Your Opinion Needed

[alkatraz]

Okay here's the question?

Do you like the classic logo's like Green Bay, Dallas, Indianapolis, Chicago, Cincinatti, Cleveland, Detriot, Kansas City, Miami, New Orleans, Buffalo, New York (Jets & Giants), Minnesota, Pittsburgh, Oakland, San Diego, San Francisco, & Washington?

Or the modern logo's like Arizona, Atlanta, Baltimore, Carolina, Denver, Houston, Jacksonville, New England, Philadelphia, Seattle, St. Louis, Tampa Bay, & Tennessee?

I prefer the modern logo's especially Atlanta, Philidelphia, & Tampa Bay.

What do you think?

[Discrim]

i'm in the middle-basically if it doesn't suck, I like it.

[Cashcleaner]

There are a lot of old designs that still look good, but conversely, there are quite a few new logos that although have a definite modern look to them, still look dreadful. New Orleans is a great example of an older logo that needs no updating. Altlanta on the other hand, looks quite bad in my opinion.

It's not so much a question of how old a design is, it's more a question of how effective does it look all the time.

[pcgd]

It depends to me. Chicago Bears have a great classic look, but the Cardinals don't. (well didn't) The flacons look good to me with a modern logo and uniform, but the bills don't.

Its a case by case basis.

[TFoA]

i'm in the middle-basically if it doesn't suck, I like it.

Ditto.

[Magus]

i personally like the modern logos. especially the Falcons, i love there overall look. and no im not a falcons fan, so im not saying it just for bias reasons.

theres quite a few old school logos i like, if they modernized them would look nice. for example, i like the old packers running back in wisconson logo and would look nice if they modernized it with vegas gold and packer green.

[Cashcleaner]

Oh! But now that I'm thinking of it.... One thing that I really hate for all logos, are when they have a team name like the NY Jets, or NY Giants or whatever and just have text with no iamge as a logo.

[GeorgesL]

Classic or modern?

Depends on the team.

If it's Colts, Steelers, Packers, Redskins or Cards, classic.

If it's Atlanta, Tampa Bay, Tennessee or Miami, I say modern.

[ColeJ]

i agree...

some logos are timeless, and don't need to be updated...

the eagles had a great update of an old look, and it really looks nice. the cardinals did a great update to their logo, that definately improved it. the seahawks and rams did great updates to being their teams into modern styles...

but that being said, there's nothing wrong with the bears logo, colts logo, packers logo, steelers logo, or cowboys logo... to name a few... these are just timeless. no real flaws. sure, they're simple... but they don't have any real flaws.

that being said, some teams, like the minnesota vikings, need to update their logos.

i take it on a case-by-case basis. retro isn't always the best... for instance, look at the cleveland cavaliers. their current look is miles ahead of anything they've ever worn before... but then again, modern isn't always the best either. i'd say the original dallas stars uniforms, or even the minnesota north stars old uniforms, are miles ahead of the "modern" third jersey they have.

as i said, case-by-case basis. there is no reason to pro-modern, or pro-retro. if it works, it works. no matter when it was designed... however, i think most teams are in search for a good timeless logo that they won't have to change in a decade to keep up with the pack.

[vini]

i would have to say it's a case by case thing for me as well.

i love how the jets and giants changed to a retro classic look but i also like the seahawks change( minus the all blue look )and the falcons change. on the other hand i don't like what the bengals or the bills did.

[Stampman]

Either/or-

both have good logos, both have bad ones...

[Pharos04]

Yeah i'd have to say i'm in the middle too. A lot of the classic logos like Green Bay, Chicago or Indy have that timelessness with it that doesn't need any updating or changes. Some old ones, say the Falcons, had an alright logo but to me personally, just looked like a really awkard bird. their new one is a lot better. And yes i'll throw these guys in, The Patriots. When they first changed the logo there was a lot of uproar by the fans since the Joe Pat had been around for decades. The "Flying Elvis" as it was dubbed was laughed at, ridiculed, and mocked considerable. But after what 14 years of seeing it everywhere people got used to it and eventually came around to enjoying it. But like with the Chargers, we love it when they go Throwbacks in the red with the old helmet. Gives to the thrill

[FUNKAFIED]

I'm sure this has been said, and will be repeated here several times before this thread dies.

I think it really depends on the team and the tradition. There are some logos you cannot mess with, like the Cowboys star, the big "G" on the Packers' helmets, the interlocking "SF" for the 49ers, or the steelmark on the Steelers' lids.

Some logos that have been updated have had decent results, like the Patriots 'flying Elvis' design (which I like) or the meaner, more intimidating Tampa Bay look.

One of my favorite logo updates is the Denver Broncos. The angry bronco head with the flowing orange mane on the helmets are great. Now if they just lose that orange stripe down the sides of the uniforms.

I'm not a big fan of the new Falcons logo. I like the Seahawks subtle update when they jumped to the NFC with a meaner looking bird. I would like to see the Vikings do something different and have seen a couple of great concepts on here. The new Cardinals logo for '05 is pretty cool and hopefully the uniforms will be as well.

[TLChandler]

I, like the rest of the community, prefer whatever team looks better. Modernizations can be brutal but also can be very sleek and sharp looking. Classics are just classics and they dont change because its tradition. Classic modernizations havent been brought up I dont think which I think keep tradition, but bring us into the new age as well. A good example of this is the Detroit Pistons. They went back to their same look in the bad boy years but with a new logo and fonts it looks much more modern, but it still has that traditional feel. Seeing teams modernize logos like the Cards, Seahawks, and Falcons is a great thing too because it still keeps some of the tradition involved in the franchise. I do not think that total overhauls really do justice to any franchise and think tradition is a key in any or all franchises.

[P.I.L.L.]

Oh! But now that I'm thinking of it.... One thing that I really hate for all logos, are when they have a team name like the NY Jets, or NY Giants or whatever and just have text with no iamge as a logo.

I couldn't agree more... text "logos" make me laugh~ especially at the Professional level, where identity / marketing is crucial... and considering how cheap it is (relatively speaking) for big time teams to have a great design made for their team... text "logos" are just dispicably inexplicable.

as for my NFL logo preference, generally I like the modern, however I still greatly respect / admire some of the classic / simple logos such as the Lions, Vikings, SF, or my team... the Redskins.

I think the old Tampa Bay Bucaneer logo (not colors) was much more original / interesting than the logo they're using now... it'd be great to see that old Buc logo w/ their current colors, if someone could whip that up and post it, that'd be an interesting topic.

also, I was thinking ... the Miami Dolphins logo could use a makeover... not outright change, but a modernization... as the concept / shape are solid... just dated imagery.

[See Red]

I couldn't agree more... text "logos" make me laugh~ especially at the Professional level, where identity / marketing is crucial... and considering how cheap it is (relatively speaking) for big time teams to have a great design made for their team... text "logos" are just dispicably inexplicable.

Since identity/marketing is crucial, why would a team change from a logo that is already well recognized and people could easily pick out what team it's for?

[P.I.L.L.]

Since identity/marketing is crucial, why would a team change from a logo that is already well recognized and people could easily pick out what team it's for?

so you're defending simple text "logos" as being good / unchangeable because you can easily pick out what team it's for, or because they've been around too long to change?

[Cashcleaner]

Since identity/marketing is crucial, why would a team change from a logo that is already well recognized and people could easily pick out what team it's for?

What would be the point of this forum then?

[markanthony]

I like both the classic and the modern. Its been the only real trends in American Sports Tradition. Exceptions being in european crested emblems old sports.

European, classic, modern....I cant wait to see what the next trends will be. The Cool thing is, I guess we can all decide that!

Kinda sounds like furniture. Sometimes its hard for me to define. Its like classifying POP music. Beatles and Micheal Jackson are POP. But totally different.

American sports classics tended to look the same, but nowdays after the Modern looks, people are going for truly custom and unique.

[LEWJ]

I definitely like the browns "BROWNIE LOGO" and I think they should start using it again on the fields and as the primary (Ihate just the helmet as a logo)

then I like the New Falcons logos and I hate the old ones

overall I like Brownie better than Mr. Falcon so I'm going with CLASSIC