Yeah, I see both sides of it. It looks really bad to have them as different numbers IMO but it also is bad to have it called #3 when it's the second game.
Here's the scoop, there has only been one Bronze Bowl before this, so calling it Bronze Bowl 3 would be a lie. Then we can be like "Ah yeah, remember back in season 2 when we ended the year with that tournament and the Polaires won the title? Good times, man."
15 comments:
Awesome. You win Mykl.
Agreed. So we have the logos out of the way... and I fully expect the Polaires to be participating in one of those two games.
Oooohhh... I like. A lot. You win the Internet.
I'm still confused as to how you do this in inkscape haha. Great work.
Just a question, but should we also call it "Bronze Bowl 3" even though we never had a Bronze Bowl last year? Just something to talk about.
My thinking was that its the second one. I may make some changes to the Apollo though.
Yeah, I see both sides of it. It looks really bad to have them as different numbers IMO but it also is bad to have it called #3 when it's the second game.
Ugh. lol I'm not sure which one is better.
for the mlf championship you could use numbers and for the bronze bowl just use the year
Here's the scoop, there has only been one Bronze Bowl before this, so calling it Bronze Bowl 3 would be a lie. Then we can be like "Ah yeah, remember back in season 2 when we ended the year with that tournament and the Polaires won the title? Good times, man."
But, it'd be like "Remember Bronze Bowl 2 that the Polaires won? Wait I thought they won MLF Championship 2?!?"
:P
I say go with droozer's suggestion and just title it Bronze Bowl 2010.
Nah, because there already was a championship this year, so we'd be like "was that for season 2 or season 3?"
The best would probably be to call it bronze bowl, then label it season 3 bronze bowl for historical purposes.
Yeah, it'd probly be better to call it one of the three:
Season Three Bronze Bowl
Bronze Bowl 2010
Bronze Bowl Houston
Because if we're going with the whole one season per year idea, then the "2010" moniker works.
Why not Roman numerals?
'Cause we've never done 'em that way.
Post a Comment