Jump to content

Should a team's identity be "intimidating"?


Sanic

Recommended Posts

The case is a basic one, should an identity of a team be based on "intimidating" the opponent? Probably not.

My explanation is that if a team's identity were mostly based on the intimidation factor, it doesn't make a difference. Even as a jump-scare, a team logo, let's say the Sharks' logo, it would most likely do jack :censored: . Things like this are usually ridiculed without any history behind it.

The only factor that would intimidate a person would be the reputation of the team. Those teams with players that really pack a punch, yet their branding is probably the weakest thing imaginable (a red sock) are more likely to intimidate the opponent.

Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I honestly think it doesn't matter. Teams like the Packers, Redwings, Yankees, and Lakers have scared opponents for decades without sounding like they want to smash the other team's teeth in.

Hey, what about them "professional" logo analysts? They think it friggin matters. Seriously?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that a team's identity has more to do with a team's history. Logos have little do to with it. Like with what Griffinmarlins said, an interlocking NY with pinstripes is much more intimidating than a cartoon Jaguar made in Adobe Illustrator, regardless of how intimating their names are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that a team's identity has more to do with a team's history. Logos have little do to with it. Like with what Griffinmarlins said, an interlocking NY with pinstripes is much more intimidating than a cartoon Jaguar made in Adobe Illustrator, regardless of how intimating their names are.

No. That's not what I meant. None of the aforementioned teams have scary names or logos, but teams have been scared as hell to play them for decades because of how good they were/are.

AM-JKLUm-gD6dFoY5MvQGgjXb2rzP7kMTHmGf8UsR6KOCYQnHU-0HSFi-zjXHepGDckUAHcduu3pVgvwxe06RKDW2y2Z2BmhEOe8OP-WSY1XqLT9KsQ0ZP75J9loQuNrvLW208pEWCg9jq8aNx-zFneH9aPQQA=w800-h112-no?authuser=0

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that a team's identity has more to do with a team's history. Logos have little do to with it. Like with what Griffinmarlins said, an interlocking NY with pinstripes is much more intimidating than a cartoon Jaguar made in Adobe Illustrator, regardless of how intimating their names are.

No. That's not what I meant. None of the aforementioned teams have scary names or logos, but teams have been scared as hell to play them for decades because of how good they were/are.

However, although the Bruins logo isn't necessarily scary, I guess the jerseys on ice make the players look bigger. Plus they have been a really good team for a while now. And Zdeno Chara looks like a monster.

That's what- She

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. In fact thats a major pet peeve of mine. Nobody in their right mind is actually intimidated by a sports team's name/logo/uniforms.

A panther would rip a duck to shreds, but who is going to pick Florida to win against Anaheim.

A big cat would easily kill a lowly miner. But who honestly thinks Jacksonville is going to beat San Francisco.

A team name should have regional significance. And thats it. Steelers, Oilers, Astros, Padres for example are all good names because they have a tie to that region. Not "Lets call ourselves da thundercatz to scare the other team!"

Look at when the Canucks ditched the best colour scheme in the league because it was "too passive" and went to those garish safety vest monstrosities to look more intimidating.

You can make an argument that a team's identity can have an (implausibly small) intimidating effect on the opposition, but a team looking good takes precedence every single time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Play on the field/court/rink/etc will always trump a team's name/logo when it comes to an intimidation factor. However, most sports logos depicting animals and people have an "intimidating" look to them. Think how many teams from years ago were nicknamed the "Fighting ____" simply to come off as more intimidating (a trend that I'm glad has died down). I don't think logos should always have to look mad or pissed off, but it's usually better than a neutral expression or a smile. To answer the topic question, no a team's identity does not have to be intimidating. A team's identity should work as a cohesive unit consisting of similar elements. If one of those logos happens to be an intimidating animal, so be it. That doesn't mean every logo, wordmark, and uniform has to appear intimidating.

It could be argued that the terrible BFBS trend stems from the idea that teams have to look tough and intimidating to succeed. Which, is a pretty stupid mindset to have. I doubt anyone that's played organized sports has ever been intimidated by their opponent's uniforms. You could make an extensive list of very bad teams that have worn all-black.

14622089383_66ed2643e0_o.jpg14415375480_b33010b5ce_o.jpg14602016315_3e9fe74148_o.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there are some teams that benefit from going the intimidating (usually animal) route, while other teams using a more local name. The mixture of the two creates diversity, and I believe the MLB, NBA, NFL, and NHL all have a well-blended set of names.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always figured that having an intimidating logo or uniform element can also invoke a feeling within the team. Like, "if I look like a panther, I'll play with aggression" type deal. While it almost never intimidates, an agressive look and attitude in logos and uniforms could make the team feel like they could perform at a higher level. Whether they do is up to question.

JaiBirdDesignSig.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always figured that having an intimidating logo or uniform element can also invoke a feeling within the team. Like, "if I look like a panther, I'll play with aggression" type deal. While it almost never intimidates, an agressive look and attitude in logos and uniforms could make the team feel like they could perform at a higher level. Whether they do is up to question.

If you have a "scary" name, tbh, it sounds kind of easier during practice instead of:

"If you wanna be a Duck, you gotta play like a duck!"

It sounds dumb, right?

Also, the Panthers moniker is overused. Hockey, football, and probably the most repetitive name in college sports, maybe after _______cats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always figured that having an intimidating logo or uniform element can also invoke a feeling within the team. Like, "if I look like a panther, I'll play with aggression" type deal. While it almost never intimidates, an agressive look and attitude in logos and uniforms could make the team feel like they could perform at a higher level. Whether they do is up to question.

If you have a "scary" name, tbh, it sounds kind of easier during practice instead of:

"If you wanna be a Duck, you gotta play like a duck!"

It sounds dumb, right?

Also, the Panthers moniker is overused. Hockey, football, and probably the most repetitive name in college sports, maybe after _______cats.

I never said anything about team names. I was saying how visuals can contribute to performance. Since you want to pick out Ducks, let's take a look at an example:

Oregon Ducks: Uses uniform elements to display aggression. IE- Steel plate shoulders, sharp numerals and graphics.

And besides, Tigers is the most overused college name. There are three in the SEC alone.

JaiBirdDesignSig.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always figured that having an intimidating logo or uniform element can also invoke a feeling within the team. Like, "if I look like a panther, I'll play with aggression" type deal. While it almost never intimidates, an agressive look and attitude in logos and uniforms could make the team feel like they could perform at a higher level. Whether they do is up to question.

If you have a "scary" name, tbh, it sounds kind of easier during practice instead of:

"If you wanna be a Duck, you gotta play like a duck!"

It sounds dumb, right?

Also, the Panthers moniker is overused. Hockey, football, and probably the most repetitive name in college sports, maybe after _______cats.

I never said anything about team names. I was saying how visuals can contribute to performance. Since you want to pick out Ducks, let's take a look at an example:

Oregon Ducks: Uses uniform elements to display aggression. IE- Steel plate shoulders, sharp numerals and graphics.

And besides, Tigers is the most overused college name. There are three in the SEC alone.

I'm pretty sure I've seen more Panthers than there are of Tigers, maybe I'm not focusing on other names.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A team name should have regional significance.

While I agree that a team name doesn't have to be intimidating I don't think it *has* to have regional significance. There's nothing regional about the names "Chicago Bears" and "Pittsburgh Pirates" but they work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was something that bugged me when the Hornets became the Pelicans. All people seemed to say was how nobody was going to be afraid of a pelican. But it fits so much better with New Orleans. It's a strong local connection. And it's at least somewhat creative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A team's logo doesn't always need to be angry to be intimidating. The Raiders logo is a smiling pirate, but the silver and black jerseys are the most intimidating in the NFL even when the team sucks, like right now they still don't look like guys you wanna mess with.

i have unquantifiable corpses on my conscience 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always figured that having an intimidating logo or uniform element can also invoke a feeling within the team. Like, "if I look like a panther, I'll play with aggression" type deal. While it almost never intimidates, an agressive look and attitude in logos and uniforms could make the team feel like they could perform at a higher level. Whether they do is up to question.

If you have a "scary" name, tbh, it sounds kind of easier during practice instead of:

"If you wanna be a Duck, you gotta play like a duck!"

It sounds dumb, right?

but but but but but but but but but DUCKS FLY TOGETHER!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.