TheFloridianLogoMan

2014 MLB Changes (logo, uniform wise, etc)

Recommended Posts

I could've sworn I'd just argued this point, but I couldn't remember, and then I found it. Let me just reiterate my points from the Best Looking Divisions thread:

33m1npe.jpg

The Indians look above, to me at least, IS the Indians. Cleveland is not the Yankees. They're not the team of rigid traditionalism. They're more a light, fun team and I think that the wordmark above represents that personality perfectly, and that over the last 20 years it's become iconic.

But over the past couple years the Indians have seen fit to muddle their identity. The mismatching jovial cursive and sparse print do clash a bit, but my greatest gripe is the the block-letter C. Only existing in the team's history for two years less than a decade removed from the turn of the century, this C is the epitome of boredom. Their expanded usage of it has steadily made their identity worse. Why not go for the wishbone? They wore that for a long time, and while Cincinnati uses it, the Yankees and the Mets both use an interlocking NY. Perhaps making it red with white lining will distinguish them enough like the Mets and Yankees. My favorite option is to use this C if they NEED to change to a C. The current block C is just so BLAH!!!

b7i9np.jpg

Both teams have jumbled, confused sets that mix two completely different identities, muddling their looks. Both have a beautiful modern look and a very strictly traditional look. And the traditional looks would be fine as throwback alternates, but each team wears modern home whites and traditional road grays! Then they have traditional home alternates and modern colored road alternates. Not to mention the fact that, while navy blue and white look really good together, red ON navy without white between makes both colors blend and blur, resulting in a rather bleh look. Speaking of "bleh", I still hate that C, which is making more and more headway in the team's set.

It is comforting to know, though, that this is only a change in primary logo, and the uniforms are not going to be changed any more than they already have.

I don't understand the red cap hate? What makes it that much worse than the navy? Just the lack of precedence in Indians history?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aesthetics. Navy on red just doesn't look as good to me. It disappears against the red crown, while the red pops out against navy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The blue C on the all red cap looks like a beer league softball team called the "Crushers" and these were the hats that "Jeff" had made from his buddy's buddy who owns a tshirt and apparel printing shop. On West Lake? No, it's at the corner of 3rd and Ross St. Oh I know where that is. *Drinks a Coors Light. Pops up to third*

The C gets lost on the red background where when it's reversed the red C shines on the blue background. That and I prefer it when the undershirts are the same color as the hat or the lighter color, but it looks bad when the hat is lighter than the jersey or undershirts. Plus an all red hat is ill-befitting of the Indians who have predominantly been the state's navy blue and red team with emphasis on the navy blue. It doesn't feel like the Cleveland Indians.

It's the worst hat in Major League Baseball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is comforting to know, though, that this is only a change in primary logo, and the uniforms are not going to be changed any more than they already have.

I don't understand the red cap hate? What makes it that much worse than the navy? Just the lack of precedence in Indians history?

It's grown on me some, but I never liked the red hat either. For some reason blue on red seems awkward - something about a dark colored initial on light colored cap seems wrong. I never liked those 70s Red Sox caps either . Maybe that's part of why those gray Royals caps were terrible too.

I guess this cap screams 1970s, but I always liked it and would like to see it make a comeback.

5058dc1b6b3f3dfe93fa26f41ca62376.jpg

Great hat. Wish they had used that instead when they brought back the C. But I have a sentimental attachment to it: my Legion ball team wore that hat, so I associate it with that.

I too, love that hat and the jerseys that went with it. Not the pants though.

Never liked it. Looks more like a caveman font than a native american font to me. If such things exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Within the established aesthetic of MLB, monograms just seem more professional. Back in the day when it was more about the city and some teams changed their names on a yearly basis, there wasn't a need to promote logos for the sake of selling shirts and other gear, and the conservative look prevailed. Originally caps with no logos and often just simple piping, then the monograms. Frankly it looks minor league to me when a team has a logo on their caps.

I agree - I don't agree with the notion that a primary logo and the emblem on the baseball cap / football helmet should be the same thing. The hat logo has so much more context since it's on an athlete with the rest of the uniform. But if I see the letter P or C by itself on a billboard, I might not know what it means if I don't realize it's a baseball context. I don't think that's doing the job a primary logo should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as a mets fan, now that they have the blue alt full time, they should drop the identical blue BP jersey and make an orange version of the blue alt for BP. id like to see the road blue alt dropped and an orange alt added, but I know the chances are slim to none to happening so at least switch the BP to orange. .. I can wish right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could've sworn I'd just argued this point, but I couldn't remember, and then I found it. Let me just reiterate my points from the Best Looking Divisions thread:

33m1npe.jpg

The Indians look above, to me at least, IS the Indians. Cleveland is not the Yankees. They're not the team of rigid traditionalism. They're more a light, fun team and I think that the wordmark above represents that personality perfectly, and that over the last 20 years it's become iconic.

But over the past couple years the Indians have seen fit to muddle their identity. The mismatching jovial cursive and sparse print do clash a bit, but my greatest gripe is the the block-letter C. Only existing in the team's history for two years less than a decade removed from the turn of the century, this C is the epitome of boredom. Their expanded usage of it has steadily made their identity worse. Why not go for the wishbone? They wore that for a long time, and while Cincinnati uses it, the Yankees and the Mets both use an interlocking NY. Perhaps making it red with white lining will distinguish them enough like the Mets and Yankees. My favorite option is to use this C if they NEED to change to a C. The current block C is just so BLAH!!!

b7i9np.jpg

Both teams have jumbled, confused sets that mix two completely different identities, muddling their looks. Both have a beautiful modern look and a very strictly traditional look. And the traditional looks would be fine as throwback alternates, but each team wears modern home whites and traditional road grays! Then they have traditional home alternates and modern colored road alternates. Not to mention the fact that, while navy blue and white look really good together, red ON navy without white between makes both colors blend and blur, resulting in a rather bleh look. Speaking of "bleh", I still hate that C, which is making more and more headway in the team's set.

It is comforting to know, though, that this is only a change in primary logo, and the uniforms are not going to be changed any more than they already have.

I don't understand the red cap hate? What makes it that much worse than the navy? Just the lack of precedence in Indians history?

Both theses teams should be forced to adopt unique color schemes as both their identies are crap. They should take the Nats with them as well. Once the rebrands are done put a moratorium on red+navy and the world will be a better place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone earlier in the thread compared Wahoo and the block C to Green Bay and Minnesota. Here's the thing, the Green Bay logo is unique. It is not just a G in the most generic font imaginable. It is a white G encapsulated in an ovoid footballesque green shape, with a border of athletic gold. That is MILES different than what we're dealing with here.

dcy03myfhffbki5d7il3.gif006wvt6wf3g02vqhx7yofazqv.gif

The block-letter C has absolutely no distinguishing mark, except for a small serif at the top. Basically, let me put it this way: if your primary logo looks no more different than a C in the middle of the name on 90% of uniforms made for highschool teams, then you have failed. And to think that adding a tiny bit of serif at the top makes it professional is insane.

The blue C on the all red cap looks like a beer league softball team called the "Crushers" and these were the hats that "Jeff" had made from his buddy's buddy who owns a tshirt and apparel printing shop. On West Lake? No, it's at the corner of 3rd and Ross St. Oh I know where that is. *Drinks a Coors Light. Pops up to third*

The C gets lost on the red background where when it's reversed the red C shines on the blue background. That and I prefer it when the undershirts are the same color as the hat or the lighter color, but it looks bad when the hat is lighter than the jersey or undershirts. Plus an all red hat is ill-befitting of the Indians who have predominantly been the state's navy blue and red team with emphasis on the navy blue. It doesn't feel like the Cleveland Indians.

It's the worst hat in Major League Baseball.

Hm. Perhaps it's a regional thing. Around here homemade caps are generally navy or black, sometimes a bright Cardinals-type red or some offbeat color. I've never seen a homemade cap like that, and the only thing I see that would point to that is the bland and unimaginative block-letter C. I can understand the prefferral of navy to red because of the team's identity, although I often times see people on this site say the Indians are predominantly red in their mind and that's the difference between them and the predominantly navy Braves (akin to people talking about the Orioles and Giants). However, I don't understand what seems to be a visceral seething hatred for the red cap among members. Worst cap in the sport?! That's insane when the Marlins, Rockies, and Brewers exist. The cap is boring and inoffensive, but I don't understand the claim of it being the worst.

If anything, complaints about the cap should be with the logo, not the colors, but people that hate the red cap seem to be defending the navy version.

Also, in the pictures I've posted and everything I've seen, the navy stands out on red a lot more than the red stands out on navy, but I still prefer white in between.

I guess this cap screams 1970s, but I always liked it and would like to see it make a comeback.

5058dc1b6b3f3dfe93fa26f41ca62376.jpg

Great hat. Wish they had used that instead when they brought back the C. But I have a sentimental attachment to it: my Legion ball team wore that hat, so I associate it with that.

I too, love that hat and the jerseys that went with it. Not the pants though.

Never liked it. Looks more like a caveman font than a native american font to me. If such things exist.

Hmm... The C looks very different here. It has varying widths and does look kinda dated/cavemanish/fake Chinese. This is NOT the C shown on the main website. Which was the actual logo used on the cap back then, because if that's how it looks, then I could understand the trepidation.

Still, though, the block C was used, but only for two years at the turn of the century. Why don't they use the wishbone? Do the reds have any claim to it that would block use?


Within the established aesthetic of MLB, monograms just seem more professional. Back in the day when it was more about the city and some teams changed their names on a yearly basis, there wasn't a need to promote logos for the sake of selling shirts and other gear, and the conservative look prevailed. Originally caps with no logos and often just simple piping, then the monograms. Frankly it looks minor league to me when a team has a logo on their caps.

I agree - I don't agree with the notion that a primary logo and the emblem on the baseball cap / football helmet should be the same thing. The hat logo has so much more context since it's on an athlete with the rest of the uniform. But if I see the letter P or C by itself on a billboard, I might not know what it means if I don't realize it's a baseball context. I don't think that's doing the job a primary logo should.

I wholely agree. I've hated the primaries of the Angels and White Sox for making a move towards this. I'm really not a fan at all of football logos that are just the helmet logo. The Chargers' lightning bolt was meant to arc on a helmet. Alone it looks terrible and unbalanced. Why not use the horse on the shield? And why did Detroit have to abandon the D with the Tiger that they plastered all over Comerica in tile?

Both theses teams should be forced to adopt unique color schemes as both their identies are crap. They should take the Nats with them as well. Once the rebrands are done put a moratorium on red+navy and the world will be a better place.

I argued this earlier in the thread, but I still just don't understand the navy/red hate. They all wear it differently. You'd have to be blind to confuse them. They're unique from each other. Why all the navy/red hate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We told you. You don't agree with the aesthetic preferences, but that doesn't somehow invalidate them.

To my eye, and apparently others', navy-on-red is muddy and bland, while red-on-navy really pops. This might also be a function of shiny thread and duller synthetic fabric, which heightens the effect with a lighter color logo, but whatever's causing it is irrelevant to the final effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Packers logo is not unique. It's on two other well-known helmets.

But it isn't just one color block "C", its way more simple than greenbays logo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Packers logo is not unique. It's on two other well-known helmets.

But it isn't just one color block "C", its way more simple than greenbays logo
Not debating that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We told you. You don't agree with the aesthetic preferences, but that doesn't somehow invalidate them.

To my eye, and apparently others', navy-on-red is muddy and bland, while red-on-navy really pops. This might also be a function of shiny thread and duller synthetic fabric, which heightens the effect with a lighter color logo, but whatever's causing it is irrelevant to the final effect.

Not sure if you're arguing for less red-blue or the preference of the navy C cap over the red C cap with the first statement.

Just trying to wrap my brain around there being such visceral hate when it seems fine to me. Trying to get into the thought process.

The Packers logo is not unique. It's on two other well-known helmets.

True. I didn't mean unique among sports logos, but I suppose unique in the world. Green Bay's G is distinct from a simple Word font. The block C isn't.

By the by, I know of Georgia. Who's the third? Also, who had it first?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem I have with Cleveland's block C is that it doesn't match anything on any of their uniforms. The script uniforms use double outlines; the block C has none. The fauxback uniforms use sans-serif text; the block C has serifs. Design a uniform set that looks like the block C actually belongs to it, and everything's dandy. Currently, though, the hats look like a generic afterthought.

They changed to single-outlines a few years ago...

Cody%2BAllen%2BBoston%2BRed%2BSox%2Bv%2B

uspw_6551844.jpg\

...but yeah, still inconsistent with their set. Cleveland really needs to pick between the '90s script look and the block-style fauxback look (preferably the former, but please oh please fix the "I" to get rid of the "Jndians" effect). Even if they go with the block look, though, the "C" still won't match their jerseys. If they insist on going the block route, then have the scripts at least match the cap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grambling, although admittedly they aren't as high-profile as they were "in my day."

They did make the news this year- for having to cancel a football game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just trying to wrap my brain around there being such visceral hate when it seems fine to me. Trying to get into the thought process.

By the by, I know of Georgia. Who's the third? Also, who had it first?

Grambling. And both license it from the Packers with minor changes. It was created in Green Bay.

As for "visceral hate", I'm not seeing it. Just reasonable dislike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess this cap screams 1970s, but I always liked it and would like to see it make a comeback.

5058dc1b6b3f3dfe93fa26f41ca62376.jpg

Oh god no. The block C may be simple, but at least it has dignity. The claw C was dated as soon as it appeared, and all memory of it should be burned.

Cleveland really needs to pick between the '90s script look and the block-style fauxback look (preferably the former, but please oh please fix the "I" to get rid of the "Jndians" effect).

Do people actually have that confusion? I still want to return to the glorious script-I cap, but I feel I'm alone in this.

Share this post


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