Worst Logos in Sports History

[lazarus]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/542429-new-big-ten-logo-and-the-worst-logos-in-sports-history#page/1

Yes, the new Big Ten is highly (lowly?) ranked.

[rocktivity]

1. This one made me literally scream

x(
rocktivity

[Carnage251]

2. Columbus Crew

[HuckleB]

3. I can't get the thing to work for me...

Some current bad ones include: Houston Rockets, Seattle Sounders, Washington Wizards, Toronto Blue Jays, Anaheim Ducks, Arizona DIamondbacks (though it is improved from the horrific original), San Jose Earthquakes, Dallas Mavericks. I'm sure there's plenty more, but I can't think straight right now.

[KamaAina]

8. To add insult to injury, the Quakes proudly (?) sport the Amway logo on their kit

:puke:

[HuckleB]

10. Ouch. -eom-

[rocktivity]

21. You have to remove the characters after .jpg

:headbang:
rocktivity

[Syrinx]

4. original Tampa Bay Bucs logo

I don't know if its on the list or not, but it should be at the top.

[lazarus]

5. it's in the top ten

:hi:

[Syrinx]

17. hey lazarus!

I'm just glad this thread isn't about the worst college sports mascots. :hide:

:)

[lazarus]

20. Big Al is up there, isn't he?

we may be in Tuscaloosa in a couple of weeks, I'll let you know.

[JonLP24]

7. I like it better than their current logo

I always thought the logo was cool. Just didn't like those jerseys.

[HuckleB]

11. Indeed.

And, yes, the current logo is among the worst.

[Ganja Ninja]

26. Bucco Bruce - the gay pirate.

As he's known in Tampa.

[Auggie]

6. Raiders Logo really bugs me

Living in the past... just like the owner.

[KamaAina]

9. Huh? No Carolina Hurricanes?

Although, in fairness, they didn't have a whole lot of time to come up with a new logo once Karmanos (who still sucks, by the way) whisked the team off to hockey-mad Raleigh, N.C. :sarcasm:

[edhopper]

12. I am glad the writer mentioned the Redskins

how such a bigoted name is kept is beyond me.
What's next?
The New York Kikes
The Los Angelas Wetbacks
The Detroit Ni*#ers

Why not, The Redskins is just as bad.

[HuckleB]

13. The story is actually quite complex.

The Origin of Redskin
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002961.html

Though reading the piece offers much more in terms of context, I'll offer some quotes:

"...

I think that it is well established that redskin is taken by most people today to be disparaging. What is more interesting is whether it has always been so, as Harjo et al., as well as various others, claim. One interesting piece of evidence is the origin of the name Washington Redskins. In 1933, George Preston Marshall, the owner of the team, which was then located in Boston, renamed it the Boston Redskins in honor of the head coach, William "Lone Star" Dietz, an American Indian.³ When the team moved to Washington in 1937 it was renamed the Washington Redskins. George Marshall clearly did not consider the name disparaging.

The term redskin of course goes much farther back than 1933. The details of this history have recently been explored by Ives Goddard of the Smithsonian Institution, in a paper conveniently available on-line. Some of the evidence is available in greater detail on Goddard's web site. You can read speeches by the Meskwaki chief Black Thunder and the Omaha chief Big Elk in which the expression redskin is used, and early nineteenth century examples of the Meskwaki usage of terms meaning redskin and whiteskin.

I won't review the evidence in detail because Goddard's paper is short enough and accessible enough that if you are interested you should read it yourself. I'll just summarize it. Goddard shows that the term redskin is a translation from native American languages of a term used by native Americans for themselves. Harjo's claim that it "had its origins in the practice of presenting bloody red skins and scalps as proof of Indian kill for bounty payments" is unsupported by any evidence.⁴ The term entered popular usage via the novels of James Fenimore Cooper. In the early- to mid-nineteenth century the term was neutral, not pejorative, and indeed was often used in contexts in which whites spoke of Indians in positive terms.

...

The only point here that even resembles an argument is the bald assertion that Europeans never spoke of Indians other than disparagingly. This is not true. Evidence to the contrary is explicitly cited by Goddard. What is more disturbing is that Harjo's primary response to Goddard is ad hominem: that as a white man what he says is not credible. Whether he is white, red, or green is of course utterly irrelevant, as thinking people have known since at least the Middle Ages. Goddard presents his evidence in detail, with citations to the original sources. You can evaluate it yourself, and you need not rely on his statements of fact but can, if you are willing to devote some time and effort, check out the sources yourself. Furthermore, without the slightest evidence Harjo imputes to Goddard not merely bias but racism, a charge which, based, as her own words reveal, entirely on racial stereotyping, merely reflects back on herself.

..."

[edhopper]

18. Except

today the name is very pejorative. No mater how it was taken in 1805. What ever the historical context or intent of the original owner, it is a racist name.
Just because black people use the n word would not make it okay to name a team the Ni&%ers.

[HuckleB]

19. Uh huh.

In other words, context has no place in the world, as long as someone else claims that context doesn't exist. The term is in no way comparable to "the n word," unless one chooses to ignore the actual etymology of the term.

BTW, read the first line in the quotes. Then tell me why you bothered to respond this way.

[edhopper]

22. Do Native Americans find it offensive today?

That to me is the prime question. The historical context is interesting, but I find it a weak argument. Similar to the arguments about the Confederate Flag.

Colored People at one time was the common usage. Today, black people find it offensive. In difference to them, we no longer use the term. (NAACP excluded)

[TZ]

23. Here's the rub..some do some don't

My stepfather is a 1/4 Cherokee (and looks it, IMO) and he's the biggest Skins fan in the world. He's not the only one I've met either who thinks that way..granted that might be a minority opinion but its completely arrogant to assume as a non member of a minority group that you can speak for how any of them think. Even positive stereotypes are wrong IMO. Never assume.

[HuckleB]

25. There is no similarity to the Confederate Flag.

You keep making very off base comparisons, while failing to acknowledge that the reality remains: This one is not so clear cut. I would like to see the team change its name, but I'm not going to go in for dramatic comparisons that ignore history. And it doesn't matter who is ignoring that history.

[madinmaryland]

14. You know, if they put a potato on their helmet, then redskins would be perfectly

fine. They actually make good tater salad!

[DinahMoeHum]

15. Heh heh. . . NY Islanders logo at #4. . .Fish sticks. . .Fish sticks. . .

(sez this NY Rangers blue-seater)

:evilgrin:

[Awsi Dooger]

16. The two teams who played Monday Night

Ravens and Texans have abysmal logos. Wildly overdone, like all the newer ones.

A ideal logo should be easily sketched by a schoolboy in 5 or 10 seconds. That's what makes the great NFL logos stand out, like the Vikings and Bears and Colts.

[Capt. America]

24. Chief Wahoo by two touchdowns. Dumb, ugly and racist. Old TB Bucs #2.