Milwaukee Bucks Unveil New Logos/Colors, Jerseys & Court

[Pabig]

Just what the NBA (and pro sports in general) needs - another color scheme with blue in it! The uniforms are going to be a disaster, I can already tell.

Could not agree with you more. Replace the blue with lime and we have a winner.

Why lime? How does that suit the Bucks more than blue? Green-red-white was perfect.

[jp1409]

Definitely growing on me the more I look at it.

Same..with all the rest of those logo set it looks great!

I absolutely love everything but the M. The colors and style (just like the Wild) totally fit the region and the name.

[SG89]

I think the darker colours on the mug look better than the lighter versions that Conrad posted.

[Sterling84v2.0]

I don't believe there's any objective measure that would support the idea of the current/former Bucks logo being a "quality" illustration. Not unless the quality is mediocre. It's eyes are where a person's eyes would be. It's got a human proportioned neck and shoulders.

Say what you want, but this is just not true.

And this new buck lacks a 'crown' (as in head), among other things.

Which part isn't true? The neck to head ratio/proportions? The placement of the eyes? The brow tine highlights that read to the viewer as sad eyebrows? I specifically used the word objective (rather than subjective) inviting you or anyone to argue those issues/flaws directly. Saying they aren't true doesn't address them as far as I'm concerned. I'll reiterate. Loving the look has nothing to do with it being good. I'm attached to some really bad art too.

And as for the new one? And a crown or whatever? I'm in the camp that dislikes the new one too. So criticize away. I'm in full agreement.

Listen, here's my olive branch that I offered by way of my reference to CubsFan's post. I don't think the relative awesomeness or awfulness of pigbuckman is what made it successful or unsuccessful. Quality illustration doesn't go hand in hand with great NBA branding necessarily. Does it? Is the Chicago Bulls logo a great drawing? No it's an outstanding bit of iconography. The NBA and MLB to a large extent are typography and palette leagues. I'd offer that the NHL and NFL are really more about the quality of the illustration just based on the size of the canvas the artists have to work with (sweater and helmet respectively).

The biggest problem the FORMER Bucks logo (gosh I love writing that) has in common with the new one is that it's not going to scale well. Even in HD, the old Bucks logo gets lost in the scrolling score bug type graphic packages. It's not nearly "square" enough in proportion and even without the type on the bottom, half the logo (the antlers) is just open space that doesn't show up at distance. The new one has a larger rack...i.e. MORE open space than before. I suspect from afar it is really going to get lost. I further suspect they are hoping to use the WI or M or M-ball alternate more on TV for those score bug situations. We will see.

Last add RE: palette. Haven't heard anyone here say so, but I feel like the blue is a direct nod at the "new" not new Marquette interchange. I've been gone for 8 years now but everytime I fly home and head north from Mitchell and head into the city? Especially when the sun is out? The cream and blue of the interchange and the bridges and retaining walls really is pretty. It's almost like they've branded the entire downtown of the city with that palette. I do not think its crazy to wanna tie into that personally. Doesn't mean it'll look good. But that's my guess as to where that's coming from.

[ScubaSteve]

I don't believe there's any objective measure that would support the idea of the current/former Bucks logo being a "quality" illustration. Not unless the quality is mediocre. It's eyes are where a person's eyes would be. It's got a human proportioned neck and shoulders.

Say what you want, but this is just not true.

And this new buck lacks a 'crown' (as in head), among other things.

Which part isn't true? The neck to head ratio/proportions? The placement of the eyes? The brow tine highlights that read to the viewer as sad eyebrows? I specifically used the word objective (rather than subjective) inviting you or anyone to argue those issues/flaws directly. Saying they aren't true doesn't address them as far as I'm concerned. I'll reiterate. Loving the look has nothing to do with it being good. I'm attached to some really bad art too.

And as for the new one? And a crown or whatever? I'm in the camp that dislikes the new one too. So criticize away. I'm in full agreement.

Listen, here's my olive branch that I offered by way of my reference to CubsFan's post. I don't think the relative awesomeness or awfulness of pigbuckman is what made it successful or unsuccessful. Quality illustration doesn't go hand in hand with great NBA branding necessarily. Does it? Is the Chicago Bulls logo a great drawing? No it's an outstanding bit of iconography. The NBA and MLB to a large extent are typography and palette leagues. I'd offer that the NHL and NFL are really more about the quality of the illustration just based on the size of the canvas the artists have to work with (sweater and helmet respectively).

The biggest problem the FORMER Bucks logo (gosh I love writing that) has in common with the new one is that it's not going to scale well. Even in HD, the old Bucks logo gets lost in the scrolling score bug type graphic packages. It's not nearly "square" enough in proportion and even without the type on the bottom, half the logo (the antlers) is just open space that doesn't show up at distance. The new one has a larger rack...i.e. MORE open space than before. I suspect from afar it is really going to get lost. I further suspect they are hoping to use the WI or M or M-ball alternate more on TV for those score bug situations. We will see.

Last add RE: palette. Haven't heard anyone here say so, but I feel like the blue is a direct nod at the "new" not new Marquette interchange. I've been gone for 8 years now but everytime I fly home and head north from Mitchell and head into the city? Especially when the sun is out? The cream and blue of the interchange and the bridges and retaining walls really is pretty. It's almost like they've branded the entire downtown of the city with that palette. I do not think its crazy to wanna tie into that personally. Doesn't mean it'll look good. But that's my guess as to where that's coming from.

It's a good point. But also take into account we haven't seen their secondary yet. Because of the restrictions the NBA sets for primary logos (mandatory city and nicknames) most teams use their secondary at midcourt and in presentation graphics packages. That's why you never see the Sixers' box outline logo, because it's only there to satisfy those standards.

So maybe the secondary be a little more easy-to-proportion.

[TheRicSlick]

The new buck head is starting to grow on me except when it has the ugly M under it.

[CubsFanBudMan]

Wow...nothing like having one product able to leak every new logo and wordmark you have.

Somebody at a glass company is going to lose their job ... or deal with Bucks/NBA.

Nothing spectacular, but if they play up the green and cream and the deer head by itself -- as they seem to be doing -- it should look good.

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

I don't see any blue in those logos. Is it just going to be on the unis? And if so, hopefully very minimal. I think this green/cream combo is killer.

[mbannon92]

Overall I'd say this is a pretty good logo set. The new buck is an improvement IMO, and I especially like the "M" in the neck and the basketball in the antlers. And I really love how they tapered the lines in the basketball logos to match the ends of the antlers—great attention to detail. The wordmarks aren't spectacular, but they aren't ridiculous, which is good. My only complaint really is the box containing "Milwaukee Bucks" in the primary logo. Would look much better as a full circle.

I'm really interested to see the uniforms. I bet the blue and black will appear in some sort of Irish rainbow-like striping. I also think the home jersey will be white after seeing all the white used in the logos. I kind of wish they went with a lighter cream and used it in place of white.

[bowld]

I actually really like it. I think the Buck head on its own looks great

[VikWings]

I like the new buck on it's in own, hopefully that's used more and the semi circle with the name is only there to satisfy league rules.

The M is atrocious though and all the other alternate logos are meh at best.

I'm a sucker for baby blue so I'm interested to see how they incorporate it.

The black in the color scheme is completely unnecessary.

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

The standalone M is terrible. I understand that it's supposed to be a hoof mark, but you really have to push for it. Either make it more obvious or get rid of it.

[mgdmhl]

Just what the NBA (and pro sports in general) needs - another color scheme with blue in it! The uniforms are going to be a disaster, I can already tell.

Could not agree with you more. Replace the blue with lime and we have a winner.

Why lime? How does that suit the Bucks more than blue? Green-red-white was perfect.

It goes back to their "Irish Rainbow" colors back in the 70's and 80's.

[mjd77]

I'm really interested to see the uniforms. I bet the blue and black will appear in some sort of Irish rainbow-like striping. I also think the home jersey will be white after seeing all the white used in the logos. I kind of wish they went with a lighter cream and used it in place of white.

Perhaps an Irish Creme rainbow?

[LEWJ]

I like the focus on green/cream so far.

I really hate that M, to be honest. Actually, I wish it wasn't even part of the logo. It looks absolutely awful in any other context/logos.

Love the colors, love the deer (still needs pupils...), and I really really like the block lettering on that glass. (I definitely would prefer that to the weird curvy font they're using elsewhere.)

[Gothamite]

Add me to the chorus: I really like the deer head, really really hate that M everywhere it appears by itself.

[truepg]

I don't believe there's any objective measure that would support the idea of the current/former Bucks logo being a "quality" illustration. Not unless the quality is mediocre. It's eyes are where a person's eyes would be. It's got a human proportioned neck and shoulders.

Say what you want, but this is just not true.

And this new buck lacks a 'crown' (as in head), among other things.

Which part isn't true? The neck to head ratio/proportions? The placement of the eyes? The brow tine highlights that read to the viewer as sad eyebrows? I specifically used the word objective (rather than subjective) inviting you or anyone to argue those issues/flaws directly. Saying they aren't true doesn't address them as far as I'm concerned. I'll reiterate. Loving the look has nothing to do with it being good. I'm attached to some really bad art too.

The whole statement that is quoted, obviously. The illustration is anatomically correct, thus doesn't support your view of it being "mediocre" because of it. You mention "objectivity", but then use the argument that the brow tine (which are actually the pedicles) highlights read as sad eyebrows, which is a totally subjective statement, since I never read them as such until I tried to. Neither I ever read the nose as one of a pig, although I admit it can be interpreted as such.

[KDubK414]

I'm really digging it!!! I will definitely be adding those pint glasses to my collection. Overall it is a solid upgrade and makes me proud as a Bucks fan. Hopefully the unis look really good too.

[LEWJ]

This is a very wild guess...

Could there be some sort of pride alternate jersey that focuses on blue--being that it is part of the Milwaukee flag?

EDIT: I'm wayyyy late on this. I really need to start skimming through what I haven't read yet... haha

[mcrosby]

No one here is proud of that flag.