Popular Content

Showing most liked content on 11/05/2012 in all areas

  1. 4 likes
    As if Rutgers didn't have enough variations of the exact same lid: I'm really getting tired of this stuff. We get it: you support the troops, have 50 different helmet decals and interchangeable facemasks. It's getting to the point where in the next decade, we will look back and see the standard helmets in about half of pictures. Too much pandering, too many alternates, too much everything. Pick some home and road default unis, maybe throw in an alternate or two and call it a day. The weekly dress-up, new outfit every week thing is getting old. You're playing football, not standing in front of the mirror asking buddies, "Does this look good on me?"
  2. 2 likes
    Nevermind that these decals absolutely shyt all over the flag code, which are the guidelines for respectable treatment of the flag. If they want to "pay tribute to the troops," what's so wrong with a small, but classy decal on the back of the helmets, or a patch on the jerseys? Putting a bunch of camo/flags/fireworks/etc. on your uniform makes it more about YOU than "the troops."
  3. 2 likes
  4. 1 like
    Didn't want to continue to derail the thread in the main section, but this was my initial concept I mocked up in a few minutes: Anyway, I made a few quick updates to the design when I had a chance and so I thought I'd post it up here for you all to see. It's not where I want it yet, so please be gentle.
  5. 1 like
  6. 1 like
    Although that's the current cap design, I couldn't agree more. The Padres are one of those rare teams that got it completely right out of the box and have been flailing around trying to get back there ever since.
  7. 1 like
    Ray Guy at Southern Mississippi in the early 1970s:
  8. 1 like
    This has been better than anything they've come up with since.
  9. 1 like
    I wonder if Toronto was trying to get back at the Nets. A few years back, the Raptors and Nets played in Toronto and they tried to have a "red-out." Then the Nets showed up in their alternate red jerseys.
  10. 1 like
    How cool would it have been if the team took batting practice or something like that as part of the unveiling. Sell the place out, make it a team wide home run derby under the lights. That would have been great.
  11. 1 like
    If this isn't your best look for the Blue Jackets, then you're wrong. Just the way it is.
  12. 1 like
    I'll be that guy: I actually like and prefer the Eagles' midnight green. I really don't even mind the usage of black trim...their entire problem comes from also using charcoal rather than real silver. They concentrate on midnight green and silver (mainly the pants), they'll be alright. If anything, it's the JETS who need to re-embrace and take ownage of the kelly green.
  13. 1 like
    In my opinion...the Eagles need to make a switch back to Kelly Green immediately... -Switch the primary color to Kelly Green -Wear Silver pants for home and away (same stripe combo replacing gray with white and midnight with Kelly) -Kelly Green socks with black bottom line (ala Detroit Lions) -Replace current wordmark with modern colored 80's wordmark -Change primary logo to current eagle head on a modern eagle body (ala 90's logo) -Retain number font on uni's -Facemask switch from black to silver PERFECTION. And if there is really going to be a regime change, this would be the perfect opportunity to do so.
  14. 1 like
    its up on BrandNew now: http://www.undercons...ing_stellar.php i dont think so. this isnt a throwback uniform, its pulling from a past identity, but is something made for the future. theres new elements and thats one of them. im not the biggest baseball guy, so i dont know how having these cap options is confusing. who are they going to be mistaken for?
  15. 1 like
  16. 1 like
  17. 1 like
    I'm not sure why it isn't working for you. I have tested the download links on this page and opened the file. Has anyone else encountered a problem?
  18. 1 like
    I'm looking at what it is too. A very clean, nice looking baseball uniform. Let's take this exchange and pair it with this snippet from another previous post: What this exchange right here illustrates is something that very rarely gets talked about around these parts: the difference between "brand identity" and "brand image". But first, let's identify the Houston Astros brand itself in a vaccuum: the nickname, the colors navy and orange, and its primary icon, the H-star. Those three components on their own, and in any other situation, compose the brand. Now this next part is where things get tricky. Once one nails down the components of a brand, now its time to arrange these things some kind of way in order to convey some type of meaning—an identity, in other words. As I mentioned before, I wasn't in the Astros' boardroom when they went to hammering this stuff out, but from insider accounts, their aim was to "go back to their roots", so to speak, or said another way, take it back to the '60s. So let's say this was the team's intention. (For S&G's, let's also assume for a second that none of us ever saw the original sets.) Nothing evokes "old school" more than block lettering and numbering, so there's your script type right there-and in this instance, they opted for serified block...with slight "modern" enhancements, seen in the shape of the serifs, which identifies the script type as not just serified block, but the Houston Astros' serified block, unique to the team. Many uniforms from that time had their jersey scripts radially arched across their chest. Several also had thick-ish placket piping, so they added that, too. What I've just illustrated is thethe arrangement of those brand components that the team intended for the viewer to interpret as "old school"—their "identity", which in a nutshell could be simplified as "what team wants you to see". Then there's that third part...the feedback generated by the viewer. How the end-viewer sees and interprets the team's identity (again, what the team wants you to see), defines its brand image—or said another way, what YOU see out of it. This is where the second and third excerpts come in. Most see a clean, simple, solid old-school baseball uniform (that looks like it would fit in in the '60s, which is when the Astros franchise was born. When the end-viewer's interpretation matches up with the team's intention, then the brand identity is a success. And after all that's determined, THEN we can get to either loving it or hating it, praising it or berating it...feel me? (Now to be sure, there really is no exact science on this whole sports branding thing—and I damn sho' ain't the authoritative expert on it. Just figured I'd hit it from another perspective since the time seemed right.) That's about the way I see it in my head too—and I also now see your point about the all-navy cap on the road, since to me anyway, it appears more "muted" (and as stupid as this may seem, when it comes to baseball uniforms, I for some reason see a road look as the muted version of the home look). One other thing, though, Matt, that has nothing to do with the uniform concept itself: had the thought ever occurred to you to pare "Matthew Call Designs" down to just "CallDesign"? More short and snappy. Additionally, looking at your logo, since those letterforms appear similar, did it ever pop up in your head to kinda render the "C" into something of a telephone receiver (as a play on your surname)? They look kinda like a "C", and if you render it right, it might just work. You might could fashion the "phone cord" (not coiled, of course), into the rest of the letterform into the "D", and still leave the pencil tip at the bottom there? I don't know, I was just sitting here looking at that logo and my mind's eye started seeing all that stuff I just mentioned. Give it a shot, kin.
  19. 1 like
    This has the potential to become "old uniforms I like" so I'll keep my contributions to old uniforms that I think could be designed today. As much as I love the Chargers' powder blue throwbacks, there's no way that uniform would be designed today. So already lot of classic looks are out. I'll post more as I think of them, but this was the first one to come to mind.
  20. 1 like
    I'm looking at what it is too. A very clean, nice looking baseball uniform. You know what I find tiring? Being told that my tastes (and the tastes of those who share my aesthetic preferences) are "lazy," "boring," and "safe." I'm sorry that I don't find a vest with a wrap-around snake pattern the pinnacle of baseball uniform design. This is quite the empty statement when you get down to it. First off, yes navy is very prominent in baseball, and some teams could stand to lose it. The Brewers should probably return to royal blue and the Padres should probably return to brown. That being said the Astros aren't a team that needs to avoid navy. They didn't go with navy to be "safe," they went with navy because the entire point of this set was to return to the team's aesthetic roots. And the team wore navy for the first thirty seven years of their existence. Overused or not, the Astros using the colour navy has precedent. The "oh they went with navy how boring " statement really falls apart, however, when you think about what the Astros could have done. Had they updated the shooting star set, brought back the rainbow guts in some form on a game jersey, or even gone back to the 1994-1999 set you love so much, you would be praising the new look all day. Yet they would still use navy as the primary colour. So your whole "I don't like it because it uses navy" argument comes off, to me at least, as b****ing for b****ing's sake. You don't dislike the navy. You just dislike how it was used. Which is fine. Just admit it and stop bashing the colour itself.
  21. 1 like
  22. 1 like
    Feels like one of those number sets NFL Properties would cook up to make sure a team's varsity-ish block was proprietary. Or like someone cut them out of felt with the dull pair of shears from that drawer under the microwave with the rubber bands and pizzeria menus. Either/or
  23. 1 like
    I don't think that's totally fair. A sports league should be a continuum of modern and classic designs. A team that's been around since the 19th century should look the part. An expansion team in a smallish town should creatively distinguish itself. The Marlins fell short in execution but had their heart in the right place for what and where they are. The Padres had an interesting history of uniforms (and don't tell me navy blue varsity block is a tribute to the PCL, oh, gargle me) and a perfectly acceptable modern design, but went to a muddled "classic" set that didn't work for them. The Astros are going to go back to their original color scheme and general aesthetic, but perhaps not be as creative as they're allowed to be with their name and standing in the league. That's an acceptable criticism, I feel. I know people bitch about everything here, but as long as they can do so constructively, that's preferable to just rubber-stamping everything that comes out because they're the pros and we're not.
  24. 1 like
    Everything I've seen so far leads me to believe that the Astros' new set will be more than fine. When a team rebrands from the past, you guys complain that they aren't doing anything new or innovative. When a team tries something new and innovative, you bitch that they didn't go traditional. Seriously, I'm glad more execs don't read these boards. They'd go crazy trying to figure out whatever it is you guys really want. You're all like the worst girlfriends ever when it comes to this stuff.
  25. 1 like
    This is what's so fascinating: Coyotes fans have the most hardline pro-owner stance of any fanbase (which is kind of like a homeless person having a hardline pro-food stance), so they're in favor of the lockout that, by their own logic, is actually harming their market more than any other. You see, they need the team to stay because the city will allegedly go bankrupt without hockey at the mall, even though in order to save the team they need to bust the union and thus drastically lower the team's operating costs, which requires a protracted lockout, which means there's no hockey at the mall, which means the city will allegedly go bankrupt. If their hypothesis is true, this season will kill the mall and there will be no mall left for hockey to save; if the season doesn't kill the mall, their hypothesis is demonstrably false. However, this mall-saving rabblerousing is all predicated on the fallacy that any of them give a damn about the stupid mall or anything greater than just having their hockey team not move. The propaganda behind voting yes on the sales tax increase (or is it voting no on not having the sales tax increase? wtf?), which most ironically is couched in saving the jobs of police and firefighters, is the work of an elderly shut-in from across the Valley who publishes elaborate Vast Mexican Conspiracies on his blog and gets off on being mentioned at city council meetings in a city where he doesn't even live. So you have these people indirectly defending union-busting as necessary for the Coyotes in the abstract while these same union-busting policies damage the local economy they're claiming to defend in reality. In short, Coyotes fans are not just a pain in the ass with an obnoxious siege mentality but disingenuous and self-involved twerps with an ethical compass that couldn't be more haywire if you wrapped it in a hundred magnets. Please don't like the sport I like.
This leaderboard is set to Toronto/GMT-05:00

  • Newsletter

    Sign Up