Cavaliers Uniforms

[mbannon92]

Someone brought up the Celtics' classics. While they are very simple too, there are just enough little elements that make the design work and make it interesting enough, which are the side striping and the waistband. And the font is not so simple either.

The Cavs have a large C-sword logo on each side of the shorts instead of striping, and they also have a striped waistband. And their font is custom, while the Celtics use a standard block font.

If you're gonna make an argument at least get your facts straight.

[truepg]

Someone brought up the Celtics' classics. While they are very simple too, there are just enough little elements that make the design work and make it interesting enough, which are the side striping and the waistband. And the font is not so simple either.

The Cavs have a large C-sword logo on each side of the shorts instead of striping, and they also have a striped waistband. And their font is custom, while the Celtics use a standard block font.

If you're gonna make an argument at least get your facts straight.

So what if they have a large logo on each side of the shorts? It looks awful and amateurish just slapped on there alone. And I'm talking about striping. I may have forgotten about the waistband, but their font is not custom at all, an neither is the Celtics' font standard.

It's you, who should get your facts straight.

[McCall]

So what exactly are the "flaws" of the current set? Simple is not a flaw. If you don't like it, that's just preference. That doesn't make them wrong. Quite frankly it appears your trying to say they have to appeal to your idea of a good design or else their bad. Far from the truth.

Btw, yes the Cavs font is custom and the Celtics is standard. I don't see how you could say the opposite.

[McCall]

So what exactly are the "flaws" of the current set? Simple is not a flaw. If you don't like it, that's just preference. That doesn't make them wrong. Quite frankly it appears your trying to say they have to appeal to your idea of a good design or else their bad. Far from the truth.

Btw, yes the Cavs font is custom and the Celtics is standard. I don't see how you could say the opposite.

I don't think it is necessarily flawed, but kinda like the TB Lightning there is really no reason to be suddenly conservative when the team has generally had non-traditional looks.

Maybe that's why they switched. Most of their success came in simple uniforms (see the Mark Price era royal and orange). And they had these horrible non-traditional sets, namely the entire pre-LeBron black, light blue and orange monstrosities, so they wanted to go back to something simple and traditional.

[truepg]

So what exactly are the "flaws" of the current set? Simple is not a flaw. If you don't like it, that's just preference. That doesn't make them wrong. Quite frankly it appears your trying to say they have to appeal to your idea of a good design or else their bad. Far from the truth.

Btw, yes the Cavs font is custom and the Celtics is standard. I don't see how you could say the opposite.

Again, they're not simple, they're bland. And I didn't say anything about them having flaws, I just said that they're bad as a whole.

And nope, the Cavs font is an existing font, which I have seen used in other places.

[Xist2inspire]

What bugs me is just how simple it is. There is very little that's unique about this jersey. I look at these and I wonder what the entire purpose of design is, if this is all that it takes to make a "good, clean, classic" design. Have the missteps and experiments of the past and the excesses of the present really brought us to the point to where even a simple outline can be considered "unnecessary clutter?"

I've heard the "suit" analogy used for classic designs, but to me this is more like a "t-shirt & jeans" thing - it's classic and will never go out of style, but that doesn't automatically make it a great look for any situation. It's the default look, the bare minimum, the thing you just put on without any thought whatsoever. I just look at this set and see the bare minimum of effort. And I'm likely wrong, the making of this set was probably a very long process. But to me, the final product doesn't reflect that at all, it looks like the youth basketball jerseys I played in as a kid. I look at these and I wonder if something so basic, so utterly devoid of any distinctive characteristics other than color and an (unimpressive IMO) font, is really all it takes to make an "excellent" design.

[McCall]

What makes side panels and piping and multiple components good design?

[Xist2inspire]

What makes side panels and piping and multiple components good design?

What makes them bad?

I'd say it's not the elements themselves, but how they are used that defines whether they are "good" or "bad."

[McCall]

But you're saying the Cavs aren't good because they lack these features. Which means a good uniform has to have them in some form or their bad. Why is that? Simple does not equal bad, despite what you guys seem to believe.

[Gothamite]

Yeah, I'm not understanding the criticism. Other than "I just don't like it", which is totally legitimate but should never be attempted to be justified.

[mbannon92]

So what if they have a large logo on each side of the shorts? It looks awful and amateurish just slapped on there alone. And I'm talking about striping. I may have forgotten about the waistband, but their font is not custom at all, an neither is the Celtics' font standard.

It's you, who should get your facts straight.

A logo on shorts is not amateurish or "slapped on." It's a design element, just like stripes are a design element. And the fact that it's narrow and tall makes it fit in that area very well, IMO. (Yes, I'll admit that's an opinion.) And regarding the Celtics font, their number font is a basic block font that has been used by almost every team at some point, and is currently used by the Spurs and Knicks. The "Celtics" wordmark is also a basic block font that can be found everywhere in sports.

Again, they're not simple, they're bland. And I didn't say anything about them having flaws, I just said that they're bad as a whole.

And nope, the Cavs font is an existing font, which I have seen used in other places.

Show me an example of the Cavs font used elsewhere. Then you'll have an argument.

It's fine if you don't like the Cavs uniforms. But stop trying to make an argument that they're objectively bad/inferior. This whole argument is subjective, just like design as a whole is subjective.

[Xist2inspire]

But you're saying the Cavs aren't good because they lack these features. Which means a good uniform has to have them in some form or their bad. Why is that? Simple does not equal bad, despite what you guys seem to believe.

Never did I say that the Cavs uniforms were bad because they lacked piping or stuff like that. I said I disliked them because they were basic, because they looked like the result of a "bare minimum" effort, because they seriously lacked anything to really make them special. And really, your answer brought another dimension to why I wonder about designs like these: How come if you criticize designs like these, suddenly you don't like classic designs, are in favor of every newfangled element out there, and think Simple = Bad?

I'm fine with simplicity. But I feel that "Simplicity" is an element in and of itself, you can be "simple" without being "basic" or "generic." For me, it's not a black-and-white issue of "Simple = bad." My issue is that they seemed to start and stop at "simple," not even bothering to do anything else. They lack character and heart, which is essential for a good look to me, and especially a simple one. Older teams with simple looks, like the Celtics, don't have this issue, because their history provides the character and heart. For a new squad in Brooklyn, the marketing, merchandising, backing of Jay-Z, and timing helped provide the character and heart needed for their simple look. For the Cavs, their simple look has no history, and it came into existence at an awful time, so the timing was off as well. There was no clever marketing blitz to sell us on it either. It's almost as if they took a basic jersey, slapped a lovely color scheme on it, and said "Let's call it a day boys, we're done here." I feel that the 76ers did the same thing with their current look, by making a weak, generic jersey and then slapping a historic and good-looking color scheme to cover it up.

Personally, that's not enough to make me call it a "good design." But that's just me. I think a lot about design. I like to find out and question why I like things, why others like things, and why others may not like what I like (beyond just saying "different tastes," and leaving it at that). It's how I feel I can move forward as a designer. And with these, the question of "When does simple become generic?" comes up, and for me at least, these cross the line. "Jerseys must have ________ or they're too simple and therefore bad" was not the issue I was bringing up.

[WeLayWeLay]

[j'villejags]

I think we'll at least see some new alternates for Cleveland sooner than later if for no other reason than giving LeBron a method to show off the different color-ways of his shoes.

[tubby34]

This is the best uniform Lebrons ever worn-

-----HEAT-JACKED-----!!!!!!!

[truepg]

So what if they have a large logo on each side of the shorts? It looks awful and amateurish just slapped on there alone. And I'm talking about striping. I may have forgotten about the waistband, but their font is not custom at all, an neither is the Celtics' font standard.

It's you, who should get your facts straight.

A logo on shorts is not amateurish or "slapped on." It's a design element, just like stripes are a design element. And the fact that it's narrow and tall makes it fit in that area very well, IMO. (Yes, I'll admit that's an opinion.) And regarding the Celtics font, their number font is a basic block font that has been used by almost every team at some point, and is currently used by the Spurs and Knicks. The "Celtics" wordmark is also a basic block font that can be found everywhere in sports.

Again, they're not simple, they're bland. And I didn't say anything about them having flaws, I just said that they're bad as a whole.

And nope, the Cavs font is an existing font, which I have seen used in other places.

Show me an example of the Cavs font used elsewhere. Then you'll have an argument.

It's fine if you don't like the Cavs uniforms. But stop trying to make an argument that they're objectively bad/inferior. This whole argument is subjective, just like design as a whole is subjective.

A logo on shorts is not amateurish per se, but when it's not incorporated in any way (e.g. at the bottom of the leg next to a striping [Pistons, Hawks], on a side panel [Lakers, Hornets]) it looks slapped on and amateurish.

What I'm doing is expressing my point of view and trying to explain it by pointing out the reasons behind it. This is what these boards are for.

I've seen the Cavs font used elsewhere on several occasions, one which I know of is the Finnish street dance school "Saiffa", which uses it in its logo and advertising materials. Here's a flyer of theirs:

You can see more of their materials in this Google-search. Happy now?

But the fonts being standard or custom was something that you brought up, what I was saying initially was barely that the Celtics' fonts are more interesting in their shapes than the Cavs' one.

[j'villejags]

I would like to see someone try to get a picture of every uniform lebron wore in his entire career, other than all star games.

That has been posted before. In a thread about "what player has worn the most jerseys in their career" or something to that affect. All I can say is, there was a lot.

DC also posted all of LeBron's Heat/All-Star uni's:http://boards.sportslogos.net/topic/98256-what-player-has-worn-the-most-different-unis-in-their-career-read-post-for-qualifications/?hl=%20most%20%20jerseys%20%20worn

[Berlin Wall]

This is the best uniform Lebrons ever worn-

-----HEAT-JACKED-----!!!!!!!

I definitely agree on that. This is beautiful!

[Lights Out]

Show me an example of the Cavs font used elsewhere. Then you'll have an argument.

The Cavs' font is a slightly customized version of a free font called "Big Noodle Titling," FWIW.

[TheOldRoman]

I must respectfully disagree. Contrasting outlines muddy uniforms, not sharpen them. Those outlines should be avoided in any situation except where the team's color scheme doesn't provide enough contrast in the hues. Say, navy and wine. But the Cavs' wine and gold provides more than enough contrast, and adding outlines (especially white) do more harm than good.

I feel the opposite. I think that outlines almost always add depth and improve numbers. I think no outlines is particularly egregious when the jerseys completely omit white, as with the Cavaliers' road and alternate. There's just such a cheapness to that look, as if the jerseys were screen-printed hand-me-downs which didn't have white because that color would yellow over time. Basically, those jerseys look like the basketball team from every '80s high school movie. The Cavs don't need to look like Teen Wolf.