Thursday, December 10, 2009

The 30 Worst Sports Logos of All Time: #7

As my boy 'Moo and I were sitting through our training class, he turned me on to a website called LogoShak that has a remarkably extensive collection of logos from sports teams and events. Since I needed something new for the blog (and because November has 30 days), I decided to list the 30 worst sports logos of all time. I designated 'Moo as creative director of the project since he a.) found the site before I did, b.) has a good eye for a bad logo, and c.) agreed to go through half of the logos on the site so that I didn't have to spend even more time than I already do with unproductive exercises. I will be listing one per day for the next 30 days. There was no strict criteria; it just had to look ugly. Sometimes the logos were too busy, some of them had terrible color schemes, and some were just way too plain. Regardless, we tried to put together list of the all-time worst for your enjoyment (or displeasure, whichever). Let's keep this train rolling...

#7 - Sacramento Wildfire


This is one of those logos that you either love or you hate. Personally, I hate it. It looks like something that would be the title frame of a Nickelodeon cartoon. Can't you imagine a show called "Wildfire" about some mischievous boy scouts that features this exact logo (minus the 'Sacramento' of course...unless the show was set in Sacramento, then all bets are off)? The font in the logo is supposed to represent a burning wildfire; I get it. Unfortunately, it looks more like a crumbling statue than a wildfire. There are bits and pieces showing at the top, but nothing that makes me feel like the word is on fire. If you want to see how setting a word on fire, visually, is done, give the Calgary Flames logo a look. See how they have, you know, fire attached to the word? I know that's what you were going for, Sacramento people, but you came up waaaaaaaaay short. I think Chester Cheeto would be attracted to this logo, but I'm about 73% sure that's not what the designers were going for. Regardless, I know that I'm not.

~~ Lank

No comments: