Best and Worst Sports Logos

[T-ROY 413]

21 hours ago, Morgo said:

Worst:  Have it your way...

It really isn't bad at all, just doesn't fit the brand

[_J_ 2,005]

On 12/1/2016 at 10:59 AM, cesarano said:

[sorry for two consecutive posts. Normally I would have combined them into one. But, due to their length, I though that it would be better to put them up separately.]

That is the entire point: minor league teams are not entities in themselves, and should not try to be. Minor league teams are barely even teams! Their entire function is to train players for the parent organisation. This takes a higher priority even than winning.

I realise that many people are enmoured of the various wacky designs that minor league teams trot out. I am definitely not one of these people. For me, a minor league team should have a design that closely mirrors that of the parent club, and should alter this design when the affilliation changes.

Ill just go ahead and leave this here for you.

Q. If a Minor League team signs a Player Development Contract with a different MLB organization, rather than renewing an existing agreement, will the team have to relocate?

A. The Player Development Contract creates an affiliation between a Major League organization and the ownership of a Minor League franchise. Though many stadiums are built, owned and managed by local municipalities -- often to attract or retain a Minor League team -- most MiLB franchise owners are private individuals or ownership groups. Some Major League organizations may own one or more of their Minor League teams, but this is not necessarily widespread. The decision to begin the relocation process is made by the franchise owner of the Minor League Baseball club. It is often -- but not necessarily -- connected to signing a new PDC. Some factors affecting a team's decision to relocate might be: attendance, stadium conditions and leases, geographical proximity to other clubs in the same league or to its Major League parent, climate conditions, economic landscape of its local market, etc.

 

Q. Do Major League teams own the Minor League teams affiliated with them, or are they independently owned?

A. The majority of Minor League Baseball clubs are independently owned. Several Major League teams do own some of their affiliates, though -- the Tampa Yankees, Springfield Cardinals and Gwinnett Braves, for example.
 

 

http://www.milb.com/milb/info/faq.jsp?mc=business#7

[Morgan33 4,050]

Best:  It looks more like a penguin than any other logo they've had

 

Worst:

[Ferdinand Cesarano 4,544]

10 hours ago, DiePerske said:

Ill just go ahead and leave this here for you.

Q. If a Minor League team signs a Player Development Contract with a different MLB organization, rather than renewing an existing agreement, will the team have to relocate?

A. The Player Development Contract creates an affiliation between a Major League organization and the ownership of a Minor League franchise. Though many stadiums are built, owned and managed by local municipalities -- often to attract or retain a Minor League team -- most MiLB franchise owners are private individuals or ownership groups. Some Major League organizations may own one or more of their Minor League teams, but this is not necessarily widespread. The decision to begin the relocation process is made by the franchise owner of the Minor League Baseball club. It is often -- but not necessarily -- connected to signing a new PDC. Some factors affecting a team's decision to relocate might be: attendance, stadium conditions and leases, geographical proximity to other clubs in the same league or to its Major League parent, climate conditions, economic landscape of its local market, etc.

 

Q. Do Major League teams own the Minor League teams affiliated with them, or are they independently owned?

A. The majority of Minor League Baseball clubs are independently owned. Several Major League teams do own some of their affiliates, though -- the Tampa Yankees, Springfield Cardinals and Gwinnett Braves, for example.
 

 

http://www.milb.com/milb/info/faq.jsp?mc=business#7

 

I am not sure what point you believe you are making with this.  I am perfectly well aware of the nature of affilliations, and that a given minor league team will periodically change affilliations.

 

As I mentioned in the bit of my message which you quoted in your post, when this change in affilliation happens, the minor league team's uniform design should change to reflect the uniform of the new parent club.

 

When the Buffalo Bisons were affilliated with the White Sox, they had uniforms that looked like the White Sox:

 

 

When they were affilliated with the Indians, they had uniforms that looked like the Indians:

 

 

 

This is how it should work.  You should know at a glance that you are looking at an affilliate of the White Sox or the Indians or whatever.  

Now that the team is an affilliate of the Blue Jays, they ought to have uniforms that mirror the Blue Jays' style.  It's good that they have an alt in this style (albeit with red letters); but I am saying that that Jays-style uniform should be their primary design.

 

If and when the Bisons change affilliations again, then they should change uniforms again.

 

So, what you have quoted about the nature of Player Development Contracts in no way refutes anything about this position of mine.

[Sport 13,801]

So there's only 30 acceptable baseball designs? How boring would that be? Putting the major league team's logo on the sleeve patch, which most of them already do, is sufficient enough to identify who's affiliated with who. 

[Ferdinand Cesarano 4,544]

2 hours ago, McCarthy said:

So there's only 30 acceptable baseball designs? How boring would that be? Putting the major league team's logo on the sleeve patch, which most of them already do, is sufficient enough to identify who's affiliated with who. 

 

It would not be boring at all.  Thirty is plenty.  

 

To be clear, there should be 30 design templates from which minor league teams could begin designing their uniforms. Then they could take off from there. 
 

A team could render its nickname in the style of the parent club, as the Bisons did in the above shots, as the Syracuse Chiefs did in the shots on previous pages on this thread, as the Tidewater Tides did during their Mets years, and as the Birmingham Barons did during the early 1990s:

 

   

 

 

Or a team could alter the parent club's uniform with its own colour scheme, as the Bisons do with their Jays-style alts, and as the Tuscon Padres used to do:

 

 

Tuscon's use of the classic Padres wordmark illustrates another twist that minor league teams could use: they could use elements from the parent club's past designs.  We see this in basketball, where the D-League's Westchester Knicks use the Knicks' early-1980s wordmark:

 

 

(Unfortunately, however, they don't use the number font that went with that wordmark:

 

 

I hope that the Nets will be smart enough to outfit their D-League team the Long Island Nets in one of their past designs.  Aaanyway, getting back to baseball... )

 

A team could render its logo in the style of the parent club.  It is worth taking another look at the brilliant Syracuse Chiefs logo, which set the standard on this:

 

 

 

 

Another good example of altering a parent club's logo is what Jacksonville Expos did with their cap logo:

 

 

There really is no limit to the applications of creativity to the Major League templates.  A complaint that there are "only" 30 designs to work from would be similar to a complaint that there are "only" 12 tones in the musical scale.

 

 

 

 

[Sport 13,801]

But why limit it to 30 when it could be endless? There's no right or wrong way to outfit a minor league affiliate. I happen to like when some teams match their parent clubs, but I wouldn't want to see it mandated across the board. You're losing out on some really great design opportunities when you put teams into a box like that. And the minor leagues is just the place to experiment with kooky designs. 

 

 

 

 

[MCM0313 2,700]

23 hours ago, cesarano said:

 

It would not be boring at all.  Thirty is plenty.  

 

To be clear, there should be 30 design templates from which minor league teams could begin designing their uniforms. Then they could take off from there. 
 

A team could render its nickname in the style of the parent club, as the Bisons did in the above shots, as the Syracuse Chiefs did in the shots on previous pages on this thread, as the Tidewater Tides did during their Mets years, and as the Birmingham Barons did during the early 1990s:

 

   

 

 

Or a team alter the parent club's uniform with its own colour scheme, as the Bisons do with their Jays-style alts, and as the Tuscon Padres used to do:

 

 

Tuscon's use of the classic Padres wordmark illustrates another twist that minor league teams could use: they could use elements from the parent club's past designs.  We see this in basketball, where the D-League's Westchester Knicks use the Knicks' early-1980s wordmark:

 

 

(Unfortunately, however, they don't use the number font that went with that wordmark:

 

 

I hope that the Nets will be smart enough to outfit their D-League team the Long Island Nets in one of their past designs.  Aaanyway, getting back to baseball... )

 

A team could render its logo in the style of the parent club.  It is worth taking another look at the brilliant Syracuse Chiefs logo, which set the standard on this:

 

 

 

 

Another good example of altering a parent club's logo is what Jacksonville Expos did with their cap logo:

 

 

There really is no limit to the applications of creativity to the Major League templates.  A complaint that there are "only" 30 designs to work from would be similar to a complaint that there are "only" 12 tones in the musical scale.

 

 

 

 

That Expos look is really sweet. Love the way they trimmed the M to a J. Also love the parent club's racing stripes on the shirt. The Padres one is pretty good too.

 

As for the Syracuse Chiefs, they've had several MLB affiliations. I'm assuming by the design and the shades of blue that the logo displayed above originated during their affiliation with the Toronto Blue Jays?

[Ferdinand Cesarano 4,544]

22 minutes ago, MCM0313 said:

As for the Syracuse Chiefs, they've had several MLB affiliations. I'm assuming by the design and the shades of blue that the logo displayed above originated during their affiliation with the Toronto Blue Jays?

 

Yes, indeed.  And their uniforms during this time were superb.  There are a couple of shots of this on the first page of this thread.  Here they are again, with another thrown in for good measure:

 

This is the best minor league uniform and logo that I have ever seen.  It's a gorgeous design on its own; and it is a wonderful version of the parent club's uniform.

 

 

30 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

But why limit it to 30 when it could be endless? There's no right or wrong way to outfit a minor league affiliate. I happen to like when some teams match their parent clubs, but I wouldn't want to see it mandated across the board. You're losing out on some really great design opportunities when you put teams into a box like that. And the minor leagues is just the place to experiment with kooky designs. 

 

I just don't think you're losing anything by starting with the parent club's design.  There are a million ways to riff on it, just as (going back to the music example) there are a million ways to arrange three or four chords into a song.  It's a misconception to think that fitting a format somehow limits creative expression.  Consider the limerick.  Even given the strict contraints of that form, there are still an infinite number of such poems that can be written.

 

Also, I don't think kooky designs belong anywhere in pro sports.  I realise that this is a minority opinion, but I say that professional teams should have professional looks.  Sticking to the templates of the Major League teams would ensure that there would be a baseline aesthetic standard throughout the minors, without sacrificing anything in terms of creativity.  (Of course, I realise that minor league teams are interested in selling their jerseys to kids who often don't care one bit about a professional look, and who tend to favour the cartoonish over the dignified.  Hence the unsightly mess that we see in minor league uniforms.)

[Morgan33 4,050]

Best:  Perfect update.  Just make the orange triangle grey and put it on the inaugural template.

 

Worst:  Not enough teal, too many outlines, and a poorly rendered stick put this a notch below.

[TheRoyalsFan20 12]

I love that this is still going. 

[TheRoyalsFan20 12]

Best

 

They were the Expos before the Nationals, so this is the best logo.

 

Worst

 

Walgreens. 

[Morgan33 4,050]

Best:

 

Worst:

[Morgan33 4,050]

Best:

 

Worst:

[MCM0313 2,700]

21 hours ago, cesarano said:

Also, I don't think kooky designs belong anywhere in pro sports.  

 

What would you consider "kooky"? There were a lot of designs in the early-to-mid 1990s (especially in the NBA) that were kind of far-out---think expansion Grizzlies and Raptors, Shaq-era Magic, gradient Hawks, teal-era Pistons, teal-heavy expansion Florida Marlins, the WLAF's Orlando Thunder. Heck, if you go back to the '80s you can find the Nuggets with a rainbow-colored skyline, the Bucks with the "Irish rainbow," the Astros with their "rainbow guts," and the White Sox with their "beach blanket" look. While I only like some of these, not all, I like when organizations are willing to take a chance on something beyond the pale of traditional design.

[Ferdinand Cesarano 4,544]

18 minutes ago, MCM0313 said:

 

What would you consider "kooky"? There were a lot of designs in the early-to-mid 1990s (especially in the NBA) that were kind of far-out---think expansion Grizzlies and Raptors, Shaq-era Magic, gradient Hawks, teal-era Pistons, teal-heavy expansion Florida Marlins, the WLAF's Orlando Thunder. Heck, if you go back to the '80s you can find the Nuggets with a rainbow-colored skyline, the Bucks with the "Irish rainbow," the Astros with their "rainbow guts," and the White Sox with their "beach blanket" look. While I only like some of these, not all, I like when organizations are willing to take a chance on something beyond the pale of traditional design.

 

Well, that is a good point. I guess I cannot get away with equating "non-kooky designs" with "designs used by teams in the top leagues". Every time we see the Denver Broncos, we are reminded that silly and undignified looks can have a long life in pro sports. (Fortunately, the Raptors, the Magic, and others eventually dialled back their most awful looks, while the tragically influential Broncos have persisted with theirs.)

 

Still, the palette of what is on offer across minor league baseball is aesthetically far worse than the low end of design in the Majors and in the other pro leagues. I am thinking of things such as logos featuring snarling animals and snarling inanimate objects, and wordmarks that are way sillier than the worst  ones in the Majors (*cough* Brewers *cough*).

 

While it is of course possible to find a case here and there of a beautiful minor league uniform, for me, minor league baseball aesthetics are generally a blight on the design world. For this reason, I'd prefer minor league teams to use Major League designs -- just to limit the damage, as it were.

 

And, going back to my main point, the whole idea of a minor league team having its own identity rubs me the wrong way. I'd prefer that we be honest and that we acknowledge that the appropriate identity for a minor league team is that of the Major League team with which it is affiliated.

 

But of course I know that this is unrealistic. Minor league teams will continue to perpetrate the dishonest notion that they have their own identities; and they will continue to adopt garish and unsightly designs that are intended to appeal to little kids.

 

That's why I lament the passing of the examples pictured above of Tidewater, Buffalo, and Birmingham sporting Major-League-calibre designs; and that's why the 1990s Syracuse Chiefs stand out as an aesthetic high-water mark that may never be equalled.

[MCM0313 2,700]

19 minutes ago, cesarano said:

 

Well, that is a good point. I guess I cannot get away with equating "non-kooky designs" with "designs used by teams in the top leagues". Every time we see the Denver Broncos, we are reminded that silly and undignified looks can have a long life in pro sports. (Fortunately, the Raptors, the Magic, and others eventually dialled back their most awful looks, while the tragically influential Broncos have persisted with theirs.)

 

Still, the palette of what is on offer across minor league baseball is aesthetically far worse than the low end of design in the Majors and in the other pro leagues. I am thinking of things such as logos featuring snarling animals and snarling inanimate objects, and wordmarks that are way sillier than the worst  ones in the Majors (*cough* Brewers *cough*).

 

While it is of course possible to find a case here and there of a beautiful minor league uniform, for me, minor league baseball aesthetics are generally a blight on the design world. For this reason, I'd prefer minor league teams to use Major League designs -- just to limit the damage, as it were.

 

And, going back to my main point, the whole idea of a minor league team having its own identity rubs me the wrong way. I'd prefer that we be honest and that we acknowledge that the appropriate identity for a minor league team is that of the Major League team with which it is affiliated.

 

But of course I know that this is unrealistic. Minor league teams will continue to perpetrate the dishonest notion that they have their own identities; and they will continue to adopt garish and unsightly designs that are intended to appeal to little kids.

 

That's why I lament the passing of the examples pictured above of Tidewater, Buffalo, and Birmingham sporting Major-League-calibre designs; and that's why the 1990s Syracuse Chiefs stand out as an aesthetic high-water mark that may never be equalled.

I'm afraid the Raptors' most awful look may be their current. If not that, then their second look, with that stupid purple-in-front, black-in-back road jersey. Their original look wasn't great, but it wasn't terrible, just very much of its time. As for the Magic, I don't think they've ever looked better than they did during the Shaq years (or played better, for that matter), but that, like yours, is just a matter of opinion.

[clonewars2008 232]

On 1/17/2016 at 5:31 PM, TRoyConcepts said:

Best


Worst

What makes the Shield the worst? 

The Senators for the most part have some really solid logos though I like the unused updated logo, I prefer the oldie that was golden:

The worst is easily:

 

[clonewars2008 232]

On 1/17/2016 at 0:56 AM, Ice_Cap said:

CFL I

Best

Worst

Best

Worst

Best

Worst

Best

Worst

Best

Worst

 

On 1/17/2016 at 0:59 AM, Ice_Cap said:

CFL II

Best

Worst

Best

Worst

Best

Worst

Best

Worst

CFL III
(Left out Ottawa)
Best:


Worst

[IceCap 21,983]

Different teams  

The Redblacks have only had one logo so you can't really do a best/worst for them. Same reason I left out the Houston Texans.