Logo Downgrades

[Jungle Jim]

Three more...

This change in 1994:

This change in 1997:

This change in 1999:

[JohnnySeoul]

This change in 1994:

Disagree. The original was pretty ugly and their current logo better reflects a star in motion. Prefectly fits Houston's ties to NASA and America's space programs.

This change in 1999:

This one shouldn't even count. The team moved and oil isn't a Tennessee thing. Though I'm not big on the flaming tumbtack, I respect them for moving away from a logo and team name that no longer made sense. It's a shame the Jazz and Lakers didn't do the same.

[StillS]

to this

This is the actual before logo, recolored one was introduced at the same time as the note logo. Still a downgrade though.

[Funkatron101]

>

That is as best logo upgrade that has happened in the NBA in recent history.

I disagree. You could make an argument that it is better for nostalgic value, but I think their previous logo is superior. The only thing that needed to change was the garish color scheme. Swap those colors to match the "retro" logo, and I think it is perfect.

But the nostalgic logo is just better...cleaner, simpler, fewer lines, fewer colors. I wouldn't say that logos are "downgraded" so much as they are simplified because logos in the 90s got OUT OF HAND in terms of garishness, busyness, and muddled with two many elements. The classic teams have timeless logos that are simple and work well, and newer teams are probably moving towards developing that simplicity in their logos.

Is it any wonder why the logos that stand the test of time are usually just lettermarks? Look at NY Yankees, Green Bay Packers, Chicago Bears, Boston Red Sox, Chicago Cubs, etc.

Exactly the way I see it. The nostalgic logo is aesthetically pleasing, less busy, and less 90s (I hate most 90s logos).

My main problem with the new "retro" logo is the completely uninspiring box around it. This is what I feel they should have done. A bit slap-dash on my part, but a simplified look to the 90s logo, with updated colors.

[Gothamite]

My main problem with the new "retro" logo is the completely uninspiring box around it.

Then there's no real problem - that might be on the official sheets, but this is the NBA.

The logo they use most often doesn't have the box.

[Funkatron101]

My main problem with the new "retro" logo is the completely uninspiring box around it.

Then there's no real problem - that might be on the official sheets, but this is the NBA.

The logo they use most often doesn't have the box.

It's my main problem, not my only problem. I just don't find it to be a very dynamic looking logo.

[Norva]

>

That is as best logo upgrade that has happened in the NBA in recent history.

I disagree. You could make an argument that it is better for nostalgic value, but I think their previous logo is superior. The only thing that needed to change was the garish color scheme. Swap those colors to match the "retro" logo, and I think it is perfect.

But the nostalgic logo is just better...cleaner, simpler, fewer lines, fewer colors. I wouldn't say that logos are "downgraded" so much as they are simplified because logos in the 90s got OUT OF HAND in terms of garishness, busyness, and muddled with two many elements. The classic teams have timeless logos that are simple and work well, and newer teams are probably moving towards developing that simplicity in their logos.

Is it any wonder why the logos that stand the test of time are usually just lettermarks? Look at NY Yankees, Green Bay Packers, Chicago Bears, Boston Red Sox, Chicago Cubs, etc.

Exactly the way I see it. The nostalgic logo is aesthetically pleasing, less busy, and less 90s (I hate most 90s logos).

My main problem with the new "retro" logo is the completely uninspiring box around it. This is what I feel they should have done. A bit slap-dash on my part, but a simplified look to the 90s logo, with updated colors.

That's a beautiful logo, I agree they should go with that, though I do like their current set just fine.

[wildwing64]

to

This is the biggest downgrade in my opinion.

I wouldn't call that a downgrade....it's a flat out tragedy.

Agreed

I call it a tremendous upgrade

I feel the same way about this change as I did when the wordmark was unveiled. Somewhat bitter. I didn't know whether to like or hate it, and I still don't. It's looks okay, at best, on the front of the jersey. Everywhere else, i.e. at centre ice, on merchandise, on banners, here, and also on the initial edge uniform, it's tiny, and looks boring and crappy compared to what every other team has. Up until the third jersey was introduced the whole identity package came across as if the Ducks were happy to go hide in a corner away from everyone else.

Disney or not, to me the duck mask just worked. This team just doesn't feel right without it. It looked fantastic on the front of the jerseys, and it looked better everywhere else too. And I never got to see the old jerseys live which is what bums me out the most. But I'm glad it's the third jersey they're bringing with them to Stockholm.

[Morgan33]

to

This is the biggest downgrade in my opinion.

I wouldn't call that a downgrade....it's a flat out tragedy.

Agreed

I call it a tremendous upgrade

You have got to be kidding me. The wordmark is simply not primary logo material. Next to any other NHL logo currently worn it comes off as amateur, bland, and vaguely proprietary as if the Ducks have zero interest in forging a memorable identity instead being content to brand the team as a business. Further more, the jerseys accompanying this change looked dated the second they hit the ice with their swooping hem stripes and inexplicable fondness of black.

[RedSox44]

Three more...

This change in 1994:

I like both sets, but the 90s one more. And I hate 90s uniforms!

[Gothamite]

Disney or not, to me the duck mask just worked. This team just doesn't feel right without it. It looked fantastic on the front of the jerseys, and it looked better everywhere else too.

That's how I feel as well. The mask is a good logo. Slightly tongue-in-cheek, doesn't take itself too seriously, but unmistakeable, nicely balanced, looks as good on a cap as it does on a sweater or at center ice.

Great logo burdened with a bad color scheme and unfortunate associations. I'm thrilled that they brought it back at all, and hope it returns to its place of prominence soon.

[kcroyalsfan]

Still angry the Bengals don't use the tiger head more. It's probably my favorite logo in sports.

I like it and the flying tiger, but what has always bugged me about them both is that the tiger is looking and leaping backwards. It should flow from left to right. I've always wondered who made that decision, and why.

I like the tiger head, but the flying tiger is a little much for me. To me it looks less like it's jumping, and more like it's just sacked out on the floor (sprawled position). That's not really the image I want for my favorite football team, despite their futility.

And I like the actual "striped B" logo, though not as a primary.

[thespleenenator]

>

That is as best logo upgrade that has happened in the NBA in recent history.

I disagree. You could make an argument that it is better for nostalgic value, but I think their previous logo is superior. The only thing that needed to change was the garish color scheme. Swap those colors to match the "retro" logo, and I think it is perfect.

But the nostalgic logo is just better...cleaner, simpler, fewer lines, fewer colors. I wouldn't say that logos are "downgraded" so much as they are simplified because logos in the 90s got OUT OF HAND in terms of garishness, busyness, and muddled with two many elements. The classic teams have timeless logos that are simple and work well, and newer teams are probably moving towards developing that simplicity in their logos.

Is it any wonder why the logos that stand the test of time are usually just lettermarks? Look at NY Yankees, Green Bay Packers, Chicago Bears, Boston Red Sox, Chicago Cubs, etc.

Exactly the way I see it. The nostalgic logo is aesthetically pleasing, less busy, and less 90s (I hate most 90s logos).

My main problem with the new "retro" logo is the completely uninspiring box around it. This is what I feel they should have done. A bit slap-dash on my part, but a simplified look to the 90s logo, with updated colors.

That is seriously one of the best logo's i've ever seen. Jesus Christ why didn't they do that!?!

[IceCap]

to

This is the biggest downgrade in my opinion.

I wouldn't call that a downgrade....it's a flat out tragedy.

Agreed

I call it a tremendous upgrade

You have got to be kidding me.

A different opinion? *gasp*

The wordmark is simply not primary logo material.

The Capitals and Stars seem to manage just fine. And yes, as long as the primary design element of the Stars' logo is the top of the star forming the A in a "STARS" script it counts as a wordmark.

Next to any other NHL logo currently worn it comes off as amateur, bland,

Bland? That's a matter of opinion, so I'll grant you that. Amateur? Like "classic" that's a term that gets thrown around here way to often. Don't like a logo? It's amateur.

Sorry, I don't see it as amateur. You're free not to like it, but it seems well designed from a technical standpoint.

and vaguely proprietary as if the Ducks have zero interest in forging a memorable identity instead being content to brand the team as a business. Further more, the jerseys accompanying this change looked dated the second they hit the ice with their swooping hem stripes and inexplicable fondness of black.

I'll say this once, and then I'll drop the subject for the majority of the thread (truth be told I wasn't going to go into my reasoning for preferring the new Ducks look to the old until you chimed in). I do not like the Disney-era look at all. The name and the logo set were both unbecoming of a team playing at the highest level of professional hockey. Naming a team after a Disney movie, with uniforms to match? It came off like a bad joke, to me anyway. The Ducks only winning the Stanley Cup after they dropped the Disney name and logo is perhaps one of the best cases of hockey dodging a bullet. The words "Mighty Ducks" engraved on the Stanley Cup for all time? That would have been a disgrace. Is the current identity perfect? No, it's not. At least they look like a NHL team though.

Now I know you and others disagree with this reasoning, and that's all well and good. You're entitled to your opinions, just as I am to mine. You asked though, so I answered. And that's all I'm going to say on the subject at hand, as I've gone into this discussion in detail way to many times to count.

[nuordr]

to this

This is the actual before logo, recolored one was introduced at the same time as the note logo. Still a downgrade though.

Yeah, I like that logo more than the one I posted.

[Coast2CoastAM2006]

This:

to this:

to this:

[nuordr]

to this:

I always like this logo and especially the uniforms associated with it.

[knnhrvy16]

Oh, don't get me started on the Ducks' disney mask. I'd go off and post an essay on why the 2006 rebrand was the worst branding mistake in sports history...but I'll save you all the time

Anywho, I'm not sure if this would count seeing as it is a wordmark rather than a primary, but I'll go for it anyways:

From this -

To this -

I get the whole streamlining deal of matching scripts, but Florida sacrificed one of the best scripts in history to do it.

[fl00dsm0k3]

when the sabres got rid of the slug and the new lightning logo flat out sucks

[Sport]

How can anyone think the Lightning logo is an upgrade?

The logo looks like a clip art piece of . There is no depth, and it's a failed attempt and making the team be classic all of the sudden.

While I agree that the new Lightning uniforms are an attempt to glom onto a classic look that they don't really have the credentials to use, I disagree with the bolded part. With the angled circle surrounding the bolt giving it the effect that we're looking at a three dimensional graphic, it actually has more depth than either of their first two logos, which were both flat.