NY Jets Alternate Logo?

[BBM]

I love that 'NY' logo but there is one huge problem with them using that on their helmets: They play in New Jersey and are partners in a new stadium in New Jersey which means they're not going back to NY anytime this generation. I think it'd be silly to wear that on their helmets in light of this fact.

I don't see why not. The current Jets primary already has "NY" in the background. On top of that, New Jersey's other team, the Giants, uses "NY" as their primary logo.

Both the Jets and Giants logos seem to go over pretty well with the fans -- I mean, certainly don't have any complaints about either of them.

I think Jersey was too afraid to lose either team (back to NY) that they let them put whatever they wanted on the helmet... frankly the whole "ZOMG they play in Jersey!" thing is overrated anyway, since they are closer to Manhattan than the Islanders are, and if you've ever been to NYC or Long Island, you'd realize there's no where a football stadium could logistically work.

[ferrousoxide66]

While browsing eBay (yes, I know there are plenty of bogus items floating around on there, which is why I'm asking this), I stumbled upon a t-shirt claiming to feature the "New York Jets 1973 Throwback Logo". I know the Jets played at Shea Stadium back then, so it would kind of make sense that they used their own version of the Mets "interlocking NY" logo since the New York Football Giants borrowed the "NY" from the New York Baseball Giants and the Knicks' former usage of the Yankees logo as well.

Anyways, I've never seen this logo before. Does anyone happen to know if this was ever officially used by the Jets?...

Horrid. Reminds me of some whale tail.

[infrared41]

Years ago in a ComArts magazine I saw mock ups of the Jets with their NY on the helmet. I thought these were a huge improvement but they never saw the light of day. Would be nice to see them change to this.

It would be fantastic if they used that on their helmet. A major improvement over the current old-timey logo.

Whenever I see this logo I always think to myself that it would look good on their helmet. It just seems to translate better on the helmet than the current logo.

Personally, I'm not a fan of this one. Too plain. What's everyone's objection to the current, specifically?

It needs to be "updated" or "modernized." In other words, it's not ugly enough.

[grmuckrakers]

I like the traditional Jets logo.

The same arguments that applied to the Islanders apply to the Jets.

They tried the bland modernized thing. The one they have now is traditional, it's recognized, it's what they've had for most of their existance. It's not some cartoony thing that's going to look dated and silly n a couple years. It's the Jets.

[EatSleepJeep]

Years ago in a ComArts magazine I saw mock ups of the Jets with their NY on the helmet. I thought these were a huge improvement but they never saw the light of day. Would be nice to see them change to this.

It would be fantastic if they used that on their helmet. A major improvement over the current old-timey logo.

Whenever I see this logo I always think to myself that it would look good on their helmet. It just seems to translate better on the helmet than the current logo.

Personally, I'm not a fan of this one. Too plain. What's everyone's objection to the current, specifically?

It needs to be "updated" or "modernized." In other words, it's not ugly enough.

Naw, just add some laces to the top and it's ready to go.

[erlovepuck]

I love that 'NY' logo but there is one huge problem with them using that on their helmets: They play in New Jersey and are partners in a new stadium in New Jersey which means they're not going back to NY anytime this generation. I think it'd be silly to wear that on their helmets in light of this fact.

And how exactly have these facts stopped the Giants from wearing NY on their helmet?

I think it works better for the Giants because that is an old look that they went back to. For the Jets to wear a logo with just an NY on it for the first time now twenty years after they played their final game in NY is silly to me. I also disagree that there's no place on LI or NYC where a stadium could logistically be placed. There are sites on LI, in Queens and even Manhattan where a stadium could have been built. I'm a season ticket holder who travels to new Jersey for games and will continue to do so in the new stadium and to be honest it really doesn't bother me that they play in New Jersey at all. I just think putting an NY on their helmet just looks silly.

[hawk36]

As an outsider, either New Jersey IS New York or it ISN'T. I've been blasted on this board for having issues with teams playing in New Jersey being called New York. Seems a majority say it is simply a suburb of NYC.

So, if it is indeed a suburb of NYC then having NY on the helmet is perfectly fine with me. If, on the other hand, people think it odd to have an NY on the helmet of a team playing in New Jersey, then change the entire name of the team to New Jersey. You can't have it both ways.

[BBTV]

As an outsider, either New Jersey IS New York or it ISN'T. I've been blasted on this board for having issues with teams playing in New Jersey being called New York. Seems a majority say it is simply a suburb of NYC.

So, if it is indeed a suburb of NYC then having NY on the helmet is perfectly fine with me. If, on the other hand, people think it odd to have an NY on the helmet of a team playing in New Jersey, then change the entire name of the team to New Jersey. You can't have it both ways.

You could call North Jersey a "suburb" of NY, just like you could call South Jersey a "suburb" of Philadelphia. I'm not sure either (especially North Jersey) resembles a suburb in the traditional sense.

However, the fact is this: North Jersey is part of the New York Metropolitian Area. That is indisputable. Just like South Jersey is part of the Philadelphia metropolitan statistical area, AKA the "Delaware Valley".

Think of the NY as a regional identifier instead of a literal city name. It's not that hard.

[baseballking99]

I love that 'NY' logo but there is one huge problem with them using that on their helmets: They play in New Jersey and are partners in a new stadium in New Jersey which means they're not going back to NY anytime this generation. I think it'd be silly to wear that on their helmets in light of this fact.

I don't see why not. The current Jets primary already has "NY" in the background. On top of that, New Jersey's other team, the Giants, uses "NY" as their primary logo.

Both the Jets and Giants logos seem to go over pretty well with the fans -- I mean, certainly don't have any complaints about either of them.

I think Jersey was too afraid to lose either team (back to NY) that they let them put whatever they wanted on the helmet... frankly the whole "ZOMG they play in Jersey!" thing is overrated anyway, since they are closer to Manhattan than the Islanders are, and if you've ever been to NYC or Long Island, you'd realize there's no where a football stadium could logistically work.

There are many places a stadium could be built on Long Island or NYC. Ill admit there not obvious open fields like you would think but they're there. Just look at what they were planning on building on the west side. Also Madison Square Garden was built on top of Penn Station. I'm sure some land could be found in Nassau still and Suffolk has plenty of land out east. If somone wanted to build one it would happen.

[BBTV]

I love that 'NY' logo but there is one huge problem with them using that on their helmets: They play in New Jersey and are partners in a new stadium in New Jersey which means they're not going back to NY anytime this generation. I think it'd be silly to wear that on their helmets in light of this fact.

I don't see why not. The current Jets primary already has "NY" in the background. On top of that, New Jersey's other team, the Giants, uses "NY" as their primary logo.

Both the Jets and Giants logos seem to go over pretty well with the fans -- I mean, certainly don't have any complaints about either of them.

I think Jersey was too afraid to lose either team (back to NY) that they let them put whatever they wanted on the helmet... frankly the whole "ZOMG they play in Jersey!" thing is overrated anyway, since they are closer to Manhattan than the Islanders are, and if you've ever been to NYC or Long Island, you'd realize there's no where a football stadium could logistically work.

There are many places a stadium could be built on Long Island or NYC. Ill admit there not obvious open fields like you would think but they're there. Just look at what they were planning on building on the west side. Also Madison Square Garden was built on top of Penn Station. I'm sure some land could be found in Nassau still and Suffolk has plenty of land out east. If somone wanted to build one it would happen.

Two words:

Eminent domain.

[xTr1pleXx]

I'll be the first to say I wish the Jets and Giants built a stadium within New York City, but I also think it's asinine to expect them to be called the "New Jersey Jets." They're a New York team, with a primarily New York fanbase, in the New York metropolitan area, and represent New York in the NFL. Under this logic, why don't we have the Maryland Redskins or Miami Gardens Dolphins or Irving Cowboys or Orchard Park Bills? Just as those are all recognized as suburbs of their respective major cities, and those teams are recognized as representing those major cities, the Giants and Jets play in a suburb of NYC and represent NYC.

And I don't get the rationale behind saying it's okay for the Giants to use an "NY" logo but now okay for the Jets. Both teams started in New York, and represent the New York area. Plus. the Jets played within NYC city limits for 9 years after the Giants left. The Giants moved out of NYC for the first time in 1973, going to the Yale Bowl, and then played in Shea for a season before Giants Stadium opened. The Jets kept playing in Shea until 1984. They were in NYC long after the Giants, and they're as much of a New York team as the Giants (or Yankees, Mets, Rangers, Knicks, or Islanders, for that matter).

[hawk36]

They're a New York team, with a primarily New York fanbase, in the New York metropolitan area, and represent New York in the NFL.

Just playing devil's advocate but you could then make the argument that the Oakland Raiders could still be called the Los Angeles Raiders since they probably have a larger fanbase, in terms of sheer numbers, in Los Angeles County than in the Bay Area.

[baseballking99]

They're a New York team, with a primarily New York fanbase, in the New York metropolitan area, and represent New York in the NFL.

Just playing devil's advocate but you could then make the argument that the Oakland Raiders could still be called the Los Angeles Raiders since they probably have a larger fanbase, in terms of sheer numbers, in Los Angeles County than in the Bay Area.

No because they're not playing in the LA metropolitan area or represent LA in the NFL.

[hawk36]

They're a New York team, with a primarily New York fanbase, in the New York metropolitan area, and represent New York in the NFL.

Just playing devil's advocate but you could then make the argument that the Oakland Raiders could still be called the Los Angeles Raiders since they probably have a larger fanbase, in terms of sheer numbers, in Los Angeles County than in the Bay Area.

No because they're not playing in the LA metropolitan area or represent LA in the NFL.

Right but a majority of their fan base is in the LA metropolitan area. I know it's not realistic but it's just an interesting thought... should a team be named for the actual town they play in or the town from which a majority of their fans come from. The Raiders are one example of a team that has more fans in a different city than it is named for. Another could be the Packers with a majority of their fans being in Milwaukee.

[BBTV]

They're a New York team, with a primarily New York fanbase, in the New York metropolitan area, and represent New York in the NFL.

Just playing devil's advocate but you could then make the argument that the Oakland Raiders could still be called the Los Angeles Raiders since they probably have a larger fanbase, in terms of sheer numbers, in Los Angeles County than in the Bay Area.

No because they're not playing in the LA metropolitan area or represent LA in the NFL.

Right but a majority of their fan base is in the LA metropolitan area. I know it's not realistic but it's just an interesting thought... should a team be named for the actual town they play in or the town from which a majority of their fans come from. The Raiders are one example of a team that has more fans in a different city than it is named for. Another could be the Packers with a majority of their fans being in Milwaukee.

It will absolutely never happen. Sports team names can be thought of as advertisements for the cities, and no city / geographic region would pony up even a dime to support an organization that advertises another municipality / region. Look at the LA of A situation for an example of how important having the appropriate designation is, as Anaheim doesn't consider itself part of LA Metro.

[hawk36]

They're a New York team, with a primarily New York fanbase, in the New York metropolitan area, and represent New York in the NFL.

Just playing devil's advocate but you could then make the argument that the Oakland Raiders could still be called the Los Angeles Raiders since they probably have a larger fanbase, in terms of sheer numbers, in Los Angeles County than in the Bay Area.

No because they're not playing in the LA metropolitan area or represent LA in the NFL.

Right but a majority of their fan base is in the LA metropolitan area. I know it's not realistic but it's just an interesting thought... should a team be named for the actual town they play in or the town from which a majority of their fans come from. The Raiders are one example of a team that has more fans in a different city than it is named for. Another could be the Packers with a majority of their fans being in Milwaukee.

It will absolutely never happen. Sports team names can be thought of as advertisements for the cities, and no city / geographic region would pony up even a dime to support an organization that advertises another municipality / region. Look at the LA of A situation for an example of how important having the appropriate designation is, as Anaheim doesn't consider itself part of LA Metro.

LA of A is a perfect example. With all of the money involved in sports, I'm sure it's not that unrealistic that at some point, someone will sell the rights of the city name even if the team doesn't play in that city.

Image if the San Diego Chargers get a new deal with Qualcomm Stadium and stay in San Diego but then get offered $100 million from the City of Los Angeles to change their name to the Los Angeles Chargers, even though they would still play in San Diego.

Don't laugh, I'm sure 40 years ago no one thought we'd be talking about Qualcomm Stadium instead of San Diego Stadium. Everything is for sale.

[altune88]

Hi guys, first off just wanted to let each and every one of you guys know what a great site this is for information regarding all things sports and you're all great contributors.

I occasionally read the boards because like many of you, I love logos and I'm an avid collector of sports jerseys.

As for the logo in question. The NYJ (Mets ripoff) logo. It was indeed an actual logo in the early 70's. It is not a rumor but actually did exist 100%.

As a matter of fact, the logo on that tshirt (which was hijacked by some a**hole to sell tshirts on ebay) is a logo that I myself refurbished (along with many others) and sent over to sportslogos.net.

I know there will be some skeptics out there and I wish I could prove it right now, but I cant at this moment.

My father has been a Jet season ticket holder since the late 60's. I know there is a yearbook (year ?) in the early 70's with a picture of Weeb Ewbank wearing a hat that was a white mesh (green brim) with that exact logo.

Next time I visit my parents, I will look for that yearbook and scan a picture and post it on this site. If someone googles it, you may be able to find a picture of ewbank wearing it.

Hope I cleared some of this up.

Thanks, Paul

[jamdawg1]

That actually existed?

Very likely because both the Jets and Mets played at Shea Stadium at the time.

I have seen video of Weeb Ewbank wearing the cap that altune88 is talking about (Video of Super Bowl III.)

[altune88]

http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj198/pkns10/scan0021.jpg

This is actually Charlie Winner, head coach in 1975

Looks like the NYJ is different on the shirt from the hat.

[njmeadowlanders]

Well how about that...

By the way, Charlie Winner's career record with the Jets: 9-14. Not very aptly named now is he?