Jazz and the Sixers do just that?

Not that I am complaining about the Hornets' new logos! But it seems to me that this rule must be pretty new.

The Jazz didn't discard their primary logo, though... they've recolored it, but it's been mostly the same as the '90s logo.

And the Sixers tweaked the font and added a box around their logo for the primary, so that isn't really the same as their old one.

Plus those teams didn't disappear like the Hornets did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolution of Hugo:

hOcJu9r.png

Further illustrating how ridiculous that ball is. Why no stripes? It's nice that they brought back the pattern under his shoes though (are they Jordans of some sort?) but I miss his evil smirk.

I never would've picked up on that, but it looks like they're the Jordan 11s (the ones from Space Jam). Awesome.

air-jordan-11-xl.jpg

This was covered already twice in this thread. Would be nice if people actually went through the earlier posts before posting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolution of Hugo:

hOcJu9r.png

Further illustrating how ridiculous that ball is. Why no stripes? It's nice that they brought back the pattern under his shoes though (are they Jordans of some sort?) but I miss his evil smirk.

I never would've picked up on that, but it looks like they're the Jordan 11s (the ones from Space Jam). Awesome.

This was covered already twice in this thread. Would be nice if people actually went through the earlier posts before posting.

It'd be nice if we could understand that in the hours following a major brand renewal by an NBA team, people post quickly, and topics are discussed multiple times. No need to make a fuss about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I may interrupt the circle jerk for a moment, I'd like to contribute some dissenting opinions.

1a - With all of the angles and straight lines in the wordmark, it's not reminiscent at all of the old Charlotte Hornets. It's more of an update to the New Orleans Hornets than the original Charlotte team. The Charlotte Hornets had a very "fun" look to them - Hugo, rounded / soft letters in the wordmarks, a ton of colors on the jerseys, etc. This is very serious, and dare I say, soulless.

I don't know how you say it's soulless when it's been around for less than a full day... The old Hornets had 20 years to build up its "soul," and you haven't given this look time to even see the uniforms... I'm guessing a lot of character and charm the original Hornets have in some eyes came from growing up and seeing this team play in teal and purple uniforms.

1b - The wordmark is of the same style as the Houston Texans, Atl Falcons, and (if you look at the way it's shaped in the primary logo) the Eagles. Many on the board have criticized those other teams for going with similar designs (can't remember if they all used the same designer) but that's what we got here as well (minus the small city name above it.) There's nothing new about this - it's like a lot of other recently-designed wordmarks used by NFL and college teams.

You're thinking of Mark Verlander's designs, but I don't see it in this. If I were to see any NFL team in this, it would be the old Cincinnati Bengals wordmark from the late 90s, but that's beside the point... which is that look has already spread to basketball and hockey and major universities. Go look at the last few NBA All Star Game designs and see those fonts. I will give you there isn't anything extremely unique about it, but it does fit the new look they are going for.

2 - The logos are all very well rendered. Can't argue that. However, angry / intimidating mascot logos just seem better suited for minor league or college rather than pro teams. The Admiral hit it on the head when he said it reminded him of minor league baseball logos. I do like the new Hugo logo, and would like to see that as the primary, and then use the other "fiercer" versions as supporting logos. That would be closer to the feel of the original franchise. Hugo, goofy / cartoonish as he is, has a soul. These are certainly not "corporate" marks like we've seen with teams like the Dolphins and Marlins, however they're pretty close.

And here's where we are on opposite sides of the room. I'm of the belief that the "younger" the age, the more whimsy there should be in the design and the minor leagues should be less-serious than the pros which should be, you know, professional. But your theory is so bizarre in my mind that I'd love for you to provide some examples or additional reasoning to try sell your point.

1. Keep in mind as I respond to your points that I'm using the Hornets 1.0 package as a starting point for any evaluation, since I think we all wanted a modernization or update to that look.

I say it's "soulless" because it's a static mark devoid of any character. Probably due to the way the eyes are done. To me, this mark is close to being in (but not actually in) the same category as the Marlins and Dolphins, which look more like logos that go next to corporate letterhead than sports logos For lack of a better way of putting it - many other logos have an organic quality that gives them character. This mark is just too perfect, too calculated, too devoid of any real character. This is obviously not the only logo I feel this way about, it just happens to be the one just unveiled and the one we're discussing now.

2. You're right - it was Verlander. I see a lot of similarities to other teams in these wordmarks - I already pointed out the Eagles. As for whether it fits the new look that they're going for, that's debatable. If they wanted to update or modernize the original CHARLOTTE Hornets, then I'd say it fails. If it was to essentially be the starting point for what is a new disjointed franchise that's simply inspired by the old Hornets, then yes - it works for that. The problem I have is that while it is a new team that has absolutely no connection to the original Charlotte franchise, I thought that they were trying to essentially continue that line as if New Orleans just didn't happen. I think this is a little different than Winnipeg Jets 2.0 (which is probably the most recent example of a situation like this that I can think of) because the Jets didn't essentially start trends, kinda start a new era in sports merchandising, lead their league in sales, etc. There's a lot more of a connection to the old Hornets brand, and I think that these new marks should have reflected that.

3. I'm not advocating that top level teams have cartoonish mascot logos... 99.9% of the time. I just think that the "fierce" or "menacing" mascot logos are more of a trend, and these logos may not stand the test of time like so many of the more classic marks. Let's take the Toronto Blue Jays for example. Their original and current logos could stick around forever. Their "angry bird" logo lasted only a few years. There's just such a fine line between "classic" and "cool", and I think they were gong for "cool" here. Well they succeeded, but I would predict that they will end up goign in a new direction in fewer than 10 seasons.

Minor league baseball teams seem to gravitate towards mascots as logos. Be it happy cartoonish versions, or angry menacing versions - or both, like the Binghampton Mets, which seems to be (for some reason) also a bee or fly of some sorts. I think that's fine because it sells to kids, and minor league teams change up every few years anyway - it's planned obsolescence. I cannot imagine this primary logo lasting as long as Chicago's bull, or Milwaukee's buck, or even Atlanta's full wing hawk, which is probably the one it bears the most likeness to. I would compare it more to Memphis' bear - NOT BAD by any stretch, but just something I picture being worn more by younger people.

I think that the Hornets fall in to the .01% of major-league teams that should have a cartoonish mascot logo. Again mostly because I feel strongly that they should try to continue their original brand with an evolutional update, as opposed to the revolutional change that they came out with. Round out the wordmarks some, put the new Hugo in there, and then use these new marks for support and my opinion is totally different. It would also provide for a more smooth transition to this new package if they decided to go that way in a couple of seasons.

Back to New Hugo - every time I look at that ball he swallowed (or is giving birth to) the more awkward it looks. Either part of his body is made up of a basketball, or there's a basketball inside him for some reason and his skin is so tight that you can see the seams. It's bizarre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all of the angles and straight lines in the wordmark, it's not reminiscent at all of the old Charlotte Hornets. It's more of an update to the New Orleans Hornets than the original Charlotte team.

Well...they did bring this guy back, something that was exclusive to the original franchise only...

Hornets7-590x524.pngcmc6rbgd7rnhhi2p9h97kewik.gif

That one is so mysterious. For years I only knew it as a black and white (actually orange and white) version from basketball cards; I guess that guy was on the shorts too. Why is it colored black?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For all the people still talking about the new Hugo, it was covered earlier that it will be used ONLY FOR MASCOT BRANDING. It will never show up on a uniform, warmup, or piece of merchandise, nor will it become the primary. The throwback logo will be available on merchandise as a Hardwood Classic, as it has been throughout the Bobcats era.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean just look at how much better this stuff is. From the ugliest crap in the NBA to one of the best imo.

newidentity.png

When you put it like that... stunning.

But do they really need all those logos?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For all the people still talking about the new Hugo, it was covered earlier that it will be used ONLY FOR MASCOT BRANDING. It will never show up on a uniform, warmup, or piece of merchandise, nor will it become the primary. The throwback logo will be available on merchandise as a Hardwood Classic, as it has been throughout the Bobcats era.

for now… this can always change, and it will probably be found on some merchandise somewhere, it's just too good of a logo to not be used anywhere

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For all the people still talking about the new Hugo, it was covered earlier that it will be used ONLY FOR MASCOT BRANDING. It will never show up on a uniform, warmup, or piece of merchandise, nor will it become the primary. The throwback logo will be available on merchandise as a Hardwood Classic, as it has been throughout the Bobcats era.

for now… this can always change, and it will probably be found on some merchandise somewhere, it's just too good of a logo to not be used anywhere

I have the old Hugo on a New Era hat and wouldn't be surprised to find a new Hugo version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.