Which of these team logos is worse?

[Bacon King]

It's your chose

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Option 2 easily

[DemPGH]

Option 2 easily

Agreed, easy choice. It's an effort to be cartoony, but it doesn't work now. And the Indians have gone to an alternate red "C" logo that I suspect we'll be seeing a lot more of in the future.

I see nothing wrong with the logo of the first one.

[Paul Kemp]

The Cleveland Indians aren't an NFL team

[Bacon King]

The Cleveland Indians aren't an NFL team

This is what I get for making the poll five minutes after waking up

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

The Cleveland Indians aren't an NFL team

This is what I get for making the poll five minutes after waking up

Actually, start trolling on Torie's board 5 minutes after you wake up......he loves it when we troll here. 

[King]

The Indians logo is doodle quality and looks more like a chollo than a Native American.

The Redskin logo is higher art.

[TDAS04]

Option 2 easily

[angus]

I voted for the top one.

I think the better question is which one is better, because neither is bad, as logos go.  I think that one stands for pride and dignity while the other looks more like a cartoon, but you have to remember that the artist who was originally commissioned to create the Indians logo was tasked with creating a mascot that would convey a spirit of "pure joy and unbridled enthusiasm."  I think he achieved that objective.  Redskin looks like a nickel, or a late 19th-century brand of chewing tobacco.  Chief Wahoo is original and is likely to be confused with nothing else.  Besides, I like baseball better.  
 
Of course, the pre-1951 Cleveland logo had a little more character:

[Modernity has failed us]

The Indians logo, of course.

[Dr. Cynic]

Cleveland.... Because it's Cleveland.

[Joe Biden 2020]

I'll be honest and neither logo is that bad.  I suppose option 2 by a hair, but people who get worked up over a team's logo need to have their heads examined.  First off, in the grand scheme of things, sports are meaningless.  If sports are meaningless, then so are sports teams, then so are sports teams' logos.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Wrong thread, Bushie

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I never got why the Cleveland Indians logo is so terribly offensive.  Everyone always said it was because of the smile.  Was he supposed to be frowning? 

[anvi]

Option 2 is much worse.  The top one at least makes the subject look strong, proud and dignified.  The Cleveland logo really sucks.

[Joe Biden 2020]

Wrong thread, Bushie

That's where my post went.   I meant to post that in the Update thread, but it disappeared.  Correcting now.

Sorry, everyone.

[Joe Republic]

It would help just a little if his skin wasn't bright frickin' red.

[angus]

It would help just a little if his skin wasn't bright frickin' red.

That's exactly what I would've told Goldstein, or Goldblum, or Goldberg, or whatever the hell his name was, back in 1947.  Actually, he painted him sort of khaki, originally (vide supra).  Red Chief Wahoo came along four years later, because they thought it made him look more joyous.  Well, that, and the fact that the Cleveland colors are, technically, Navy Blue, White, and Red. 

[politicallefty]

Other. I don't find either offensive or particularly bad.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Option 2.  Just look at that fire-engine red skin and evil smile!

[Sopranos Republican]

It would help just a little if his skin wasn't bright frickin' red.

Agreed. Option 2 is far worse. Actually the name might be slightly better than Redskins, but that is horrible looking. Washington's logo is far more respectful and realistic.

[Hatman 🍁]

Cleveland has the worse logo, but the Redskins the worse name.

Cleveland could totally keep their name and just change their logo to something entirely different. Red is just a colour, so it would just mean re-branding. I suppose the same could be said for the Redskins. Maybe change the logo to some sun burned hillbilly.