USA Today: 5 sports logos that would look so much better with one simple fix

[BJ Sands]

These aren't bad at all.

 

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2017/05/clippers-logo-bad-agua-caliente-nba

[TheRicSlick]

No change or tweak can salvage the Clippers logo.

[WSU151]

3 minutes ago, BJ Sands said:

These aren't bad at all.

 

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2017/05/clippers-logo-bad-agua-caliente-nba

 

Yeah, all five of those are pretty good.  The Titans proposed change kinda looks like it's missing something (other than the flames, obviously), and the Rangers' proposed logo may look better without the double outline.  The other three need to happen soon, even if the Clippers' logo is still garbage even with the color change.

[bowld]

Angels need to make that change. Beautiful 

[RichO]

The Angels tweak is the big winner there.

[OnWis97]

29 minutes ago, rickyISking said:

No change or tweak can salvage the Clippers logo.

I agree, though this is a pretty big improvement.

 

I think four of these five are big improvements.  I actually don't like the Angels going to a gold halo...as much sense as it may make.  I am certainly not a designer so all I have is "I like what I like" and other such amateur stuff.  I think maybe the gold dominates; that is, my eye is too drawn to that.

 

I suppose some people would say to get rid of the white outline on the Rangers.  I'm more sympathetic to double outlines...but either way, it beats the drop-shadow T.

[The_Admiral]

Your eye should be drawn to the halo, though, shouldn't it? It's what makes them the Angels and not, I dunno, something else that starts with A. It's eye-catching without being overwhelming. It's still pretty small in the grand scheme. But making the halo gold (halos are gold in the popular imagination) and removing the beveling are both great changes. I would even consider putting that tweaked logo on a navy blue crown. It's so hard to decide which is better for the Angels.

[KGeeX5]

When the Angels used the gold Halo for their 50th (?) Anniversary it was a beautiful look. The gold really helps the logo pop more imo. 

[colinturner95]

Not gonna lie, I think Texas looks better with the drop shadow. The double outline just doesn't look as good to me. 

[patsox]

I'm shocked at how much less visually offensive the Clippers logo becomes just by eliminating black. It's still a piece of trash in its recolored state, but it looks so much better. Says something about how bad it is. 

[FinsUp1214]

7 minutes ago, bkknight95 said:

Not gonna lie, I think Texas looks better with the drop shadow. The double outline just doesn't look as good to me. 

 

Agreed. Every concept I've seen that eliminates the drop shadow just looks off to me.

 

Also agreed on the other sentiments that the Angels is the winner in that article. That's exactly what it should've looked like from day one.

[Red Wolf]

Wow. Usually mainstream outlets doing articles like this are just hideous. These are all upgrades to me other than the Titans which is a lateral move in my mind.

[OnWis97]

1 hour ago, Red Wolf said:

Wow. Usually mainstream outlets doing articles like this are just hideous. These are all upgrades to me other than the Titans which is a lateral move in my mind.

While there's no question that at least half of the posters here could do better, I have to admit I like when this stuff hits the mainstream.

 

And I think a lot of us think that most of these are lateral moves.  

 

One thing I hate from mainstream sites is when they say "Top 20..."  I recall one (not sure what site) that had "30 ugliest uniforms" but it wasn't.  It did not even try.  It was just "30 Ugly uniforms."  So I checked the title and it's just 5 that would be better.  I'd have a beef if they'd called it "Top 5."

[Germanshepherd]

The Titans one did get me thinking "why are there flames in the logo anyway?" Plus the redesign looked pretty good. 

[LMU]

6 hours ago, KGeeX5 said:

When the Angels used the gold Halo for their 50th (?) Anniversary it was a beautiful look. The gold really helps the logo pop more imo. 

That (minus the cap Å in the right sleeve) would be perfection.

[Quillz]

I do have to agree the Angels logo modification is great. I really do prefer the gold halo to the silver halo, and I don't think the logo loses anything by removing the beveling. (Of course, I'm still one of the few who actually think the Angels should go back to red and navy, even though there are too many navy teams as it is).

 

On the other hand, I don't think the Titans logo is better without the flames. I think it's worse, actually. I always thought the Titans logo was supposed to be something like a comet or meteor. I think it's actually stood the test of time, frankly. There are some things that can be done to clean it up, but taking away one of the more interesting elements isn't the way to go.

 

As for their Rams suggestion, I don't think they have to worry. The ownership has already shown off the ram head logo in blue and yellow, and I think it's nearly a given at this point the colors will be returning in 2019.

[Utilis]

Maybe I'm just defective, but I don't understand what's wrong with the Clippers logo, compared to the Lakers ripoff it replaced and how amateurish slop like the Warriors' look seems to pass without comment.

[Quillz]

5 minutes ago, Utilis said:

Maybe I'm just defective, but I don't understand what's wrong with the Clippers logo, compared to the Lakers ripoff it replaced and how amateurish slop like the Warriors' look seems to pass without comment.

I think the Clippers added black for black's sake. It might have been an official team color in the past (I don't know), but it was never emphasized. The Clippers have pretty much always used some combination of red and blue, and yet it's barely there in their logo.

 

I myself don't think the Clippers logo is as bad as everyone makes it out to be, but I think the recolor shows that using so much black just wasn't anything more than a poor attempt to look "cool."

[WSU151]

10 minutes ago, Utilis said:

Maybe I'm just defective, but I don't understand what's wrong with the Clippers logo, compared to the Lakers ripoff it replaced and how amateurish slop like the Warriors' look seems to pass without comment.

 

The Warriors' look is sloppy, and quite a few on here have noted that as well.

 

The Clippers logo is an unimaginative ripoff of EA Sports circa 2007 that doesnt invoke LA or a boat, not to mention using black for no good reason. The wordmark is generic and shoddy, and "beveling" is a joke.  Look at the C and the S.

[Quillz]

4 minutes ago, WSU151 said:

 

The Warriors' look is sloppy, and quite a few on here have noted that as well.

 

The Clippers logo is an unimaginative ripoff of EA Sports circa 2007 that doesnt invoke LA or a boat, not to mention using black for no good reason. The wordmark is generic and shoddy, and "beveling" is a joke.  Look at the C and the S.

To be fair, the Lakers don't make any use of nautical imagery either (granted, I can forgive LA people for not knowing a laker is a type of boat).

 

And as I've stated in other threads, the Clippers *used* to have a pretty decent logo when they were in San Diego.

 

 

It's not great, but it actually has colors and imagery that references their nautical name. I don't know why the Clippers didn't take this and modernize it, it would have been a good base to build on.