RailHawks rebrand -- North Carolina FC

[gosioux76]

19 hours ago, hawk36 said:

I would liken it to an American football team in London switching from "London Football Club" to "London Kings" or whatever because they'd want an American Football sounding name.  I don't have a problem with it.

 

I think this is an important point. I often see this argument framed in the context of "North America vs. Europe," when, really, it's about one sport's culture vs. another.

 

That's an important distinction, and particularly appropriate in the context of soccer, the only major professional sport in North America that has developed faster in other parts of the globe. It makes perfect sense to me that soccer owners in North America would prefer a more European-style brand. That's the norm in soccer. 

[hawk36]

1 hour ago, Digby said:

And I like the Sounders' look! ... the logo shape has always been refreshing in a sea of shields and roundels. Just needs a better typeface.

I have two issues with the Sounders' look:

 

1. Double shield doesn't enhance, clutters (one is just fine)

2. Typeface if way too NFL

 

[Gothamite]

I have never understood that jagged blue shield. Just goofy. 

[omnivore]

7 hours ago, hawk36 said:

I agree that the Revolution desperately need a new badge. Name is fine to me. And as a day 1 Sounders supporter I'd also like to see them look at refining their look. The current is already looking dated.

 

Interesting how Minnesota is doing it. Minnesota United but I keep seeing them referred to as the Loons which is on their crest. I like that. Like Tottenham being referred to as Spurs.

Minnesota United actually had two different names before they rebranded to get to United. It's one instance where rebranding to the more generic name (away from NSC to then Stars) was actually a good thing, but largely because they nailed the branding so well. 

[Nyk33]

4 hours ago, gosioux76 said:

 

I think this is an important point. I often see this argument framed in the context of "North America vs. Europe," when, really, it's about one sport's culture vs. another.

 

That's an important distinction, and particularly appropriate in the context of soccer, the only major professional sport in North America that has developed faster in other parts of the globe. It makes perfect sense to me that soccer owners in North America would prefer a more European-style brand. That's the norm in soccer. 

 

Whenever I see this discussion about European vs. North American naming conventions in MLS it just makes me more surprised that no one has thought of using Wanderers or Rangers* yet. 

 

It would satisfy people that like Euro names and people that like North American names.

 

*Before you bring up concerns about having the same as the NY Rangers I just want to remind you that there are multiple instances of teams in different sports having the same name (Giants, Jets, Cardinals, & Kings). 

[Brian in Boston]

When it comes to the naming of pro soccer teams worldwide, said undertaking embraces a variety of traditions.

Soccer... football... futbol... calcio... is a GLOBAL sports phenomenon. Said globe includes the United States of America and Canada. As such, the "American" franchise naming convention is as legitimate a part of soccer's branding traditions as any other. Therefore, I see no reason to believe that pro soccer in this country is suddenly going to abandon place-name/nickname combos completely. Nor should it. Similarly, there's obviously an even longer global tradition of branding soccer teams in the "International/Euro" vein, so it stands to reason that some pro soccer teams in this country will choose to adopt said style 

Bottom line? Major League Soccer is likely to remain a league marked by multiple franchise branding traditions for the forseeable future: "American" (Chicago Fire, New England Revolution, Columbus Crew, etc.),.. "International/Euro" (DC United... FC Dallas... New York City FC, etc.)... even corporate (New York Red Bulls). I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. If anything, the variety makes for a less staid, more colorful and creative landscape. 

My only concern would be if long-time MLS franchises jettisoned existing identities solely to ape whatever branding style happened to be trending at a given time. Similarly, as new teams enter MLS representing cities that had longstanding traditions in previous American and Canadian soccer leagues, I would hope they'd give consideration to reviving/maintaining identities from said leagues (as the Seattle Sounders, Portland Timbers, and Vancouver Whitecaps recently have).

[Brian in Boston]

10 hours ago, Digby said:

Speaking as a Revolution fan, I'd like our logo to change but our colors to stay the same, and I'm ambivalent about a name change but I want the word Revolution to stay in some way, even if it's a dorky 90s singular-name thing -- my club has history (MLS originals! Five Cup appearances but we lost all of them!) but is also quite obviously dated in some ways. But far more than any of that, I want a stadium in Boston and a signal that ownership is doing what it takes to compete for a title.

 

For what it's worth, I've loved this New England Revolution logo concept ever since the first time I saw it. 

Clean. Traditional with a modern flair. I like the way that the six star-shaped panels on the ball pay homage to the six New England states. The wordmark font speaks to the Revolutionary War era without being as cloying as the Revolution's current wordmark.

Maybe - maybe - you could have the banner/ribbon element on which "New England Revolution" is written wrap back around from left to right over the bottom of the shield (though, thinner) and contain "est. 1996". Still, that could be overkill. The badge is damned beautiful as is.

This is all that the New England Revolution identity needs in my estimation. Nothing more. No dropping of the New England place-name. No swapping-out New England for Boston, even if the franchise someday relocates to a soccer-specific stadium closer to the city. No poseur's solution such as switching to Revolution 1776 or Revolution FC. No wholesale changing of the team's identity. Simply wed the New England Revolution name and the current color scheme to a well-designed badge and be done with it.

[hawk36]

14 hours ago, Brian in Boston said:

 

For what it's worth, I've loved this New England Revolution logo concept ever since the first time I saw it. 

Clean. Traditional with a modern flair. I like the way that the six star-shaped panels on the ball pay homage to the six New England states. The wordmark font speaks to the Revolutionary War era without being as cloying as the Revolution's current wordmark.

Maybe - maybe - you could have the banner/ribbon element on which "New England Revolution" is written wrap back around from left to right over the bottom of the shield (though, thinner) and contain "est. 1996". Still, that could be overkill. The badge is damned beautiful as is.

This is all that the New England Revolution identity needs in my estimation. Nothing more. No dropping of the New England place-name. No swapping-out New England for Boston, even if the franchise someday relocates to a soccer-specific stadium closer to the city. No poseur's solution such as switching to Revolution 1776 or Revolution FC. No wholesale changing of the team's identity. Simply wed the New England Revolution name and the current color scheme to a well-designed badge and be done with it.

Love everything except for the ball. Replace with a star, or musket, or era appropriate hat to emphasize the name and it would be great.

[Digby]

Hmm, the general shape and diagonal flow of the whole thing is too close to Montreal or SKC for my liking. And this could just be a symptom of my growing up in very-old New England but I'm tired of distressed serif fonts as easy evocation of revolutionary times. I don't have many strong ideas for a Revs rebrand, but I will say my favorite local tie-in logo on this point was the last Winter Classic logo, riffing on old tavern signs. I thought that was super clever, and aesthetically stood out. Certainly would fit the Revolution (could even keep the Gillette Stadium bridge, at least until the Revs move to Boston in 2046)

 

[-kj]

19 hours ago, omnivore said:

Minnesota United actually had two different names before they rebranded to get to United. It's one instance where rebranding to the more generic name (away from NSC to then Stars) was actually a good thing, but largely because they nailed the branding so well. 

 

(obligatory sigh)

[pagan696]

looks like Charlotte is interested in MLS expansion too...

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/business/article121184193.html

 

 

[logoman]

On 12/8/2016 at 8:53 PM, Brian in Boston said:

 

For what it's worth, I've loved this New England Revolution logo concept ever since the first time I saw it. 

Clean. Traditional with a modern flair. I like the way that the six star-shaped panels on the ball pay homage to the six New England states. The wordmark font speaks to the Revolutionary War era without being as cloying as the Revolution's current wordmark.

Maybe - maybe - you could have the banner/ribbon element on which "New England Revolution" is written wrap back around from left to right over the bottom of the shield (though, thinner) and contain "est. 1996". Still, that could be overkill. The badge is damned beautiful as is.

This is all that the New England Revolution identity needs in my estimation. Nothing more. No dropping of the New England place-name. No swapping-out New England for Boston, even if the franchise someday relocates to a soccer-specific stadium closer to the city. No poseur's solution such as switching to Revolution 1776 or Revolution FC. No wholesale changing of the team's identity. Simply wed the New England Revolution name and the current color scheme to a well-designed badge and be done with it.

Wow! I haven't seen that in a long time. I posted that in 2008. Seems like a lifetime ago. Still looks pretty good - even if I do say so myself.

 

[Gothamite]

Indeed.  It's aged very well, unlike the Revs' actual logo. 

[andrewharrington]

On 12/6/2016 at 5:06 PM, hawk36 said:

It's tough since it is the NC flag but when another, similar one is so much more recognizable, it's a tough sell. Reminds me of when Inter did their red cross uniforms. Many wondered why they were wearing England uniforms. But the England and Milan flags are the same.

 

 

Yeah, didn’t AC have an old crest like that?

[hawk36]

6 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

 

Yeah, didn’t AC have an old crest like that?

Yes, still do I think. Guess it all goes to where you are at/from etc. Having lived there for a few years I got very used to seeing the red cross flag around town, on the Metro or trollies, etc. So it made sense to me until an English friend of mine asked why Milan was using the English flag. 

 

[Gothamite]

True, although it's a hell of a coincidence.  Considering that AC Milan was founded by a couple Englishmen and still use the English name for the city, not the Italian as would be expected. 

[andrewharrington]

Back to NCFC, can anyone figure out why the star is not the proper proportion/shape, or why the outlines at the top are irregular? I’ve gone through all the design-related theoreticals in my head and come up with nothing.

[hawk36]

On 12/17/2016 at 0:26 PM, Gothamite said:

True, although it's a hell of a coincidence.  Considering that AC Milan was founded by a couple Englishmen and still use the English name for the city, not the Italian as would be expected. 

Right, but the red cross flag has been the symbol of the city since the 10th century. Tough to tell but it could actually be older than the English flag. Crazy.

[UnclearInitial]

Reportedly, the first state to use  the St. George cross was Genoa, and the English were allowed to use it to ensure safe passage in the Mediterranean. Sampdoria and Genoa use it too (Samp on their shirts, Genoa on their crest)

[Nyk33]