Milwaukee Bucks Unveil New Logos/Colors, Jerseys & Court

[mgdmhl]

These owners are shrewd businessmen if nothing else. I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if they soon announce that they'll play a couple of exhibition games in Madison and/or Green Bay to try and reintroduce and re-engage their profile throughout the state.

The Bucks already play one preseason game at the Resch Center in Green Bay every year.

Now, I'm not saying my palette is the end all, be all. I'm saying the designers themselves SAY they wanted a different palette. And I'm simply trying to show that this fact matters. Look at the blue pop. Secondly, antler ball is dumb. I went with a more traditional ball and put some highlights and shadows on it to create interest but more importantly to bring the other colors in to the rest of the mark.

Lastly, I made the Door Peninsula a little more accurate up by Green Bay. No idea why they snubbed it off like that. Lame.

I do like what you did with the state's shape. But, I'm not a fan of your basketball. I think it looks too generic and is too similar the the Pelicans Crescent City secondary logo.

Also. While I'm at it. I took some time to play with the idea of their primary buck head. I'm not so sure it even needed to have a face. perhaps more of a silhouette would have worked. SO while playing with silhouette ideas (which admittedly don't really click yet)...it looks like the Larry O'Brien trophy a little...:-)

Anyways while playing with these fledgling ideas that aren't working I think I did hit upon something in the antlers. Only I didn't need to craft hypothetical/mythological antlers to do it like these Brooklyn guys did.

No, I used the OLD ANTLERS...I flipped the brow tines for ball seams like they did....then use line breaks to show how the antlers interact in space....that the front two come forward toward the viewer.

Not a fan of this Bucks concept at all. I don't think the silhouette idea works. Also looks too much like a lama with antlers

[Sterling84v2.0]

Yeah I said those sucked. Please ignore the demon llama.

Look at the antlers though. For one thing...the old Bucks AND the new bucks BOTH render the antlers in silhouette while the face is not. So.......I'll just leave that truth nugget lying there.

What I'm suggesting is that the new designers didn't need to craft craziness on those brow tines to hint at a ball. It's (apparently) always had a ball AND a rim waiting right there...with a few barely noticeable tweaks.

And I think I also made it pretty clear the ball was NBA generic on purpose. I'm saying if you hide a ball in the negative space of antlers that is pretty cool.

If you hide antlers within the seams of a basketball the effect is totally lost. Taken out of context without the buck head those balls just look goofily drawn.

Generic would have been better IMO.

[Shadojoker]

Not a fan of the above concept either. .sorry. but i like the logo on the right of the "M" with antlers though.

[Tigers6884]

Edit: Nevermind

[Gothamite]

Look at the antlers though. For one thing...the old Bucks AND the new bucks BOTH render the antlers in silhouette while the face is not. So.......I'll just leave that truth nugget lying there.

That "nugget" isn't truth.

[Sterling84v2.0]

Look at the antlers though. For one thing...the old Bucks AND the new bucks BOTH render the antlers in silhouette while the face is not. So.......I'll just leave that truth nugget lying there.

That "nugget" isn't truth

Ummmm. Not sure why everything I write is generating objection these days. Willing to believe it's me out of practice.

I'm not sure what you mean. Both of them do. On my little (sorry I don't like that concept...I Know, I said they suck) examples I've cut little notches out...negative space, white space etc....to let the viewers eyes know which tines pass in front of which others in space. That's a graphical attempt at highlight, backlight....whatever. Dimension of some sort.

Neither Bucks logo past or present has that. Same shapes..I just traced them. But with two points of intersection and NO...NONE....ZERO indication which one is in front...whether they connect and the antlers are actually laced together. Nothing. That's a silhouette.

What am I missing?

[Sterling84v2.0]

Alright. This isn't being super well received but I started it....so I'll finish it from my end. Here's where I would have (tried) to take it given the parameters the Bucks gave them. AGAIN...these are not my instincts on what they should have. I like other things...Irish rainbow things...full body things.

BUT...cream city is a strong historical basis for a palette. So......based on what they rolled out...and where I (opinion) think there are flaws both in the contrast and on the illustrative chops......factoring all of that in...this is my go at it.

And please understand I communicate through images . It doesn't mean this has to be it or should be it. I'm trying to discuss via comparing and contrasting of pictures.

@Gothamite for example....hate it or love it....the blue in these antlers reveals dimension. I'm hoping it looks a tad like a rim. If you disagree that's fine. But either way it shows what I meant about all prior antlers and current antlers being in silhouette...which they are. By their renderings you wouldn't know if those nearest tines were actually the furthest away. Right?

OK then......darker green. Blue and cream updates from the interchange. Still has a goofy M in neck, which I don't think was necessary but I put it in as part of the "challenge" I laid out for myself.

And now, at the very least...the three marks relate to one another. The highlights on the deer in blue mimic the blue rivers and lakes on the state logo etc and etc.

Right now there is very little of that continuity from mark to mark OTHER than the comic book M and antler ball seams. So there's some bit of shape continuity in the new set but very little color continuity that connects them.

I've tried to resolve that.

I've also bought in (for the sake of the exercise) to keeping his head (snout) down, eyes angry and ears back ..more geometric shapes in the detail work and the rack is larger. So....although I'm not sure any of those traits are/were necessary...I've tried to mimic them as per the parameters I set.

I don't really need to hear they are great or horrible. I get enough praise and crit from my kids. I'm using these as an attempt to further a discussion about what the Bucks did or didn't do.....as opposed to just saying one likes it or doesn't like it. That's a dead ender. Here's WHY I don't like it.

Thanks for reading and looking.

[JTrainGBR83]

I really like the Buck. I like that you used the blue to add detail/depth to it.

Now, what are your instincts on what they should look like? Do you have anything drawn up in that direction?

[mbannon92]

Look at the antlers though. For one thing...the old Bucks AND the new bucks BOTH render the antlers in silhouette while the face is not. So.......I'll just leave that truth nugget lying there.

That "nugget" isn't truth

Ummmm. Not sure why everything I write is generating objection these days. Willing to believe it's me out of practice.

I'm not sure what you mean. Both of them do. On my little (sorry I don't like that concept...I Know, I said they suck) examples I've cut little notches out...negative space, white space etc....to let the viewers eyes know which tines pass in front of which others in space. That's a graphical attempt at highlight, backlight....whatever. Dimension of some sort.

Neither Bucks logo past or present has that. Same shapes..I just traced them. But with two points of intersection and NO...NONE....ZERO indication which one is in front...whether they connect and the antlers are actually laced together. Nothing. That's a silhouette.

What am I missing?

I'm with you. Neither of these two logos...

...provide any depth when it comes to the antlers. There's no indication whether the horizontal tine is going in front of or behind the inside vertical one. I really like the way you rendered the antlers in your first go-around, and the hidden ball-in-rim is much more identifiable. I don't think the dimension or ball-in-rim come through as well in the second concept you just posted, though. And I do agree that a small amount of blue in the rest of the logos would have been nice.

Regarding the colors, it's a shame that this whole redesign was so rushed that the designers had to go with a color palette they weren't satisfied with. I would have loved to have seen the new look with a darker green and lighter blue.

[CIM]

The only thing I don't like about the state outline logo is that the ball seems too far south on the map. More like it is centered in Racine instead of Milwaukee.

[Claystation360]

This was a very nice update, wish we could see more of these in the NFL.

[Teal]

Uni predictions? Im going with white, green and black. Hope we get a cream with blue accents.

[BBTV]

is the rule that you have to have a white jersey (except LA), or just that you can't have a yellow primary? If the latter, then they should totally go with a cream home.

[Gothamite]

I seem to recall that the Warriors wanted gold home jerseys as part of their most recent rebrand but were refused. The Lakers are grandfathered.

[Sport]

They should absolutely have a cream home uniform. YES PLEASE.

I like the new Bango and think it's an upgrade over the old one. I don't like the roundel treatment and not because I'm one of those people who winces in pain every time a new roundel is introduced. Roundels can work, but I don't like how it ends at his antlers or how the green band that says Milwaukee Bucks ends so abruptly.

I didn't like it when the Buffalo Bisons did it either.

[BBTV]

I seem to recall that the Warriors wanted gold home jerseys as part of their most recent rebrand but were refused. The Lakers are grandfathered.

My question was whether the rule was "white" or just "not yellow (gold)" other than LA.

[Gothamite]

I was getting at having heard the rule is "white as primary home uni". Teams can have light-colored alts, but not at the expense of a white him.

I don't know if this cream is light enough to qualify.

[Quillz]

Yeah, the NBA requires the primary home jersey to be predominately white. The Lakers were grandfathered in because at the time of the rule change (1985?) they had the gold home. The Bucks can have an alternate home of virtually any color scheme they want, but it can't officially be the "primary."

[BBTV]

That sucks. I'm not a fan of color-on-color games, but I do think that silver, cream, or something like a Padres sand should be OK for home uniforms provided there wasn't more than one of each.

[Quillz]

That sucks. I'm not a fan of color-on-color games, but I do think that silver, cream, or something like a Padres sand should be OK for home uniforms provided there wasn't more than one of each.

Well there have been some color-on-color games in the NBA recently that featured each team wearing an alternate jersey. So I think the rules are pretty lax in general. As long as there is no strong color clash, I don't think it's too big a deal if the Bucks requested to wear an alternate jersey for any given game.