gosioux76

That's a good point. Also, while I love the style, I wonder how easily it could've been adapted for last names of varying lengths. For example, I wonder how they would've handled last names like those of Sixers Timothé Luwawu-Cabarrot and Manute Bol. I guess we'll never know. ADDING TO THIS POST: I just read Lukas' blog on this, and it made me curious. Maybe one of you would know this, but when teams dip their toes in the water (so to speak) on a rebranding process, do they ever just toss it out to multiple creative agencies at once to see what comes back? I'm struck by the experience of this one designer, who appears to have received zero feedback prior to the project being cancelled. I'm left to wonder whether the team just didn't like what it saw from this agency's concepts and decided not to make any changes? Or whether they just kept farming out the work until they got something they liked. Because as we know, the Sixers never made any substantive changes until the gradient disasters of '91, the final Barkley year.

I get that, but I presume the league, when selling itself to network partners, is pitching the size of the total potential audience rather than looking at it on a market by market basis. So the idea of swapping a market of 2 million -plus for one of 800,000 in a different country would make enough of a difference in total market size to shrink the value of any potential deal. At this point, it’s not about actual audience but potential audience.

I agree with this. But at the same time, being the best player in the league while having absolutely no team success to show for it will ultimately tarnish his legacy, and take some of the shine off all that talent. It's not fair, of course. Baseball's a different sport, and it's much harder for one player to carry a team. But it is fair for fans of the sport to look at the Angels' failure to build a winner around Trout, and Trout's subsequent loyalty to the market, and question whether he has that desire to be a winner.

That all-star game uniform is ridiculous. I also don't like all-star game uniforms in general. After rewatching about 15 years worth of old all-star games recently, the ones I found most enjoyable were those in which the players wore their regular team uniforms. In some cases, that was one of the few times a national audience was able to see some of those uniforms.

Not to mention the disrepect paid to his period as an Oklahoma Outlaw.

I agree with almost all of this, save for MLB's culpability in marketing Mike Trout. I think what we've seen of Mike Trout is largely due to MLB's efforts. At some point, the player has to want it.

In a selfish way, I'm disappointed. I don't live in Tampa, nor am I a Rays fan, but as an outsider I'd have been curious to see this play out.

At this point, are there any Super Bowls that haven't been included in this thread?

The Space Cowboys is a little on the nose when it comes to Houston-related branding tropes, no? Considering the parent club's muddled branding history, I can see how they came to this conclusion. The Astros spent years trying to play it both ways: a space-inspired name but cowboy-inspired branding, before finally setting on the current look, which, aside from the star in the logo, doesn't feel reminiscent of either theme.

Speaking of TV contracts, isn't that a big part of this Phoenix v. Quebec City issue? I think the success of Winnipeg has been a fantastic story for the NHL and a model worth replicating. On the whole, you'd think you would be better off being wildly successful in a small market that supports the team rather than struggling in a much larger market that doesn't. And in a gate-driven league, logic would think replicating the success they've had in small-market Winnipeg would be great. But I don't think being a gate-driven league is a label the NHL wants to keep. Swapping Phoenix for Canada's seventh-largest city would seem to immediately devalue the billion-dollar TV deals the league just signed with ESPN and Turner. You're essentially giving up around 2.8 million TV homes, based on Nielsen data, for a market of 800,000 in a country where those networks don't have broadcast rights. That's why, if Phoenix were to move, finding a buyer in a city like Houston would make more economic sense for the league. If anything, it would be an upgrade. I guess it comes down to whether the league can ever embrace its role of being niche.

I don't know, I think it's kind of smart, at least in theory. I'd hope this would incentivize teams to create looks that most consumers actually want to buy rather than chasing novelty trends. But I suppose it would favor newcomers like Austin, whose fan base are buying kits for the first time, rather than veteran clubs, whose fanbase probably already owns several versions from years past. Nevertheless, a rule like this would force them to raise the bar.

I'm a little confused by these jerseys the Twins gave to their new international signings. First, I've never seen the road script used on a red jersey before. Then some of these look like low-grade custom jobs: the Rawlings ones have no piping on the collar, nor numbers on the front. I'm not into reading into anything with these. I just find the choice to be an odd one.

With apologies to Fraser, who really is a remarkable talent, I feel as if the handle of the pickaxe turns the D into a B. It's a bigger issue when presented on a white background than on black. The additional black border around the handle on the white application brings more attention to the handle.

They have announced they'll be one of 21 teams in the new MLS Next Pro league, which begins its season in March.

You have to at least give Rays ownership some points for creativity, no? The whole proposition seems ludicrous, and I don't believe for a second that this is designed as a long-term solution to the situation. But I can see how concept could, in theory, bring some clarity to two unanswered questions that make Tampa and Montreal risky bets on their own. Question 1: Is the main problem with Tampa its stadium and location? Or is it a market that's proven it can't support MLB? This half-season ploy allows them to dip one toe in the water to test out this theory. If they can show, in half-season increments, that Tampa can support the Rays in a more ideal location, maybe that reduces the risk of going all-in on the market. Conversely, if it proves the market won't support MLB at all, then it shows they were right to not invest more fully in Tampa and can explore the possibilities in Montreal. Question 2: Can Montreal support MLB or is nostalgia driving the push to relaunch the Expos? It's the same scenario for Montreal. Having a team there, even for a half season, allows them to exhibit the market's appetite for pro baseball. Even if the Rays decide to go all-in with Tampa eventually, Montreal can apply their experience as part-time hosts as evidence in their arguments for relocation of expansion. It's akin to what Oklahoma City did with the NBA as temporary hosts of the Hornets. In this scenario, the optimal outcome would be Tampa proves it can support the Rays and Montreal showcases its potential for a team of its own. This could all be fantasy, of course.

This is really smart, and will be a really fun exercise. When I think of "renegade" I think of non-conformist, a rulebreaker, someone who flaunts the law. I think it's possible to represent that without bringing in any indigenous, animal or old west iconography. It could be something simple, like an "O" breaking free from chains (and in which chains could become a striping pattern.) Or maybe you can build something off the universal symbol of "no" — — since it already has an "O" in it. Maybe the idea of nonconformity becomes part of the brand, making them the Raiders of this league. Could be an opportunity, too, to revisit the Birmingham Bolts/XFL-style helmet. Stick the O in the front of the helmet, with broken chain links trailing off. I supposed that could make it a bit too XFLish, but it's an idea.

I agree with this. I'm also not feeling the O in the helmet logo. I'd drop it and just lean heavily into the tomahawk as the helmet logo. Also, I feel like by emphasizing the O you end up with a mishmash of competing fonts: one for the O and "Orlando" in the wordmark, another for Renegades, and another for uniform numbers. Personally, I'd drop the script. I know it harkens back to the team's founding, but I never saw it as a defining element of the brand. If anything, the script holds back the potential of the brand.

Their mascot will be Rocky Balboa.

Commanders checks a lot of boxes. It's unique to pro sports. It lends itself to a certain seriousness and sophistication without resorting to stereotypical DC tropes. It's also a military-inspired name that doesn't necessarily need to play off military visual themes, so we can avoid any sort of GI Joe cosplay. Of the choices left, this one, to me, feels right for the NFL.

Unrelated, but I'm suddenly disappointed that "Washington Maroons" wasn't in the running.

MLS expansion side St. Louis City SC this morning named longtime NY Red Bulls assistant Bradley Carnell as the franchise's first-ever head coach. LINK. I can see the value in an expansion side picking a head coach this far in advance — you want someone to help build the foundation. But it has to be a challenge to find someone who doesn't mind sitting out a year. The first team won't take the pitch until March 2023.

If that's true, then I'd think that would be an even stronger reason for keeping WFT around. If they can't secure trademark rights on those grounds, then nobody else could either, so no threat of legal entanglements.

If we really want to read the tea leaves on this, you could read the bolded phrases as suggesting the WFT name is going to stay. Not that I believe this, but you could read this as saying very literally "we are washington," The "fight for our community" phrase could simply be another way of saying, "we will fight for/as Washington." And "together we will define our future," could be a nod to collectively creating an identity under the WFT brand rather than forcing a new nickname upon them. The "we will launch" thing throws a wrench in that theory, I suppose.

I agree. Maybe it's just me, but my brain occasionally wants to separate the words differently. So rather than seeing it as Oklahoma City / Thunder as intended, I find myself seeing it as Oklahoma / City Thunder (as opposed to the country thunder, I suppose?) Of course, I'm willing to fully admit that this is a dumb thing that only I do. Regardless, the Thunder are probably the easiest case for naming the team after the state than just a city. There are no other pro franchises in Oklahoma, and it's not a Kansas City situation where dropping “city” would be leaving out its primary state. And they wouldn't really have to drop the OKC acronym since they still play in the city. The easiest solution? Move them to Seattle.

The only logical explanation is that the current look isn't moving merchandise. It's possible, with the depth of sales analytics tools these days, that teams might have more insight into whether updated branding is hitting its mark. Not suggesting I agree with it. I love the Hawks' current look. Just considering plausible reasons behind the decision.