I love the history of the NFL. I love the history of the Dolphins. I can and have watched NFL Network all day learning even more about the history of the NFL. I love watching past yearbooks of every team. Logo changes does not change that. EDIT: Quoting you because I agree with you in loving history.
Wrong, sorry. Change for the sake of change is easily one of the more pointless things humans do. Some traditions (not to be confused with daily, painstaking rituals) can serve as a reminder of mistakes we've made so as to not repeat the past; they can serve as a reminder of past successes so that we're compelled to hold ourselves to a higher standard; and some tradition acts as a unique bond that ties the past, present, and future together. It can also make things more meaningful. I'm sorry but using your "grandmother's roast beef example" as the defining judgement of tradition is a little silly. According to the philosophy behind your argument, the Divisions of football might as well be dissolved and have our AFC East tradition-based rivalries replaced with a different 16 game schedule every year, and the top 6 teams from each Conference simply make the playoffs. Right? I mean--- according to you, our rivalry with NY is actually a pointless, tradition-established ritual where we play the same team twice a year every year similar to how mom cuts the top off the roast beef, no? what does superficially changing a logo and uniform have to do with progress? Absolutely nothing. Do you truly understand the concepts behind "uniforms" and "logos"?... or "progress" for that matter? I say that b/c stuff of superficial nature has nothing to do with progress. It doesn't move you forward toward anything. Your "progress" argument holds no water b/c at no point has tradition impeded the evolution of uniforms via advanced technology and improved materials etc. In that regard, progress & tradition have coexisted quite well together. What doesn't coexist well is when people feel change for the sake of change is more important than tradition, especially when that change is of superficial nature. Do you see the United States saying, "This darn US flag [the logo of our country] is getting old, and we're growing tired of looking at its same shades of red, white, & blue and unchanged design! Let's give it a modern makeover as if we're decorating a home; perhaps add another color, alter the red & blue to a darker shade, and let's give it a little edginess and make it seem more "intimidating" b/c the US obviously isn't feared enough by the rest of the world. And when that decorative look is no longer in style let's change it again."??? No, we don't, and we don't b/c our country's flag is what makes us readily identifiable, and we as a country take pride in what it represents. Our Fins logo is our flag, and it existed before you chose to be a fan of the team. This isn't interior design where it's acceptable to constantly tinker with aesthetics; it's a logo, man. Our logo is akin to a great wife---- if she was good enough for you to marry, then you don't force change upon her 10 years later when she aesthetically looks the same. I find it selfish that anyone would feel a sense of entitlement regarding changing something they had no part in creating nor have any part in owning.
It isn't change for change sake. There are reasons to change and there are reasons to stay the same. Also the idea that the logo is like the American flag is a silly argument. Also the US flag has gone through changes over the years.
Huh? Who said changing the logo was for no good reason? There are a number of good reasons for changing the logo, from merchandise sales to helping usher in a new direction. Those are practical and specific reasons. That's the difference. Its not silly its an accurate depiction of tradition. Traditions are mostly placebos for history. You remember the the "tradition" therefore you don't have to learn about the past. Tradition is to history what Twitter is to meaningful human relationships. Huh? What does an ongoing rivalry have to do with tradition for tradition sake? According to your philosophy they should have never fixed the divisions. As a graphic designer/art director for over a decade, yes, I do understand the points of logos. Do you? Most major corporations go through logo and identity changes. Its fairly common. They often do it to distance themselves from period of inadequate performance or to keep up with times or generate interest. So the current logo, was instituted after the history you claim is the reason to not change it. That makes no sense. That's not true. There have been helmets that help lessen concussions for awhile now. Ask Steve Tasker. Why aren't they implemented? Players don't like them because they aren't what they are used to. You do know that the American Flag has changed significantly quite a few times. But sure, there's no difference between a country and football team. Completely legit. And again, you're 100% wrong about when our current logo became "the flag" for our team. Its changed 4 times, In fact, the logo was changed in 1974. The year after we won our second SB. It was changed again in 89, six years after our last SB trip with current one coming in 1997. So yeah we can't change our current logo, because how will we remember all those championship years from 97 till now? You'd think you'd know that with the importance you place on history.
I'm 44. I have always seen the helmet on the dolphin as silly and the logo as cartoonish. I don't agree that every logo is cartoonish. IMO the best logos in the league tend to be the opposite of a cartoon.
it is change for change sake when it serves no actual purpose other than to appease some fans want to change the aesthetics. A state's logo or flag, country's logo or flag, professional sports team's logo, big time college's logo, huge corporation's logo (like Apple or Nike)----- they're basically all the same. This argument only becomes silly when a person like yourself thinks it's acceptable to change one of the most recognizable American sports logos on the planet. A logo is a logo is a logo. It doesn't matter if it's the American flag, the logo on our helmet, or the Nike swoosh, you don't make crazy alterations to it. BTW, it seems like you enjoy using semantics as a tool to conjure up arguments. However, the failure on your part lies in the fact the current flag, outside of adding more states (the last being Hawaii in 1960), is unchanged from the 1776 original. The change you speak of was adding states, not aesthetic alterations.
What makes it unacceptable to change a logo? It is still changes, there have been 39 different American flags. Also a flag is much different than a logo. To compare the two doesn't make much sense. Flags generally do not change with the times or the image. Logos change all the time. There are a few logos that haven't changed. They are more the acception to the rule.
People tend to resist change. I've even seem some medical studies that argue that we are wired to resist change and psychological studies that conclude that we seek the comfort of habits and the familiar. The reasons posited tend to be centered on "loss". I find it interesting b/c most of the arguments here seem focused on loss of tradition. That's a fairly typical response.
Agreed. I think its just fear in the unknown being justified by the first thing that sounds good when you say it fast...like tradition. You'd think adaptation would be more ingrained than fear of change.
The 2011 top 10 in merchandise sales didn't belong to elaborately decked out uniforms. They came from teams rich in tradition, a recent history of winning, or large markets. 1. Steelers (tradition uniform) 2. Cowboys (traditional uniform) 3. Eagles 4. Saints (traditional uniform) 5. Patriots (ugly uniform) 6. Bears (traditional uniform) 7. Giants (traditional uniform) 8. Packers (traditional uniform) 9. Colts (traditional 2 color uniform) 10. Jets (traditional 2 color uniform) If fans are interested in improving the team's merchandising and pursuing a new direction, perhaps they should be more concerned about winning and reverting back to tradition rather than the gradual path of change they've been on during the past 20 years. After all, the team won Super Bowls prior to all our uniform, logo, and stadium changes. I dont think merchandising is a problem when you win games. If you don't win games all you're promoting is a quick fix--- a temporary ooh & ahh for a fan to spend money on but becomes a flash in the pan once the newness wears off. Then you do what other teams have already realized but we have not---- you wise up and revert back to a more timeless, traditional uniform. I disagree. In the case of sports, understanding a richness in tradition can serve as greater motivation to discover where the tradition comes from. Well, an NFL rivalry is either the result of being close in proximity or is due to the tradition of playing the same team year after year. Therefore, by saying tradition is essentially meaningless, you're saying rivalries are meaningless, too. I for one would disagree. I alluded to either changing it back or not changing it any further away from the original. We've already changed the uniform over the past few decades. Now it's time to change it back to something resembling the original so we can, as you say, distance ourselves from this recent period of inadequate performance. It makes absolutely zero logical sense to decide to make a change but choose a direction that's even further away from the successful original. We went down that route; it didn't work optimally, so why would we want to drudge down it even further? that's an isolated instance, but uniforms as a whole have continued to evolve with technology. If I had changed my wording to "Overall, technology hasn't been impeded by tradition", then you'd be left w/o a retort. But what you're saying is---- players believe tradition in sports is so important that it's worth risking injury? hmph. it's added states (stars) and increased the area of "blue" to incorporate those stars. Outside of this necessary change, no present change has occurred from the original. Now you're making up stuff I never said. a. I never said I advocated our current logo, nor did I allude to believing our current logo is our original logo. b. I want it to go back to the original (or at least close to it). c. If the choice is between changing it to something even further from the original and our current logo, then I'd rather keep the current logo b/c at least that's closer to the original than what some people are proposing.
Flag changes were necessary changes, and it hasn't changed in 52 years. In almost that same time frame (past 50ish years) we've done nothing but incrementally alter the uniform. Here's a novel idea, how about putting it back to resembling the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" era and leaving it alone for once? Have you looked around the NFL? Many current NFL logos are reminiscent of their originals. Exactly, they don't need to, and uniforms shouldn't need to either. Again, the technology of the uniform changes it with the times all by itself, so you saying that a logo has to change, too, to stay with the times is a little silly & overkill. We might as well completely redo the alphabet since that tradition hasn't changed in quite some time, eh.
Many current NFL logos are not. What makes it silly? What makes it overkill? How does the alphabet have anything to do with this? Are you talking about the font of the alphabet? There are many different type of fonts. Flags and uniforms are completely different.
I would say that this list contains logos that look less like cartoons than Miami's. Really only the Eagles and Bears could even be considered cartoony at all (they aren't IMO) and I see them both as far better and less cartoony than the Dolphin wearing a helmet. How silly would the Eagle and the Bear look if some designer had decided to slap a helmet on them? NE is also an example of a team that went away from a cartoon logo. Really the issue is whether one feels they did a good job with the original logo. As someone who currently lives outside of S. FL, I get to hear what people untainted by "tradition" or fandom think about the Dolphin's logo and frankly the words "silly" and "cartoon" come up a lot. I really don't hear mocking like that about any of the other logos on that list. All teams get dissed, but I don't hear those logos laughed at as much as Miami's.
That list does nothing to dispute my point. A logo change could boost the #23 team to #11 team in sales. Since when is it change your logo OR improve your record? Who is even arguing that? Why can't it be both?. Your view is very black & white, your way or the highway. The world and even football is more complicated than that, ask Parcells. Sure it can, but you aren't arguing that it can, you are arguing that tradition is the ONLY link we have to the past and without our history is lost. That makes no sense. You are saying rivalry=tradition. If that were true, rivalry = Christmas trees or any other tradition. Again, you think tradition is the only way to honor the past and you're wrong. The only reason you can have for changing it back (framed in the discussion we're having), is that you think the logo has magical powers and will help us win. That's silly. Plenty of teams have made changes to their logos and started winning. Lol, a perfect instance to disprove your point and you conveniently claim it doesn't really count. Fine. The Bucs, the Pats, the Ravens, the Broncos, all of them changed their logos and found success. And you can hmph all you want but sports figures are notoriously superstitious which is the extreme end of tradition. Dale Earndhardt would be alive today if was open to change. Ok, now we're getting somewhere. You admit there's level of change that is fine. So what is the level, define it. You're advocating for it to not change unless it changes back to the past, because you deem it to have magical powers or because you just prefer it.....which has nothing to do with tradition.
Respectfully, this has nothing to do with either loss or fear of the unknown. I happen to love change and have willfully moved across country on a whim on numerous occasions and would gladly do so again. Do you think teams like Alabama are saying, "Let's not alter the look of our uniforms b/c we're afraid to lose tradition"? No, they take pride in their Alabama uniform and take pride in preserving their tradition." That's what we're concerned with---- preserving tradition, not "losing it". Us wanting the original Dolphin logo is simply about maintaining the integrity of one little aspect of the team's history. Seriously is that really too much for some fans to ask? After all, we're not a Miami Dolphin expansion team deciding on what new logo to incorporate. If the current uniforms slowly become significantly less identifiable with the 60's and '70s teams, then who are we really? Look at the Florida Marlins; they moved to Miami, changed the name to Miami, and changed the uniform & logo, all with an intention of creating a separate identity. Is that really what fans want of the Dolphins? I understand that some fans might not be fond of the logo (but there will always be cases of that); however, the logo is the logo, and it's essentially the one fans chose to marry into.
They wouldn't look silly for doing it; they'd look silly for copying us. [I will say this] For football card collectors, finding a card featuring the dolphin helmet piece of the logo is typically more valuable than the best part of any other team's respective logos b/c the dolphin helmet is essentially a logo inside a logo, and that's pretty darn cool IMO. (although Pat White pretty much makes this card worthless. lol) Other team's fans calling it cartoony doesn't bother me. I enjoy that it's one of the most unique and identifiable in football, and I'd be saddened to see our logo inside a logo go.
yes, many are. Currently there's 20 NFL helmets (including the helmet logos) that look mostly unchanged from their NFL original. Jets, Steelers, Browns, Bengals (been the same since '81 after understandably wanting to distinguish themselves in appearance from the Browns), Titans, Colts, Jaguars, Texans, Raiders, Chiefs, Cowboys, Giants, Vikings, Packers, Bears, Saints, Panthers, 49ers, Cardinals, Dolphins. What makes it overkill is the fact that uniform changes already occur thanks to technology (just like in the Cleveland Browns photo examples I used earlier in the thread). The logo doesn't need changing to change a team's image. Winning does that. Case in point, how have all the Florida Marlins changes (name, uniform, logo, stadium) helped them now that it's July and the hype has cooled off? Half way through the year and their home attendance has already dropped to 18th, and of the 21 teams who have moved into new stadiums, Marlins' ticket sales rank dead last. Superficial change doesn't = success. No they're not. However, if Nike ran the country we'd probably see a different flag every 3 years. uniform (noun): prescribed identifying set of clothes for members of an organization. uniform (adj): constant; unvarying; undeviating........ identical or consistent..... unchanging in form, quality, quantity *** from the Latin word uniformus; unus meaning one, forma meaning shape. logo: a graphic representation or symbol of a company name, trademark, abbreviation uniquely designed for ready recognition. Outside of necessary changes, our flag (our country's most recognizable logo) has remained uniform. For some odd reason a portion of fans want our uniforms to be un-uniform and our logo to be not so recognizable. That defeats the purpose of the word uniform.
sorry, that mainly applies to real life and actual risk-adverse situations, which alterations to an NFL uni/logo are not. If what you're referring to held true [pertaining to logos/unis] then the percentage of people seeking a uni/logo change should be consistent with the universal baseline (whatever that may be), but unfortunately that doesn't appear to be the case in the least. IE: if 95+% of the population fears change (which is probably likely), then roughly only 5% of the population should be supporting a uni/logo change. However, that 5% seems closer to 35+%, making the correlation you're alluding to unvalidated in this particular instance.
Hopefully the "new" Dolphin jumping over the sun is not exactly the one from the Dolphin Stadium logo (that's what the article says it might look somewhat similar to). That is too Marlins looking. Though its a bit better than the Marlins one, which looks like a 7-year old went onto Microsoft Paint. They didn't say it would be exactly the "dolphin stadium" one though, obviously can't since its going to have the same position as the current one in front of a sun. Hoping they drop the navy blue, but I doubt it.
What's strange to me is that the team just renovated the facility and are getting ready to do Hard Knocks and next year will have a new logo.
Well, per Forbes, for revenue in 2010 [despite a bad 7-9 season] Miami ranked 15th, one spot behind the Steelers. (10 of those 14 teams ahead of us were 10+ win teams..... and the 7-9 Dolphins had greater revenue than 4 playoff teams). * 2009- Miami ranked 11th in NFL revenue. * 2008- 6th. * 2007- our terrible, cartoony-looking 1-15 team still ranked 6th. * 2006- 6th again. * 2005- 12th. * 2004- 12th. * 2003- 11th. * 2002- 10th. (for comparison, in 1984 Miami's income ranked 8th. That's all I could find from that period and earlier, but I'm willing to guess the revenue was fairly high in the 70's) ** That's 8 straight years ahead of Pitt & GB ('02-'09)......... 4 of 8 ahead of Chicago. ** The Falcons uniform overhaul in '03 didn't seem to help their revenue that's since ranked 31st, 28th, 31st, 28th, 30th, 28th, and 26th. ** The top 3 teams since '02 are Dallas, Washington, and NE (for obvious reasons). ** What I noticed on the surface from the 9 year rankings---- winning seemed more often to help revenue, while losing seemed to more often hinder it; uniform changes seemed to do little; "eye appeal" doesn't necessarily = revenue; most big football markets like Texas, NY, NE, DC, and Philly seem to do well regardless of change or record; the notion of "intimidation" [like the Silver & Black] seems to have little impact on revenue (or wins for that matter). well, if tell me when changes to the logo/uniform have consistently benefitted us, you can argue both. So far, there hasn't been an improvement in the win column, and the current revenue ranking is probably at our all time worst. Therefore, if improved revenue is the goal, either start winning or change the uniform/logo to something that elicits fan memories of Dolphin glory days..... or bring back Dan Marino. nice to blow that into a major exaggeration. That's ridiculous, a straw argument. An NFL rivalry obviously doesn't simply stem from any ole tradition, and I didn't say tradition and rivalry are reflexive. If I need to spell it out, which it seems, tradition (in the sense that a pair of teams playing each other twice a year for years) = the development of what we call a rivalry. Are you seriously going to stamp your name on a post that argues this? And I don't recall said it's the only way to honor the past. So what you're saying is, if we make a change, a change back to our original looking uniform, we might start winning? But you just said that's silly. all you did was exploitively disprove a point b/c I accidentally posed it in absolute form; however, the general point I was making still proves true------ that overall, technology has not been impeded by tradition. Hmph, so what you're now saying is----- not only will athletes risk injury for the sake of tradition but they'll also risk death? This tradition thing you speak of is starting to seem awfully significant to people. I can only speak for myself and what my expert non-expert opinion believes would suffice, which is---- to something more tradition in appearance. A comprise for me would be to only change halfway back to original design, and IMO that's a fair compromise. 1. ditch the the specks of shiny crap in the helmet and giving it an extra coat of white instead. 2. ditch the ridiculous 3D shadowing. They don't make my 3D television 4D. 3. change the logo back to normal (but for the sake of fans who think the original looks too cute, I'd compromise and leave him looking fierce & determined) 4. ditch the orange jerseys. They remind me of the Hurricanes or Broncos, not the Dolphins. 5. make the numbers a tad smaller. 6. change the aqua back to the original aqua. 7. ditch the logos on the sleeves (since it's already on the helmet) for the sake of not looking too eccentric and excessively *rhymes with hay*. 8. leave the numbers on the shoulders rather than moving them back to the sleeve since today's sleeve is shorter than the old. (For the longer-sleeved fan jerseys I'd probably leave the logo on the sleeve.) 9. compromise by leaving "Dolphins" above the chest. 10. b/c of today's shorter sleeves, I wouldn't go so far as matching the 9 total stripes of old. That would definitely be a compromise thing. I would be happy with blending a traditional look with a slightly modern edge. That would be a drastic change from what we currently have, but at least it'd be a drastic change closer toward the original rather than a drastic change even further from it. I didn't say that. I essentially said---- if it changes, I hope it changes to something more reminiscent of our early uniform rather than more change that takes us even further away. If I'm given the choice between no change and change that takes us further away from the original (which we've already been doing for like 30 years), I'd of course choose no change. If I were given the choice between no change and change to a more traditional uniform with a modern edge, I'd choose change.
Titans, Giants, Vikings, Jets, Bengals all had significant logo changes. Cardinals also had a logo change. Jaguars, Texans, Panthers are too new to even be a part of this conversation. I do not agree that is overkill. It is just a logo change. It is not rare. Flags represent a country, logos represent a company. Flags rarely change. Logos change all the time. A flag goes on a uniform, a uniform does not go on a flag. Who decides of they were necessary? The flag has changed 39 times. Plus honestly to compare a country and a flag where people have died for and a sports logo is kind of insulting. This is a sports team, it is not that serious.
I'm sorry but the changes we've made to the logo are what make it look cartoonish. The old logo looks more tribal IMO, and there's nothing really *rhymes with hay* about that. The helmet could stand to be shrunk a bit so it doesn't overpower the logo, and perhaps some earholes added, but that's about it. And screw what I said previously about leaving the angry look on his face. That draws too much of our eye's focus (likely b/c it's in our nature to focus on his attempt at communication via expression). It also makes him look like he's having trouble squeezing out his last 20 sardines. The white on the new logo's flukes is also too distracting, as is the white on the dorsal fin and distinct white stripe down the belly.... and around the eyes.... and mouth. I'd still rather have the current logo than completely deviating from the past.
I agree with your first statement. My second choice is to go back to the old logo. However, I do disagree with your last statement. I think going in a new direction would be fun. Always can go back in ten years or so.
