Best and Worst Sports Logos

[clonewars2008]

4 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

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.

You can still do Ottawa as a whole.

[IceCap]

I kept it limited to franchise, not city. 

[clonewars2008]

Just now, Ice_Cap said:

I kept it limited to franchise, not city. 

Alright then.

[T-ROY]

4 hours ago, clonewars2008 said:

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:

 

 

I definitely considered that wordmark as being their worst, but it really isn't that bad and works well solely as a wordmark. The reason I chose that shield is for obvious reasons and the fact that you even ask that question is mind-boggling. It's probably the worst logo I've ever seen for a professional sports brand.

 

As for the Senator head, the 90's primary is extremely dated, the outlines are too much and the "wings" are unneeded. For a logo from the 90's, it sure looks like it was created in the 60's. I've never understood the praise for that logo. 

[Chromatic]

Best: 

Worst:

 

I know the 'HW' logo is a classic, and is one of the greatest logos of all time, but there is just something so hilariously literal about Pucky that I'm in constant awe of.

[clonewars2008]

25 minutes ago, TRoyConcepts said:

 

I definitely considered that wordmark as being their worst, but it really isn't that bad and works well solely as a wordmark. The reason I chose that shield is for obvious reasons and the fact that you even ask that question is mind-boggling. It's probably the worst logo I've ever seen for a professional sports brand.

 

As for the Senator head, the 90's primary is extremely dated, the outlines are too much and the "wings" are unneeded. For a logo from the 90's, it sure looks like it was created in the 60's. I've never understood the praise for that logo. 

The shield it self is a great shoulder logo, it fits well with the uniform it's on. Not everything has to be grand and impressive. Being subtle goes a long way. I like it and it fits well, as for the 90's logo, I guess it's more nostalgia. 

[T-ROY]

1 minute ago, clonewars2008 said:

The shield it self is a great shoulder logo, it fits well with the uniform it's on. Not everything has to be grand and impressive. Being subtle goes a long way. I like it and it fits well, as for the 90's logo, I guess it's more nostalgia. 

 

If I put a pile of :censored: on a :censored: jersey, it doesn't mean it's good since it fits well with the uniform.

[clonewars2008]

1 hour ago, TRoyConcepts said:

 

If I put a pile of on a jersey, it doesn't mean it's good since it fits well with the uniform.

Yeah cause your putting :censored:e on :censored:e, I feel it looks good.

[Morgan33]

Everything about that black SNES jersey was an absolute atrocity.  That word mark is easily their worst logo.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

On 1/23/2016 at 0:08 PM, MCM0313 said:

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.

 

The Raptors' and the Magic's original looks would be great for 10-year-olds.  But for adults, they were pretty embarassing.

 

 

The Magic had a brief window in which they looked like adults.

 

  

 

Their current set is marred by side panels and pinstripes.  But it is still far better than the clownish outfits they wore at the beginning.  A hand-written number font?  Egad!

 

 

And it is hard to understand how the the understated dignity of the Raptors' current set could be ranked below the mess of their first set.  

 

 

I put these near the top of the league.  Even the Raptors' non-standard number font is a good one -- this is a lesson which the Nets should learn.  Indeed, this team does understated right where the Nets do it wrong.

 

 

[Sport]

On 1/23/2016 at 11:47 AM, cesarano said:

 

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.

Your opinion is not truth, it's an opinion, so this isn't an issue of honesty vs dishonesty. It's an issue of what you think should happen versus what actually happens. If I'm being honest the appropriate identity for a minor league team should be however the team owner sees fit based on what is the right identity for that particular market. Example: The Louisville Bats v. Cincinnati Reds. With the makeup and relationship between the two cities it makes more sense for Louisville's team to have a distinctive identity all its own than to copy whatever Cincinnati's doing.

 

Minor League teams are in different cities, climates, leagues where the accepted aesthetic varies, far away from their major league parent, and yes they often cater to different clientele than the big club. This is why minor league team identities skew more towards attracting families with cute mascot logos, and brighter colors. It's not a dishonest notion that they have their own identities. They just have their own identities. They're not lying. Why do the Billings Mustangs have to dress like the Cincinnati Reds? What does anyone in Billings, Montana care about the Reds, how the Reds dress, and why should their team be slave to the Reds identity? Because they're contractually signed to the Reds for the foreseeable future? That's silly.

 

If a team wants to parrot the big club then by all means go ahead and do so, but to say that should be enforced across the board is a ridiculous notion. Most of the time a minor league team will wear the major league uniform as a cost-cutting measure. Not because they think it's more professional. 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

2 hours ago, McCarthy said:

Your opinion is not truth, it's an opinion, so this isn't an issue of honesty vs dishonesty. It's an issue of what you think should happen versus what actually happens. 

 

To assert that minor league teams exist for the sole purpose of developing players for the parent club is entirely uncontroversial.  (Wasn't there an independent AAA team in the 1980s? If I am remembering correctly, this team would have been an exception to that, as were the Pacific Coast League teams during the "Open" classification days.)

Minor league teams regularly lose their best players to promotion at the end of each season, regardless of the team's needs in the context of its pennant race and the playoffs.  Also, parent clubs freely assign their players to their affilliates to do injury rehab, taking no account of the established roles within the minor league team. So the idea that the minor league team's league competition takes a back seat to the player-development needs of the organisation is fact, not opinion.

 

What is my opinion is that the branding of minor league teams ought to reflect this.

 

Still, as I said earlier, I am aware that this doesn't happen because minor league teams tend to market themselves to families with little kids looking for a day out, rather than to fans who have an emotional stake in the team's wins and losses. 

 

I will honestly say that this annoys me.  Now, you might reply that the manner in which the owners of a minor league team wish to market their team is none of my business. And you'd be right.  Nevertheless, I find this state of affairs unfortunate from an aesthetic perspective because it leads to some pretty crappy-looking logos and uniforms.

 

2 hours ago, McCarthy said:

Why do the Billings Mustangs have to dress like the Cincinnati Reds? What does anyone in Billings, Montana care about the Reds, how the Reds dress, and why should their team be slave to the Reds identity? Because they're contractually signed to the Reds for the foreseeable future? That's silly.

 

Well, I disagree that that's silly; that strikes me as an excellent reason for the Billings Mustangs to visually emulate the Cincinnati Reds.

 

But I don't think I suggested that a minor league team should be a "slave" to the parent club's identity.  I say only that a minor league team's look should tell an observer what organisation it belongs to.  This still leaves plenty of leeway for creativity.

 

We've already seen pictures of the Tidewater Tides of the 1980s, who borrowed the Mets' aesthetic in its entirety.  But consider the Columbus Clippers of the same period, who were a Yankee affilliate.  They didn't copy the Yankees' style as closely as Tidewater copied the Mets'; but they were still recognisably Yankee-like:

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's close enough for me.  The colours are different from the Yankees' colours.  But it's still Yankee-ish enough.

 

Though the road uniform eventually became very Yankee-like:

 

 

I really dig this. But, of course, I am thinking like a baseball fan, putting myself in the place of someone from that town rooting for the players.  

 

When I was a Yankee fan as a kid, I was interested in the Columbus Clippers; and I even had a Clippers hat, because I cared about the Yankees' AAA players.  So it seems natural that my counterpart in Columbus would have been interested in the Yankees as a means of following his/her favourite players once they left the Clippers.  And, after the Clippers changed affilliations, that local fan would logically then be interested in the team's new parent club.

 

Nevertheless, I will repeat my awareness that minor league teams are not selling themselves to baseball fans; they are not concerned with the counterpart of the 16-year-old me who bought a Clippers hat because he was interested in the players.  They are concerned with the parents of a 6-year-old kid who are looking for a day out that will keep the kid occupied, and who might buy a cap because the kid likes the smiling giraffe (or whatever) in the logo.  (Not that today's Columbus Clippers in particular have such a garish logo or really terrible uniforms.)

I just think that the uni world would be more beautiful if we had fewer teams in the mold of the Omaha Storm Chasers (who look nothing like their parent club and who actually changed their nickname and their look in order to distance themselves from that parent) and more teams in the mold of the Memphis Redbirds (who strongly evoke their parent club's look).

 

[Sport]

16 minutes ago, cesarano said:

 

 

16 minutes ago, cesarano said:

 To assert that minor league teams exist for the sole purpose of developing players for the parent club is entirely uncontroversial.  (Wasn't there an independent AAA team in the 1980s? If I am remembering correctly, this team would have been an exception to that, as were the Pacific Coast League teams during the "Open" classification days.)

 

Minor league teams regularly lose their best players to promotion at the end of each season, regardless of the team's needs in the context of its pennant race and the playoffs.  Also, parent clubs freely assign their players to their affilliates to do injury rehab, taking no account of the established roles within the minor league team. So the idea that the minor league team's league competition takes a back seat to the player-development needs of the organisation is fact, not opinion.

 

I never said anything to the contrary. I was addressing this "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.", which is entirely opinion based. 

 

16 minutes ago, cesarano said:

What is my opinion is that the branding of minor league teams ought to reflect this.

 

Yes and therefore cannot "perpetrate the dishonest notion that they have their own identities" when they do have their own identities and the parent clubs allow them to have their own identities. 

 

16 minutes ago, cesarano said:

 

Still, as I said earlier, I am aware that this doesn't happen because minor league teams tend to market themselves to families with little kids looking for a day out, rather than to fans who have an emotional stake in the team's wins and losses. 

 

I will honestly say that this annoys me.  Now, you might reply that the manner in which the owners of a minor league team wish to market their team is none of my business. And you'd be right.  Nevertheless, I find this state of affairs unfortunate from an aesthetic perspective because it leads to some pretty crappy-looking logos and uniforms.

 

It sometimes results in crappy looking uniforms. Sometimes it results in great looking uniforms. There are big league uniforms that look awful right now. Parroting the big club can result in crappy looking uniforms too. 

 

From an aesthetic standpoint I like that the minor leagues have more freedom at play than the big leagues. It allows for more creativity and in a sport with the dullest uniforms it's good to have a stage to try to be the Akron Rubberducks. I'd rather it be a minor league team going Diamondbackian than the actual Diamondbacks. 

 

16 minutes ago, cesarano said:

 

Well, I disagree that that's silly; that strikes me as an excellent reason for the Billings Mustangs to visually emulate the Cincinnati Reds.

 

The Mustangs play in a completely different market thousands of miles from Cincinnati. I wouldn't expect their situations to be the same and I wouldn't expect their uniforms not to reflect Billings. They wear red and black though, so probably bad example. There's other ways to go about this other than every team using the same color scheme and basic uniform identity. The Padres, for instance, have every farm team with a mascot logo where the mascot is swinging something (a bat, a tree, a bone etc). That kind of stuff is all I need for organizational uniformity. 

 

 

16 minutes ago, cesarano said:

 

But I don't think I suggested that a minor league team should be a "slave" to the parent club's identity.  I say only that a minor league team's look should tell an observer what organisation it belongs to.  This still leaves plenty of leeway for creativity.

 

Why limit creativity at all when you could have endless possibilities? Throw the big league logo on a sleeve patch and you've told an observer what organization they belong to and you get unlimited creative freedom. 

 

16 minutes ago, cesarano said:

 

We've already seen pictures of the Tidewater Tides of the 1980s, who borrowed the Mets' aesthetic in its entirety.  But consider the Columbus Clippers of the same period, who were a Yankee affilliate.  They didn't copy the Yankees' style as closely as Tidewater copied the Mets'; but they were still recognisably Yankee-like:

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's close enough for me.  The colours are different from the Yankees' colours.  But it's still Yankee-ish enough.

 

If I knew nothing about this team I'd say that's more likely to be a Cubs, Braves, Rangers, or Expos affiliate than Yankees. if that's your bar for what is within the same ballpark as far as uniform design being close to the parent club then we don't need to discuss this anymore because we're talking about two different things. 

 

16 minutes ago, cesarano said:

 

Though the road uniform eventually became very Yankee-like:

 

 

I really dig this. But, of course, I am thinking like a baseball fan, putting myself in the place of someone from that town rooting for the players.  

 

When I was a Yankee fan as a kid, I was interested in the Columbus Clippers; and I even had a Clippers hat, because I cared about the Yankees' AAA players.  So it seems natural that my counterpart in Columbus would have been interested in the Yankees as a means of following his/her favourite players once they left the Clippers.  And, after the Clippers changed affilliations, that local fan would logically then be interested in the team's new parent club.

 

Nevertheless, I will repeat my awareness that minor league teams are not selling themselves to baseball fans; they are not concerned with the counterpart of the 16-year-old me who bought a Clippers hat because he was interested in the players.  They are concerned with the parents of a 6-year-old who are looking for a day out that will keep the kid occupied, and who might buy a cap because the kid likes the smiling giraffe (or whaterver) in the logo.  (Not that today's Columbus Clippers in particular have such a garish logo or really terrible uniforms.)

 

I find it hilarious that you used the Columbus Clippers as your example because I grew up in Columbus going to Cooper Stadium for 5-10 Clippers games every summer. I was your 6 year old counterpart and in the mid 90's when their uniforms became Yankee hand-me-downs I was disappointed thinking it was really boring, lazy design. I didn't care about New York City or the Yankees (mostly because I was a Reds fan) so I didn't care that the local team looked just like them. Putting myself in the place of someone from that town rooting for the players, because that's what I was - I preferred the Cubs-like uniforms. In fact, the Clippers are probably the single biggest reason I prefer for farm clubs to have separate identities. Nice job. 

 

16 minutes ago, cesarano said:

I just think that the uni world would be more beautiful if we had fewer teams in the mold of the Omaha Storm Chasers (who look nothing like their parent club) and more teams in the mold of the Memphis Redbirds (who strongly evoke their parent club).

 

 

And all I'm saying is it's silly to try to enforce that across all of minor league baseball. Some teams like the Storm Chasers come up with some really solid identities that you wouldn't otherwise see if they were forced to design within the framework of an already existing identity. 

[MCM0313]

9 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

The Raptors' and the Magic's original looks would be great for 10-year-olds.  But for adults, they were pretty embarassing.

 

 

The Magic had a brief window in which they looked like adults.

 

  

 

Their current set is marred by side panels and pinstripes.  But it is still far better than the clownish outfits they wore at the beginning.  A hand-written number font?  Egad!

 

 

And it is hard to understand how the the understated dignity of the Raptors' current set could be ranked below the mess of their first set.  

 

 

I put these near the top of the league.  Even the Raptors' non-standard number font is a good one -- this is a lesson which the Nets should learn.  Indeed, this team does understated right where the Nets do it wrong.

 

 

"Understated dignity"?! They were named after a dinosaur with feathers and sickle-clawed feet! Sometimes goofy is okay. The Magic were named after a theme park, more or less---so of course they're going to look somewhat appealing to a kid. The Magic uniforms you posted are boooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiing.

[greyraven8]

Best:

 

 

Worst:

 

Detailed crown with colour > monochrome logo with in a chopped up crest with large blocky lettering in an ugly font with a far inferior crown.

 

 

 

                                                                                                           best

 

Hmmm.  Tough decision for worst - new one has lettering in a whole unremarkable font but font doesn't clash with the logo; kind of minimalist - not sure if in a good or bad way.  Middle one - even thought it was a 2000's logo for me it has a bit of a 90's vibe; football/leaf never did much for me.  Today I'll pick the middle one as the worst; ask me another day and it would be the left one.
 

Worst:

 

Best:

 

If choosing one in isolation without consideration of whether it would be used a uniform and what it would look like there, Argos original one has much for it (would look nice on a letterhead - football helmet probably not so much- way too much detail).  The one that replaced it in 1956 similar sentiments.

 

The football/boat logos are pretty good, the plain A is too plain, mid 90s to mid 2000s one I liked at the time but I think it's time is done for me.  Surprisingly for a primary logo to go on a helmet, I'll go with the current A shield one.  Years ago I would have though that one too plain and simple.

 

 

[Morgan33]

Best:  Not applicable.  Even the shoulder patches and word marks are subpar...

 

Worst:  Just terrible.  The unwanted army connection, the poorly illustrated Jet, the overly complex maple leaf, and the unnecessary "True North" reference.  A full rebrand can't come soon enough...

 

[IceCap]

7 minutes ago, Morgo said:

Worst:  Just terrible.  The unwanted army connection...

1) unwanted by who? 

2) the Air Force is not the Army

3) it beats the word "Jets" in a circle

[Morgan33]

20 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

1) unwanted by who? 

2) the Air Force is not the Army

3) it beats the word "Jets" in a circle

 

Unwanted by people who want sports logos to be sports logos and military/army/airforce/navy logos to be military/army/airforce/navy logos.  Flawed as it is, I'd take this any day...

 

[IceCap]

Complaining about the military industrial complex in this case is a bit silly. It's more of a cottage industry in Canada.

You're also ignoring the fact that Winnipeg has a history as a RCAF town, which makes the roundel a logical choice for a logo when coupled with the "Jets" name.

 

As for the logo you posted? Dated, in more ways than one. The emphasis is on a civilian passenger jet. An aircraft that's sluggish and slow. Not attributes you want associated with your hockey team. Military fighter jets though? Dangerous, sleek, and fast. A much better choice.

[T-ROY]

1 hour ago, Morgo said:

 

Unwanted by people who want sports logos to be sports logos and military/army/airforce/navy logos to be military/army/airforce/navy logos.  

 

Literally no one but you cares and it's not based off the military, it's based off the RCAF. I guess you must hate the Blackhawks logo for its military ties