Not much to work with there. There was no NASL team in Columbus and only one in Ohio for one year in the NASL. The Cleveland Stokers played in the United Soccer Association in 1967 and the original NASL in 1968. The 1967 team was just the Stoke City team imported for the summer season. They basically wore the Stoke City uniforms. The team folded in 1969. Not much of a history and that was in Cleveland. Columbus' only "notable" pro outdoor team was the Columbus Magic. They played two seasons in the ASL in 1979 and 1980. That would be straining to connect to some history. There were a couple of indoor teams but that's about it.
I get that people hate "soccer ball" crests in principle, but I don't really mind them. Plus, that's not even one we made up. FCB has one on their crest.
Paulson posted some pics of the Timbers away and third jersey's today: Away: 418892517812088832 is not a valid tweet id Third: 418892644220022784 is not a valid tweet id
I remember talking to a fellow whose kids were really upset, as they had been all wanting to get Sporting shirts and stuff but found out that none of them had soccer balls on anything. Anyways. Because Barca have never, ever worn anything that looked incredibly stupid.
For the record, this is shit. The Clash are not the Earthquakes. The Union are not Bethlehem Steel. Stop stealing history just because your club hasn't made their own, yet.
Actually, the Clash are the Earthquakes. Not the Earthquakes from the 70's, but it was the same team that was the Clash from '96 and became the Earthquakes in 2000. Also, to weigh in on the soccer ball on the crest debate... Is it so wrong to have an American identity in this country? Most NBA teams have a basketball in the logo. Many NFL teams have a football or helmet. MLB teams have balls and bats. NHL teams have sticks. Not all for any league, but it is a motif. Does MLS have to try and be so different and so un-American?
So there was a historical team from the 1970s. In 2000, the Clash stole their history. The Clash moved to Houston. An Expansion team re-stole the history. History theft isn't okay just because it happened 14 years ago
I think some people may object to the soccer-ball-in-the-logo thing because it harkens back to the clip-art soccer ball with team name style logos that ruled the landscape twenty-odd years ago. It's an okay look for your Sunday pub league team or Junior's U10 team, but on a so-called professional team it looks, well, unprofessional. Of course, it's all a matter of perspective. According to some, a bird-perched-on-a-soccer-ball-with-wordmark logo would be a travesty on an American team's shirt, but on an English one it's called Tottenham Hotspur. For years I supported a team named after a team that folded before I even reached Kindergarten. Then that team was replaced by an MLS team using the same name. Three seperate entities, but it's all Sounders to me. So as a supporter of a "historical theft" team let me say to you, with all due respect of course, PISS OFF, YA WANKER!!
Some dumb things become respectable with age. Some cool things become banal through overexposure. The Telstar ball was genuinely cool (even if not the first of its configuration,) but if I ever see another one deployed in a logo it will be too soon.
They might be volleyballs, but back in the late 1800s/early 1900s soccer balls looked like that as well.. http://www.soccerballworld.com/History.htm
This is it. You can make a ball in a crest look good, and you can make it look amateurish. Good post.
Click through the link I posted, the oldest known non-animal bladder ball looks exactly like the ball in Santos's crest.
That's the difference, right there: most of the MLS crests are really logos and not traditional crests at all. They reflect when they were made and it seems most of the displeasure with them is that they don't really look like "traditional" crests, which were made 100 years ago. If they were designed today, no marketing person would think Real Madrid and Man U had good crests at all.
That is an excellent analysis of the situation. Hoping to get the same, classic, traditional look is very hard without any type of history, and it does take years for a crest to really reach that level. The problem though, like you said, is most teams have logos, not crests, that are more concerned with splashing the team's name and a soccer ball everywhere. I, for one, don't really want full blown traditional anymore, but putting some thought into trying to create an iconic logo would be appreciated. Look at the Yankees, or the Red Sox, or the Lions or Red Wings. Iconic logos, and you know who they are just from looking. There is too much busyness and clip artedness about most of the old MLS logos. Of course, be designed in the 90's is a huge set back for the majority of them anyway
Tease of the Revs new kit: OK @DMurph1979 a sleeve it is pic.twitter.com/dByk2sJBc2— Brian Bilello (@RevsPrez) January 3, 2014 And now, some designs that got passed over in previous years: Per @ajvsell 's request, here's an old one that was never made. #stripes pic.twitter.com/4h7ifTGhsP— Brian Bilello (@RevsPrez) January 3, 2014 Here's an earlier version of the 12-13 home kit. I think we improved on this. pic.twitter.com/9gcplM8139— Brian Bilello (@RevsPrez) January 3, 2014
I thought the Rev kit last season was great, I love that it had lots of red and really cool white accents. If anything I would have gotten rid of the white portion on the sleeves but the rest was awesome, don't like these designs here tho