What`s more important: logos or jerseys

[Tracy MidGrady]

Definitely jerseys just look at the Lakers.

[Discrim]

Far as baseball goes, I figure the cap logo tends to be the most important in most cases...you got exceptions, sure, but for the most part you're probably gonna see the cap logo the most out of everything. Not just in the ballpark, but out and about.

Far as basketball though, scripts tend to be more important, followed by whatever the team in question chose to paint at center court. Granted, I have seen people wearing NBA shorts out and about every once in a while, but using the Celtics example, the leprechaun used to be dressed in all white, he's been in a gold vest, black hat and black pants since 95 IIRC and the Celtics didn't touch their uniforms one iota. CELTICS is still in skinny block letters, as it was then.

Taking soccer, Aussie rules, and rugby into consideration, the first choice colors are far more important than the crest. Arsenal could tweak the cannon in its crest and nobody would really give a damn as long as it was still on a red shirt with white sleeves. Likewise, Essendon barely uses its logo uniformwise, just as long as their black jumpers always bear a red sash.

[wonderbread]

Far as baseball goes, I figure the cap logo tends to be the most important in most cases...you got exceptions, sure, but for the most part you're probably gonna see the cap logo the most out of everything. Not just in the ballpark, but out and about.

Far as basketball though, scripts tend to be more important, followed by whatever the team in question chose to paint at center court. Granted, I have seen people wearing NBA shorts out and about every once in a while, but using the Celtics example, the leprechaun used to be dressed in all white, he's been in a gold vest, black hat and black pants since 95 IIRC and the Celtics didn't touch their uniforms one iota. CELTICS is still in skinny block letters, as it was then.

Taking soccer, Aussie rules, and rugby into consideration, the first choice colors are far more important than the crest. Arsenal could tweak the cannon in its crest and nobody would really give a damn as long as it was still on a red shirt with white sleeves. Likewise, Essendon barely uses its logo uniformwise, just as long as their black jumpers always bear a red sash.

Do you remember how Nike changed Everton's crest and everyone went ape :censored:, mean while you have them tinkering with barca every year adding gradients and stuff and no one bats an eye.

[crashcarson15]

Far as baseball goes, I figure the cap logo tends to be the most important in most cases...you got exceptions, sure, but for the most part you're probably gonna see the cap logo the most out of everything. Not just in the ballpark, but out and about.

Far as basketball though, scripts tend to be more important, followed by whatever the team in question chose to paint at center court. Granted, I have seen people wearing NBA shorts out and about every once in a while, but using the Celtics example, the leprechaun used to be dressed in all white, he's been in a gold vest, black hat and black pants since 95 IIRC and the Celtics didn't touch their uniforms one iota. CELTICS is still in skinny block letters, as it was then.

Taking soccer, Aussie rules, and rugby into consideration, the first choice colors are far more important than the crest. Arsenal could tweak the cannon in its crest and nobody would really give a damn as long as it was still on a red shirt with white sleeves. Likewise, Essendon barely uses its logo uniformwise, just as long as their black jumpers always bear a red sash.

Do you remember how Nike changed Everton's crest and everyone went ape , mean while you have them tinkering with barca every year adding gradients and stuff and no one bats an eye.

You've gotta understand a few things...

1. Those Barça kits were still in club colours. They've gone with halved shirts in the past and done some different things—it's not all that out of the ordinary for them. Unpopular but I'd love to see a quartered Barça kit one day.

2. Fundamentally, what Everton did was a lot more than a "tweak" of a crest. In Discrim's example, we're talking about a different rendering of the cannon or what not. For Villa, long as we've got a lion rampant on the chest of a claret and blue kit, we'll be happy. What Everton did to the crest was a lot more than that.

3. Finally—and most importantly—Everton is a club that's run differently from a Barça, Arsenal, United, etc. They don't call the Toffees "The People's Club" for nothing—it's a club where the supporters are constantly involved and shutting them out was half the reason everyone went crazy.

[Malpass]

In soccer teams it is both a lot of time.

The colour schemes can go back centuries while logos could go back decades. Plenty of history about, and British footie fans like their history. The odd additional roundel (Derby), shield background (Liverpool, Barnsley), marquee (seemingly every club with an anniversary) or colour-keyed badge (Swansea, Manchesters City and United) is normally okay but sweeping change is risky if the fans feel it isn't respectful to the history - Huddersfield (2001), Everton (2013), Notts County (2009) and York City S.C.(2002) can attest to that. Ditto Shrewsbury and their clip-art lion, which it later emerged should have been a leopard!

[MDGP]

It definitely depends on a good number of factors. For example, I find that logos and uniforms are equally important in the NHL, but in college hockey, uniforms are more important since many use scripts. I also find that logos are more important in general in hockey than in basketball (see the Celtics example from before, or the Lakers).

However, I think it also depends of the team/school as well. For Oregon, the uniforms are MUCH more important to the school's identity than the logo, while at Penn State, the logos and uniforms are tied (we have very strict uniform guidelines for most sports, and changing the logo went poorly in the 90s).

The Packers/Georgia would be the logo, which is arguably the most iconic logo in sports (up there with the Yankees and dodgers cap logos). Sure, both teams have iconic uniforms too, but they are subject to change, meanwhile, that G on the helmet is the first thing I think if for both teams.

[M4One]

I think it varies from sport to sport. In hockey, both are equally important. In basketball, the jersey is more important considering you have teams that have a primary logo which isn't their primary logo at all. In soccer, since the jersey is changed so often, it would be the logo.

[wonderbread]

heres the way i see it as most important by sport

NFL: Helmet/Logo

MLB: Cap/Cap logo

NBA: Jersey/Wordmark

NHL: Jersey/Logo

Soccer: Crests

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

When I was a baseball fan, I would have been torn on this. I want to say that I'd have leaned more towards the cap logo; but a good case can be made about the jersey being the more fundamental marker of the team's identity.

Now that I am a soccer fan, I say the logo all the way, as all soccer shirts are crap. Occasionally there is a nice uniform design, such as Chelsea's white collars in 2008-09, or the Manchester United shirts from the early 90s with the laces. But the shirts are polluted by the giant ad on the front which dwarfs the club's crest. So there's now no question for me that the logo is far more important than the uniform.

[hettinger_rl]

I think to answer this one only needs to look at the threads. There are more long running threads about new jerseys or concept jerseys than about logos. Personally I like the logos best because they are what the jerseys play off of, but I'd say the general public (as well as many on these boards) are more about the jersey/uniform.

[Berlin Wall]

In soccer it depends actually on the club you talk about, so it's not generally for the whole soccer world. When you talk about Arsenal, Ajax or Juventus, guess what, the uniforms are definitely more important. When you talk about a club that doesn't really have a traditional or permanent kit design then it would be the logo. For example Hertha isn't really known for a specific uniform, but for the strong flag logo.

[DC in Da House w/o a Doubt]

Jerseys are more important. Case and point: the Washington Wizards. Terrible logo that you rarely ever see, and pretty sweet uniforms that you always see. It's like my grandfather [never] said: you can hide a bad logo but you can't hide bad uniforms.

[Jaffa]

I think to answer this one only needs to look at the threads. There are more long running threads about new jerseys or concept jerseys than about logos. Personally I like the logos best because they are what the jerseys play off of, but I'd say the general public (as well as many on these boards) are more about the jersey/uniform.

I think part of the reason for that though is because kits are generally updated more frequently than the crest or logo - they're often seen as the part of a club's identity more open to change.

In terms of soccer, I think you also have to look at how often clubs change their crests compared to their colours. Teams will tend to stick with a basic design and set of colours for decade after decade, over this period they may have had half a dozen or so crests. Also, older teams often have colours/designs that became synonymous with the club long before they actually adopted a crest.

That's not to say that changing a team's badge isn't taken lightly - Everton are a recent example of a club which miscalculated on this front, and the current Arsenal crest is still disliked by some fans after all these years.

Of course, we demand that those representing our teams 'play for the shirt', but then they kiss the badge when they score...

[BrianLion]

The uniform is far more important.

Plenty of teams have "meh" to bad logos, but have great uniforms so their overall look works (Lakers, Pistons, Canucks, Stars, Islanders, NY Jets, Phillies, etc.)

Other teams have good logos but a bad uniform that just ruins their whole look (T'wolves, Blues, Avalanche, AZ Cardinals, Astros, etc.)

[truepg]

I'd say it's the logo, as it is the focal point of a brand. Jerseys come and go, but logos stay for a longer period of time.

[Tigers6884]

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.

I'd say logo, because while teams sometimes use similar uniforms (pinstripe baseball jerseys come to mind here), logos are what defines a team and their identity.