The AFC South

NBA G League Changes 2018-19

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, tigers said:

Bighorns logo was unique, sad seeing it go.

 

Every year more and more unique teams are turning into the Lakeland Magic and Stockton Kings. 

 

Now 11 teams use the same nickname as their NBA team.

 

It's boring, and basically the complete opposite of what makes minor league baseball fun. Even if Brandiose makes all the branding look the same, the names are unique and fit with the regions.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For completeness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ugh, what a cop-out.  At least call them the "Princes" or "Dukes" or something that has fun with growing into being Kings. I'm sure the logo will be the Sacramento Kings logo with "Stockton" replacing Sacramento.  *yawn*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Don't forget about the Capital City Go-Go.

gogo-top-story-preview.jpeg

Edited by panthers_2012
Stupid autocorrect...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent!  I applaud the trend of calling most G-League teams by the same nickname as the parent club.  This shows an understanding of the fact that the value of the Kings' farm club is that it is the Kings' farm club.  It does not merit its own identity.  

 

There are a few exceptions in the league, such as the Capital City Go-Go and the Delaware Blue Coats (formerly 87ers).  But the trend of sensible branding in minor league basketball is most welcome, especially in comparison to minor league baseball. where the names can get downright embarassing (e.g., "Baby Cakes").

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Excellent!  I applaud the trend of calling most G-League teams by the same nickname as the parent club.  This shows an understanding of the fact that the value of the Kings' farm club is that it is the Kings' farm club.  It does not merit its own identity.  

 

There are a few exceptions in the league, such as the Capital City Go-Go and the Delaware Blue Coats (formerly 87ers).  But the trend of sensible branding in minor league basketball is most welcome, especially in comparison to minor league baseball. where the names can get downright embarassing (e.g., "Baby Cakes").

 

Plus G-Leaguers can brag about it.

 

"I play for the Knicks."

 

"You play for the New York Knicks? I've never seen you in a game."

 

"I play for the Knicks, all right."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Excellent!  I applaud the trend of calling most G-League teams by the same nickname as the parent club.  This shows an understanding of the fact that the value of the Kings' farm club is that it is the Kings' farm club.  It does not merit its own identity.  

 

There are a few exceptions in the league, such as the Capital City Go-Go and the Delaware Blue Coats (formerly 87ers).  But the trend of sensible branding in minor league basketball is most welcome, especially in comparison to minor league baseball. where the names can get downright embarassing (e.g., "Baby Cakes").

I disagree. While it is a farm club, it 100% deserves its own name, at the very least. While I'd like it if every team got its own unique identity, I think that teams should be something that ties into the parent club while not being the name of said club. Prime examples of this are the Greensboro Swarm and the Wisconsin Herd. They're not the parent club, and it negates and possible confusion if both clubs share a name. (Special mention goes to the Skyforce, Hustle, and Blue for using team-related imagery without being named the Heat, Grizzlies, and Thunder, respectively.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, QueenCitySwarm said:

I disagree. While it is a farm club, it 100% deserves its own name, at the very least. While I'd like it if every team got its own unique identity, I think that teams should be something that ties into the parent club while not being the name of said club. Prime examples of this are the Greensboro Swarm and the Wisconsin Herd. They're not the parent club, and it negates and possible confusion if both clubs share a name. (Special mention goes to the Skyforce, Hustle, and Blue for using team-related imagery without being named the Heat, Grizzlies, and Thunder, respectively.)

 

It also creates it's own aura, fans would rather follow a team that has it's own identity rather than a seconds team with the same identity as it's parent club.

Merchandise sales, would you rather wear your Sac Kings stuff or would you buy Reno Bighorns gear?

 

I understand why clubs would rather have their name and identity everywhere but does having Raptors 905 or Winchester Knicks actually give you more or less? Would it not be better just to have a different entity with your logo on their kits somewhere?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Santa Cruz Warriors with the trident W as their logo to reflect the seaside community. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, panthers_2012 said:

Don't forget about the Capital City Go-Gos.

gogo-top-story-preview.jpeg

It's just "Go-Go" now S at the end :P 

I actually bought one of their t-shirts online recently. Cost over $50 and took over 2 weeks to deliver, but I am the proud owner of a minor league basketball t-shirt :D

 

Anyways. Will all the G League teams continue to wear the same uniform design? I'm not saying the G League should give it's teams unique, original uniforms. At the very least those teams should get access to the designs in Nike's catalog like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too prefer a link between the minor league team and it's owner or at least a unique identity.  Looking at the current teams:

11 teams have the same name as their owner (Nets, Bulls, Warriors, Clippers, Lakers, Knicks, Magic, Suns, Kings, Spurs, Raptors)

7/8 have some sort of derivative name or common theme (BayHawks, Swarm, Charge, Legends, Drive, Herd, Wolves, [Blue Coats*])

5/6 have a local name with no direct ties to their parent club (Red Claws, Vipers, Mad Ants, Hustle, GoGo, [Blue Coats*])

3 are just whatever (Skyforce, Blue, Stars)

*(Blue Coats can be seen as both related to the 76ers and as its own piece of Delaware imagery.  Haven't heard word from the team yet)

 

I don't like that it's become the norm to just reuse the same name.  I commend the Iowa Wolves for just being the nickname for the Timberwolves.  Similar but still different.  South Bay Lakers is miles ahead of the old Los Angeles D-Fenders but they couldn't make it a bit more local flavored with the area? (The old "LA Doesn't Have Lakes" argument).  Even the old name of the Blue Coats was similar to, but different from the 76ers.  87ers was a jumble of a name but it worked because it had meaning. 

 

I get there's "brand recognition" and uniformity among all aspects of the developmental program which creates a cohesive and direct line, moving from just being a Westchester Knick and coming into your own and being a New York Knick, but it lacks the overall growth that can be seen as well.  Going from being an Iowa Wolf and growing to become a Minnesota Timberwolf shows that development needed and earned from the system. There are ways to be minor league without becoming minor league-ish, if that makes sense.  I personally feel names like Mad Ants, Red Claws, and Hustle are still insanely better than the forced nicknames that make people scratch their heads at like Baby Cakes or Rumble Ponies, but yet Biscuits is seen as wacky fun rather than tacky dumb.  I'm ranting now...

 

Boo Stockton Kings

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now