Putting the Revs last was just about the only thing I agreed with in the piece. Montreal at number 1, with a "flawless" design? Please.
I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I'd take the Revs logo (#22) over that cookie-cutter Crew logo (#4) any day...
To me, this is where logo discussion(s) begins and ends. On that basis, "rankings" articles are subjective at best.
Yeah, the Crew logo is about as weak as it gets. Clip art done by a really expensive design agency. It's a bit ridiculous to see the explanations behind a design. Vancouver's new kit has small sky blue triangles all over it, which make it look like a kids' pajama top. The reasoning is not "because we think it looks nice," it's some ludicrous claptrap tha the triangles represent rain (what kind of rain do they have in Vancouver?) and that is the one thing that unifies everyone in Vancouver. Um, OK, if you say so... So someone else did a mock-up of the same kit, but with yellow suns, and that is the one they will wear on sunny days, so fans can delete their weather app on their phones. They just need to check what kit the team is wearing for a forecast. And DC had some explanation even more ridiculous last year when they rolled out their "buxom firebird" logo. Still, our logo is by far the worst, for no other reason than the fact that it cannot be used on a non-white background. If they did a badge or circle with a few other elements and the flag was in a white background, it could work, but not the way it is.
Me too. I am not a huge fan of the revs logo but it does what a logo should do at its most basic level - tell you what the brand is immediately. In this case, when I see the logo I know it represents an American soccer club. That's obvious. Compare that to the red New England flag that the team and some fans have been using the past couple years. I didn't know it was a legit flag of New England (one of several used) until I looked it up. If you did a random pill of your friends and family, I would wager anyone a beer almost no one apart from American history professors, flag experts and avid wiki readers would know that was an actual flag used in the Revolutionary War era. It'a obscure and tells me nothing about what it represents which will hamper awareness. FWIW I like the current one better, cartoonish quality and all.
You can definitely drop the revs logo on a non-white background. It's on the home blue jersey and looks great on bumper stickers With a blue background. Just google it, you'll find tons of examples.
To be sure it's out of step now with the league, just like the team is. So maybe it's fitting. I'm hoping that suddenly it does that thing -kind of like PBR, or white belts and white loafers- when suddenly it's super hip! It's not quite there yet, but at the pace the F.O. goes, it may reach that point of sudden reverse polarization!
At the rate the SSS is coming, it will be along with Gillette as the new (old) place to be for hipsters.
I'm partial to the Timbers' logo. Yet I don't like the Revs' logo. It's a flag with a soccer ball worked into it. That's about as generic and saccharine as it gets. They're not the US national team. They're not representing the entire nation. If you wear apparel with a Revolution logo on it, few people will even recognize it as a sports team logo let alone connect it with the Revs. Modify the old Fall River Marksmen logo (maybe with muskets), do something with a tri-corn hat, pay some homage to the Boston Tea Party (remember the Tea Men!) or Lexington and Concord or Bunker Hill. We could probably list pages of better ideas. I'm certainly no fan of the many MLS team logos with the team name plastered over a generic design, but, for my money, this list got #22 right.
IMO, it's so generic most people don't look long enough to even notice it's a soccer ball in the star field. Looks like a stylized flag at first glance. Standard 4th of July wear.
I used to defend the logo - good or bad, because it belonged to the Revs & I think I identified with it. I have my own gear, branded my then young children with the gear, and was generally quite proud of it. I would say 'No change! The hasty scrawled nature of its design IS Revolutionary!' Now I'm like 'Meh. Whatever.' I just wish the team would win. It was so close to a relevant team back in the Ralston / Dempsey days - and a bit with Jones / Nguyen - and now it's just lackluster. Maybe a rebrand is indeed in order. Maybe I'd get excited about the team again at least on a superficial level.
Rebranding does nothing. Sure, the team will win online polls for the coolest logo and have nice, sharp-looking uniforms. Woo. Hoo. But we will still be playing Heaps' "system" on plastic grass in a cold, sould-less concrete edifice in a suburban shopping mall, and instead of searching the world for players who can help us, they'll just hire a Twitter specialist for "fan engagement." No sense in sending someone to scout a place like Argentina, where good players are available by the boatload, we already signed our players for this year, so we're done. Nothing is going to change unless there is a 180-degree shift in the entire philosophy of how to run this club. New logo or not.
Season has started, and this thread is more active than a game thread. Revolution Soccer! Feel the Excitement.
damn. there are some butt ugly logos in the league when you take a second to look at them. and yes, we are still among the very worst. i know there are more important things to bitch about, but i wouldnt mind a just a bit of effort in the branding. i do agree its kind of fitting though, sadly.
Really? I actually did google it, and there were tons of examples of the logo onthe white bg, and a lot of mock-ups (many better than the real one), but the only one on blue is this one: EDIT: Well, it doesn't show correctly with the new design, but it's the one with a white outline around it, which is basically the same thing as a white background