What`s more important: logos or jerseys

[sportslover12345]

I feel this could be a very interesting topic.

To you, what is more important, the logo or the jersey. I feel the jersey is more important just because that is what your team wears.

[dfwabel]

I feel this could be a very interesting topic.

To you, what is more important, the logo or the jersey.

Your own opinion is most important if you start a "bad sports radio" topic. It'd be nice if you shared your thoughts and why with your original post.

And normally, the uniform is more important. Yet if color palate is part of the discussion, colors are most important.

[TheRicSlick]

I am going to cheat and say both are equal.

[BadSeed84]

The jersey, that is what you have to look at during a game.

Now the NHL it kinda goes hand in hand since usually the logo is whats featured on the jersey.

But the MLB, the pirates changed their logo to just the P but it makes no difference to the jerseys at all.

[wonderbread]

From a branding perspective the logo is more important because that is what will appear on merchandise, on signs, of advertisements, on the score bug, field/ice/floor and on the jersey, helmet and other equipment. The jersey is what is viewed most during the actual event and game, but the logo is what you see everywhere else.

[LAWeaver]

The logo is the most important. When have you ever seen a picture of a jersey on a hat?

The logo is the face of your company design-wise. It is used in marketing, merchandise, etc.

[JPDesign]

In the present, it's the logo. All your merch sales, brand perception, etc. hinge on a good logo.

In retrospect, is all about the uniform. The old highlights, or images of your team are immortalized by the uniforms. When people look back on classic sports moments that's what is emblazoned into their minds.

[GriffinM6]

Uniform is more important for just about every sport except hockey. Sure in baseball, some teams use logos on their jerseys in place of wordmarks, but that's a very seldom occurrence. The logo is important, but in most every sport it is small on the jersey, so most people are just seeing either wordmarks or numbers.

[CubsFanBudMan]

MLB: Cap logo.

NFL: Helmet logo.

NHL: Sweater logo.

NBA: Apparently it's the secondary logo.

[wonderbread]

Uniform is more important for just about every sport except hockey. Sure in baseball, some teams use logos on their jerseys in place of wordmarks, but that's a very seldom occurrence. The logo is important, but in most every sport it is small on the jersey, so most people are just seeing either wordmarks or numbers.

But the uniform is only one thing, which normally has a logo on it, the logo is on EVERYTHING else

[AHcreative]

I'd say uniforms.

Examples:

Green Bay Packers - Just a 'G' as the logo, not too exciting. Yet they have, IMO, the best uniforms in the NFL, all coming together to create a great look.

Minnesota Wild - Best logo in all of sports, yet the home uniforms are simply awful, they ruin everything (I'm so glad they finally fixed the away uniforms).

[Shadojoker]

I agree with most of you guys..A team can have an excellent logo with sucky uniforms/bad execution or vice versa (good uniform but horrible/average logo).

I'm going to go with Ricksling..I say both have equal weight. You can wear & watch uniforms. But the logos can go EVERYWHERE on anything!

[matthew823]

I guess it depends on the sport and context.

My first thought was logo. I was thinking of a university where the logo can be an overriding brand even as the team rolls out different jerseys seemingly every season.

But others made a good point bringing up something like MLB. You essentially never see a baseball team's primary logo. The jerseys are far more important there.

[ohryan]

Logo, for sure. If you have a solid logo you can hide a bad jersey design, or chalk it up to a "fad" at the time.

Logos are different. Logos transcend uniforms. Nike or Adidas can outfit you with clown suits, but as long as you're still flying the logo, you're going to be alright.

[OnWis97]

For me it's the uniform. I seldom care what a team does with its primary logo. This is particularly the case with MLB. When the Pirates changed their logo to the "P" I did not care. The uniform remained the same. In MLB does anyone really care about the primary? I'd argue the cap/cap logo are more important. In the NFL the helmet is probably the main mark. Once again, I only care about the primary logo in terms of how it impacts the helmet. I feel the same with the NBA but since the uniforms are so minimal, I can see the opposing argument. I also feel that way about the NHL, but given the logo's impact on the uniform, the logo is key.

Anyway, for me it's the uniform.

[Milkman14]

Rank all sports teams based on overall appearance and identity.

Rank all sports teams based on logo only.

Rank all sports teams based on jersey only.

See how similar the 3 lists are. (obivously all lists will be someones opinion and thus fallible. And overall appearance is a combination of jersey and logo coming together but we may see that one has a greater impact than the other)

Personally I think the jersey is more important and do more to cover up a weak logo where as a strong logo won't help a poor jersey as much.

[Howie_16]

I think the logo is more important, as I love a team that has a fantastic logo and awful uniforms!

[colinturner95]

i think that there is a limit on importance between logo and jersey because you can have amazing jerseys but a horrible set of logos or you could have a terrible set of jerseys but your logos are the best in the league. There's almost an equality that you have to have between logos and jerseys. Like IMHO, the Dallas Stars unveiled a great new set of logos and jerseys, but then the Bucs unveiled mediocre at best logos and terrible jerseys.

just my .02

[ColeJ]

I'm going to say uniforms are more important.

The Red Sox have had basically the same uniform aesthetic for a very long time. They've had a couple different primary logos in that time, and I don't think anyone cares that the hanging-sox is technically the primary any more.

The Stars could have put any number of different logos on the front of their new sweaters, and it would have been equally as popular. the fans wanted the team back in kelly green, in a traditional striping pattern. They got that. Put any of the logos in Dallas Stars history (sans mooterus) on the front of it, and the fans would still have adored the redesign.

Football, a lot of teams dont even use their primary logo anywhere on their uniforms... One team doesn't even have a real primary logo.

Basketball is similar. Teams have started recoloring their logo when they redesign their uniforms, because they realize how useless a primary logo actually is to their sport's aesthetic.

I'm not saying logos aren't important... but they're not the be-all-end-all of the team aesthetic.

Let's put it this way... If the Celtics changed logos but kept uniforms, would you be outraged? If they changed uniforms but kept the logo, how about then? There are countless examples like this.

[TheRicSlick]

I'm going to say uniforms are more important.

The Red Sox have had basically the same uniform aesthetic for a very long time. They've had a couple different primary logos in that time, and I don't think anyone cares that the hanging-sox is technically the primary any more.

The Stars could have put any number of different logos on the front of their new sweaters, and it would have been equally as popular. the fans wanted the team back in kelly green, in a traditional striping pattern. They got that. Put any of the logos in Dallas Stars history (sans mooterus) on the front of it, and the fans would still have adored the redesign.

Football, a lot of teams dont even use their primary logo anywhere on their uniforms... One team doesn't even have a real primary logo.

Basketball is similar. Teams have started recoloring their logo when they redesign their uniforms, because they realize how useless a primary logo actually is to their sport's aesthetic.

I'm not saying logos aren't important... but they're not the be-all-end-all of the team aesthetic.

Let's put it this way... If the Celtics changed logos but kept uniforms, would you be outraged? If they changed uniforms but kept the logo, how about then? There are countless examples like this.

There would be outrage if the Celtics changed the logo to something stupid, like an orange or a basketball with Celtics in streaking font.