FB: Ohio Athletic Conference

[reality check]

So how about that major overhaul to the Browns logo revealed today?  I had a great discussion in class today with my graphic design students about all the issues and mistakes regarding the Cleveland Browns' brand.

[Jonny Utah]

So how about that major overhaul to the Browns logo revealed today?  I had a great discussion in class today with my graphic design students about all the issues and mistakes regarding the Cleveland Browns' brand.

I like it.  I was discussing this with a group of friends recently about which NFL teams look good in all white (pants and jerseys), and I always thought Cleveland did it the best with those sharp orange and brown colors in the stripes and helmets.  This new look should make it even better.

[reality check]

 

So how about that major overhaul to the Browns logo revealed today?  I had a great discussion in class today with my graphic design students about all the issues and mistakes regarding the Cleveland Browns' brand.

I like it.  I was discussing this with a group of friends recently about which NFL teams look good in all white (pants and jerseys), and I always thought Cleveland did it the best with those sharp orange and brown colors in the stripes and helmets.  This new look should make it even better.

This new look?  A slightly oranger orange?  The question revolves more around the fact that they have a helmet for a logo and not that their helmets are logoless.  They literally pride themselves on the fact that their logo isn't a logo at all but rather an image of a 30 year old helmet.  I am all for the Browns being "unique" in having no decal on their helmets.  But to have a logo that is simply an orange helmet is embarrassingly missing the mark.  I have had a couple Browns fans argue with me today on the matter and I think they are so caught up in the "we're different and proud of it" part that they fail to see the issue with their logo being a blank helmet.  That's not really a logo.  And while I get they are named after Paul Brown, the fact that their helmets are orange has always seemed strange.  The Reds are red.  The Royals are blue.  The Blues are blue.  The Red Sox are red.  The Purple Raiders are purple.  But the Browns are orange?

[Jonny Utah]

So how about that major overhaul to the Browns logo revealed today?  I had a great discussion in class today with my graphic design students about all the issues and mistakes regarding the Cleveland Browns' brand.

I like it.  I was discussing this with a group of friends recently about which NFL teams look good in all white (pants and jerseys), and I always thought Cleveland did it the best with those sharp orange and brown colors in the stripes and helmets.  This new look should make it even better.

This new look?  A slightly oranger orange?  The question revolves more around the fact that they have a helmet for a logo and not that their helmets are logoless.  They literally pride themselves on the fact that their logo isn't a logo at all but rather an image of a 30 year old helmet.  I am all for the Browns being "unique" in having no decal on their helmets.  But to have a logo that is simply an orange helmet is embarrassingly missing the mark.  I have had a couple Browns fans argue with me today on the matter and I think they are so caught up in the "we're different and proud of it" part that they fail to see the issue with their logo being a blank helmet.  That's not really a logo.  And while I get they are named after Paul Brown, the fact that their helmets are orange has always seemed strange.  The Reds are red.  The Royals are blue.  The Blues are blue.  The Red Sox are red.  The Purple Raiders are purple.  But the Browns are orange?

Well they are Brown and Orange, but Brown is simply an ugly football uniform color no matter how you match it up.  I've been watching Brown University off and on since I was a kid (playing Holy Cross and Harvard) and their uniforms always look bad unless they are mostly white.  That being said, I think a helmet logo with Brown uniforms might make them look even worse.

I like the sharp orange color and don't think they need a logo. 

[SaintsFAN]

So how about that major overhaul to the Browns logo revealed today?  I had a great discussion in class today with my graphic design students about all the issues and mistakes regarding the Cleveland Browns' brand.

its like putting lipstick on a pig.

[Craft_Beermeister]

I think its a LITTLE different in the NFL, Craft.  The QBs are investments and the owners want them to avoid as much contact as necessary. 

Sliding to avoid contact certainly has a place in the NFL.

My point is that Meyers will get killed in the NFL if he doesn't slide.  I was so surprised in the playoff game he stopped running after a couple of yards and just cowered.

[bleedpurple]

So how about that major overhaul to the Browns logo revealed today?  I had a great discussion in class today with my graphic design students about all the issues and mistakes regarding the Cleveland Browns' brand.

I like it.  I was discussing this with a group of friends recently about which NFL teams look good in all white (pants and jerseys), and I always thought Cleveland did it the best with those sharp orange and brown colors in the stripes and helmets.  This new look should make it even better.

This new look?  A slightly oranger orange?  The question revolves more around the fact that they have a helmet for a logo and not that their helmets are logoless.  They literally pride themselves on the fact that their logo isn't a logo at all but rather an image of a 30 year old helmet.  I am all for the Browns being "unique" in having no decal on their helmets.  But to have a logo that is simply an orange helmet is embarrassingly missing the mark.  I have had a couple Browns fans argue with me today on the matter and I think they are so caught up in the "we're different and proud of it" part that they fail to see the issue with their logo being a blank helmet.  That's not really a logo.  And while I get they are named after Paul Brown, the fact that their helmets are orange has always seemed strange.  The Reds are red.  The Royals are blue.  The Blues are blue.  The Red Sox are red.  The Purple Raiders are purple.  But the Browns are orange?

So, they are like a Seinfield episode. A logo about nothing....

[Mr. Ypsi]

So how about that major overhaul to the Browns logo revealed today?  I had a great discussion in class today with my graphic design students about all the issues and mistakes regarding the Cleveland Browns' brand.

I like it.  I was discussing this with a group of friends recently about which NFL teams look good in all white (pants and jerseys), and I always thought Cleveland did it the best with those sharp orange and brown colors in the stripes and helmets.  This new look should make it even better.

This new look?  A slightly oranger orange?  The question revolves more around the fact that they have a helmet for a logo and not that their helmets are logoless.  They literally pride themselves on the fact that their logo isn't a logo at all but rather an image of a 30 year old helmet.  I am all for the Browns being "unique" in having no decal on their helmets.  But to have a logo that is simply an orange helmet is embarrassingly missing the mark.  I have had a couple Browns fans argue with me today on the matter and I think they are so caught up in the "we're different and proud of it" part that they fail to see the issue with their logo being a blank helmet.  That's not really a logo.  And while I get they are named after Paul Brown, the fact that their helmets are orange has always seemed strange.  The Reds are red.  The Royals are blue.  The Blues are blue.  The Red Sox are red.  The Purple Raiders are purple.  But the Browns are orange?

So, they are like a Seinfield episode. A logo about nothing....

Yeah, but Seinfeld finished #1 a lot more recently than the Browns.

[bman]

So how about that major overhaul to the Browns logo revealed today?  I had a great discussion in class today with my graphic design students about all the issues and mistakes regarding the Cleveland Browns' brand.

I like it.  I was discussing this with a group of friends recently about which NFL teams look good in all white (pants and jerseys), and I always thought Cleveland did it the best with those sharp orange and brown colors in the stripes and helmets.  This new look should make it even better.

This new look?  A slightly oranger orange?  The question revolves more around the fact that they have a helmet for a logo and not that their helmets are logoless.  They literally pride themselves on the fact that their logo isn't a logo at all but rather an image of a 30 year old helmet.  I am all for the Browns being "unique" in having no decal on their helmets.  But to have a logo that is simply an orange helmet is embarrassingly missing the mark.  I have had a couple Browns fans argue with me today on the matter and I think they are so caught up in the "we're different and proud of it" part that they fail to see the issue with their logo being a blank helmet.  That's not really a logo.  And while I get they are named after Paul Brown, the fact that their helmets are orange has always seemed strange.  The Reds are red.  The Royals are blue.  The Blues are blue.  The Red Sox are red.  The Purple Raiders are purple.  But the Browns are orange?

So, they are like a Seinfield episode. A logo about nothing....

Yeah, but Seinfeld finished #1 a lot more recently than the Browns.

I LOVE the Browns...they are one of the only teams that makes the Eagles futility pale in comparison....

[Mr. Ypsi]

So how about that major overhaul to the Browns logo revealed today?  I had a great discussion in class today with my graphic design students about all the issues and mistakes regarding the Cleveland Browns' brand.

I like it.  I was discussing this with a group of friends recently about which NFL teams look good in all white (pants and jerseys), and I always thought Cleveland did it the best with those sharp orange and brown colors in the stripes and helmets.  This new look should make it even better.

This new look?  A slightly oranger orange?  The question revolves more around the fact that they have a helmet for a logo and not that their helmets are logoless.  They literally pride themselves on the fact that their logo isn't a logo at all but rather an image of a 30 year old helmet.  I am all for the Browns being "unique" in having no decal on their helmets.  But to have a logo that is simply an orange helmet is embarrassingly missing the mark.  I have had a couple Browns fans argue with me today on the matter and I think they are so caught up in the "we're different and proud of it" part that they fail to see the issue with their logo being a blank helmet.  That's not really a logo.  And while I get they are named after Paul Brown, the fact that their helmets are orange has always seemed strange.  The Reds are red.  The Royals are blue.  The Blues are blue.  The Red Sox are red.  The Purple Raiders are purple.  But the Browns are orange?

So, they are like a Seinfield episode. A logo about nothing....

Yeah, but Seinfeld finished #1 a lot more recently than the Browns.

I LOVE the Browns...they are one of the only teams that makes the Eagles futility pale in comparison....

Living in SE Michigan, I'm inevitably a Lions fan.  We can lord in under just about anyone!

[bleedpurple]

So how about that major overhaul to the Browns logo revealed today?  I had a great discussion in class today with my graphic design students about all the issues and mistakes regarding the Cleveland Browns' brand.

I like it.  I was discussing this with a group of friends recently about which NFL teams look good in all white (pants and jerseys), and I always thought Cleveland did it the best with those sharp orange and brown colors in the stripes and helmets.  This new look should make it even better.

This new look?  A slightly oranger orange?  The question revolves more around the fact that they have a helmet for a logo and not that their helmets are logoless.  They literally pride themselves on the fact that their logo isn't a logo at all but rather an image of a 30 year old helmet.  I am all for the Browns being "unique" in having no decal on their helmets.  But to have a logo that is simply an orange helmet is embarrassingly missing the mark.  I have had a couple Browns fans argue with me today on the matter and I think they are so caught up in the "we're different and proud of it" part that they fail to see the issue with their logo being a blank helmet.  That's not really a logo.  And while I get they are named after Paul Brown, the fact that their helmets are orange has always seemed strange.  The Reds are red.  The Royals are blue.  The Blues are blue.  The Red Sox are red.  The Purple Raiders are purple.  But the Browns are orange?

So, they are like a Seinfield episode. A logo about nothing....

Yeah, but Seinfeld finished #1 a lot more recently than the Browns.

I LOVE the Browns...they are one of the only teams that makes the Eagles futility pale in comparison....

Living in SE Michigan, I'm inevitably a Lions fan.  We can lord in under just about anyone!

I have to switch sports to get lower, but I'm a Cubs fan! 

[SaintsFAN]

I have to switch sports to get lower, but I'm a Cubs fan! 

Yeah but you guys sacrificed the Goat -- hired Epstein, hired Joe Maddon and signed Jon Lester.

You should be pretty good as early as this year.  While the Browns are the Browns. 

[Mr. Ypsi]

I have to switch sports to get lower, but I'm a Cubs fan! 

Yeah but you guys sacrificed the Goat -- hired Epstein, hired Joe Maddon and signed Jon Lester.

You should be pretty good as early as this year.  While the Browns are the Browns.

When's the last time the Cubs went winless for an entire season?   (Actually, just to emphasize what a rip-off it is for NFL teams to force season ticket holders to pay full price for exhibition games, the same season that the Lions went 0-16, they went 4-0 in games that didn't count! )

[runyr]

RIP Rev. Ted Hesburgh:

"There is no academic virtue in playing mediocre football." 

[Dr. Acula]

Pardon the non football post, but it's time for my annual hat tip to Mount's first dominant program.  Congrats to the men's track team for cruising to the indoor title nearly doubling up 2nd place JCU.  They have won 67% of the OAC indoor titles since their first in 1964 and have a combined total of 65 team titles between indoor/outdoor.  That's a lot of real estate in those trophy cases in the MAAC.

Also, congrats to Coach Fuline and his guys pulling off a huge win at Etta to win hoops and earn the first NCAA berth since 1997.  Big step forward for the program.