Which team has the worst identity?

[BrandMooreArt]

1 hour ago, Chawls said:

 

But um…

 

LMAO! i was talking about the logos of course but the actual Mascot just shows how meaningless the identity is - they didnt have much of a choice but to make it a bison

[StaatsBrett]

6 minutes ago, BrandMooreArt said:

LMAO! i was talking about the logos of course but the actual Mascot just shows how meaningless the identity is - they didnt have much of a choice but to make it a bison

I'm afraid of that  mascot 

[Uglybus]

4 minutes ago, StaatsBrett said:

I'm afraid of that  mascot 

Still not as bad as the King Cake Baby... *shudders*

[StaatsBrett]

Just now, Uglybus said:

Still not as bad as the King Cake Baby... *shudders*

The what? 

[Uglybus]

3 minutes ago, StaatsBrett said:

The what? 

You've been warned. 

[StaatsBrett]

He's  cute 

[Lights Out]

The Padres may very well take the crown for the worst identity in sports. They created an identity crisis for no reason by ditching brown in favor of bland navy. To make matters worse, they have spent the last 25 years actively avoiding the obvious solution (returning to brown and gold) - instead trotting out a series of progressively bland uniforms and going through color schemes like toilet paper. Aside from the sand road uniforms of the mid-2000s, not a single one of these looks have been memorable, aesthetically pleasing, or comparable to anything they wore in the brown era. All that's left for them to do is give up and unveil yet another navy-and-red uniform set in a league that already has too many of them.

[BrandMooreArt]

25 minutes ago, Lights Out said:

The Padres may very well take the crown for the worst identity in sports. They created an identity crisis for no reason by ditching brown in favor of bland navy. To make matters worse, they have spent the last 25 years actively avoiding the obvious solution (returning to brown and gold) - instead trotting out a series of progressively bland uniforms and going through color schemes like toilet paper. Aside from the sand road uniforms of the mid-2000s, not a single one of these looks have been memorable, aesthetically pleasing, or comparable to anything they wore in the brown era. All that's left for them to do is give up and unveil yet another navy-and-red uniform set in a league that already has too many of them.

i say this without knowing much about why the Padres change to blue/white, but i would guess it was intentionally done to make them fit into the crowd; not wanting to stand out. brown is generally one of the least likable colors and blue a safe and sellable color – especially in baseball. im not saying i wouldnt prefer brown/yellow myself, but i have to wonder if you polled the fanbase how would they feel? or more importantly, how has the switch done with apparel sales?

 

and IF the answer is the identity has increased team revenue then the identity accomplished what it was surely designed to do. 

[Lights Out]

Brown and gold All-Star merch flew off the shelves at a record pace in San Diego:

 

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/jul/15/padres-brown-gold-fanfest-record-sales/

 

The Padres even unveiled a brown and gold alternate this year in an attempt to appease the fans, who have been screaming for it for years. According to their online store, 7 of their top 11 jerseys in sales are brown and gold:

 

http://m.mlbshop.com/San_Diego_Padres_Jerseys/so/top_sellers

 

Seems to me that the fans have voted with their wallets. They want brown, not boring navy.

[BeerGuyJordan]

4 hours ago, Uglybus said:

You've been warned. 

Well, that's unsettling.

[OnWis97]

16 hours ago, Lights Out said:

The Padres may very well take the crown for the worst identity in sports. They created an identity crisis for no reason by ditching brown in favor of bland navy. To make matters worse, they have spent the last 25 years actively avoiding the obvious solution (returning to brown and gold) - instead trotting out a series of progressively bland uniforms and going through color schemes like toilet paper. Aside from the sand road uniforms of the mid-2000s, not a single one of these looks have been memorable, aesthetically pleasing, or comparable to anything they wore in the brown era. All that's left for them to do is give up and unveil yet another navy-and-red uniform set in a league that already has too many of them.

Didn't that come up as a possibility...an homage to the old minor league team that Ted Williams played for?  I don't recall whether it was mere speculation here or if there was something more to it.  And a lot of people here liked it (maybe based on "whatever is not brown is good").  As a Twins fan I am not of they opinion that they (or Cleveland, or Atlanta, or Boston, etc.) need to change their color scheme, but for an established team to throw one more on the pile would be awful.  That said, I feel like I've heard that it's not off the table.

 

The Padres should look to the Astros.  We did not know what the Astros were either until they went back to blue and orange.  Now we do.  The Padres can do that by going to brown.  Brown/yellow, brown/orange, brown/orange/yellow.  Hell even brown/tan, brown/light blue, or just brown.  I like brown and orange, but I know that is not happening.  Brown and yellow gets it done.  They can be recognizable, we can all know who they are, and they can be removed as a discussion in this thread.  But until they either go to brown or go like 15 years with some lame "blend in" scheme without tweaking it, they'll be confusing mess and key part of this thread.  The blue and yellow looks nice, but I don't think anyone will trust it until 1) it is on all uniforms (minus camo) and 2) it's around for at least a decade.  Go brown and establish yourselves, Padres.

[Lights Out]

Seriously, though, just look at some of the crap the Padres have worn since ditching brown.

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's like they're TRYING to be boring.

[MCM0313]

21 hours ago, Lights Out said:

The Padres may very well take the crown for the worst identity in sports. They created an identity crisis for no reason by ditching brown in favor of bland navy. To make matters worse, they have spent the last 25 years actively avoiding the obvious solution (returning to brown and gold) - instead trotting out a series of progressively bland uniforms and going through color schemes like toilet paper. Aside from the sand road uniforms of the mid-2000s, not a single one of these looks have been memorable, aesthetically pleasing, or comparable to anything they wore in the brown era. All that's left for them to do is give up and unveil yet another navy-and-red uniform set in a league that already has too many of them.

I would agree except for the navy-and-orange set that they wore in the 1998 World Series - that set was pretty good.

[Morgan33]

2 hours ago, Lights Out said:

It's like they're TRYING to be boring.

 

I'm sold.  Forget the 20,000 red, navy, and white teams, this is by far the most boring identity in baseball, and maybe all of sports.  At least they had the sense to ditch the abomination below...  Looks like something for a retirement home.

 

[OnWis97]

2 hours ago, Lights Out said:

 

It's like they're TRYING to be boring.

Granted, the below is speculation, but maybe so.  That seems counter-intuitive for the 5th most well-known MLB team in its own state.  But sometimes I get the idea that it's true.  The blue/orange look was not terrible in a vacuum (but, you Astros and Mets were in the NL and I think the Astros still wore blue/orange at the time) and made some sense (I hate to admit) given how polarizing brown is.   But going straight blue almost seems like it had to be a conscious decision to blend in.  But it just seems so strange to intentionally make yourself the most inconspicuous team in MLB.

 

 

21 hours ago, BrandMooreArt said:

i say this without knowing much about why the Padres change to blue/white, but i would guess it was intentionally done to make them fit into the crowd; not wanting to stand out.

 

 

 

[ScubaSteve]

1 hour ago, Morgo said:

 

I'm sold.  Forget the 20,000 red, navy, and white teams, this is by far the most boring identity in baseball, and maybe all of sports.  At least they had the sense to ditch the abomination below...  Looks like something for a retirement home.

 

Oh it's not THAT bad

[VancouverFan69]

Being a big Vancouver Whitecaps fan, I always liked their old "Arbutus" brown alternate kit with the sky blue trimming....a very unique colour scheme.

 

I think those colours would make a great identity for the Padres. The club would get its popular brown look back and light blue represents San Diego perfectly. It's a look the Padres can own and look respectable with.  

[TheGrimReaper]

On July 18, 2016 at 4:24 AM, worcat said:

NHL

 

Anaheim Ducks: Mighty Ducks logo, webbed D logo, Anaheim Script logo etc. Pick one and go with it.

 

The Ducks don't use the script anymore, outside of maybe on some publications. It's entirely gone from the uniforms. Anyways...

 

NFL: Browns, Titans, Chargers (CLE and SD could be salvaged if they went back to classic uniforms)

 

NBA: Thunder, Clippers, Pacers

 

MLB: Dbacks, Padres, Indians, Rockies

 

NHL: Jackets, Canes, Ducks (good logo and colors tho (excluding beige)), Canucks (an orca?), Wild, Sens (although original look was good)

 

MLS: Real Salt Lake, New England, LA Galaxy, NYCFC, NYRB

[BroncoBuff]

Please ... the Lakers and Jazz of course.   Both have nicknames that are specifically and uniquely linked to the cities they were in BEFORE Los Angeles and Salt Lake City.  That's just lazy. At least there are dolphins and marlins in Miami, diamondbacks in Arizona, wolves in Minnesota and Texans in Houston. 

 

Tied for the top spot: Ravens.  Because Poe wrote a poem by that name, and lived there on and off? Please.... By that logic, the Babes would make more sense ... baseball's not football, but it's closer than poetry.

 

My Top 3 all wear purple, hmmmm  ........  And don't say "No BroncoBuff! It's Forum Blue!!" because it's not. It's purple.  

Runners-up: White Sox and Red Sox.  Seriously?

_______________

 

Marlins changed from 'Florida' to 'Miami' ... I'm guessing for alliterative-ity .....

 

Which brings me to Cam Newton's Carolina (shouldda been) Cougars.  Not just for alliterative-ity, but also because it makes sense. 'Panthers' doesn't make sense, because there is no specific panther animal. Panterus is an animal family that includes most large cats, including jaguars, leopards, and Cougars. 

 

I was gonna defend the Clippers ('there's harbors all around LA!'), but then I Googled Clipper Ship. Not a single image less than 100 years old. And only drawings and paintings, because apparently the Clipper design was abandoned before the invention of photography .........

 

What, Ballmer?  2 Billion and you can't rebrand them something that makes sense????

 

 

[StaatsBrett]

How about the  la

 Destroyers