Pro teams in need of a rebrand

[neo_prankster]

MLB

Orioles: Nothing too drastic. Make the smiling bird the primary.

Padres: Bring back the brown.

Diamondbacks: Bring back the old colors.

NFL

Titans: A new color scheme to distance themselves from their Oilers past.

Jaguars: Try again.

Ravens: New logos, and replace gold with silver.

Chargers: Too much empty space under the bolts on the helmets. Bolt does not work as a standalone logo.

Rams: Move back to Los Angeles and bring back the old blue and yellow.

Raiders: New name and colors should they go to San Antonio.

NBA

Bucks: Bring back original logo.

Raptors: Bring back the purple.

NHL

Ducks: Bring back original logo and colors full time.

[etruxal]

MLB:

Arizona Diamondbacks - the "new" 2007 colors really aren't bad, but they only connect with their classic look with the Saturday uniform.

The pinstripe uniform with the "A" logo on the front has a classic, distinguished look. Keep the current colors and logos, but make the home uniform black pinstripes, use the "A" logo like 2000-2006, and use the "A" logo on the cap. The "D" snake logo is tired and tacky. Perhaps go with a black cap and red bill... or all black. On the road - whatever they do, stop stop stop the Sedona Red alt jersey with grays. Total little league look. Black cap/red bill or vice-versa might work, use a black road alt jersey.

IF the alt jersey must scrap the "A" logo - the abbreviated "D-Backs" front is very, very tired. Find a way to use that cool lettering to use the whole name - it just might look good. There has been no creativity with this look since it was debuted. It was a good start, but is a very unfinished rebrand from 2007.

SD Padres - Navy & White? Really? Is this franchise suddenly become afraid of color? The sand uniforms had character with the current branding - no idea why that was scrapped - it was the one redeeming quality of an otherwise very drab look that doesn't do this franchise well. Color needed! Brown/gold was very San Diego - why follow the crowd now?

Brewers - The Miller Lite look has always been uninspiring. The ballglove logo was an absolute genius; fans love it, and maybe we don't go back to royal blue and bright yellow - but we can use an updated version of the classic look with more color than the current team has, without being gaudy or 70s color-TV cheesy.

Colorado Rockies - Something very different that looks like a basball uniform... meaning the black vests are embarrassing. Very unattractive look since the franchise inception - with such a rich and colorful backgdrop to play against (Colorado), why look so dull?

Cleveland Indians - Solve the identity crisis already! This team looks completely uncoordinated and kids can't tell that it's the same team from one day to the next... lots of good ideas - but scatterbrained.

White Sox - more like the Indians - solve the midlife crisis look. Fans love the black/silver look, and other fans like to see some color. Instead of the 1982-86 uniforms as a weekend alt... use the current classic Sox style, and either add some red to the black and silver, or make a red version of the current pinstripe home uniform that says "this is the same team." Throw in the crazy uniforms for throwback days when you want... but it's weird in the regualr mix.

[OnWis97]

this location thing is odd to me. i dont see whats wrong with claiming the nearest major city as your home.

Santa Clara (49ers) is basically in San Jose, and a long way from San Francisco.

I understand why teams want to be named after a "cooler" city (even when they are in a completely different State) but would say I'd draw the line at bypassing the closest big city in favor of a cooler big city much farther away.

Seeing as how the Niners, Jets, and Giants have been San Francisco and New York respectively for over 50 years (more for the Giants and Niners) I don't think they should now have to change to the San Jose 49ers and New Jersey Giants/Jets.....

These debates always drive me bonkers. Particularly the Jets/Giants debate.

The Jets and Giants represent NYC. People get far too hung up on the state name. If NYC was actually called, say, "Gotham" and the Gotham Giants and Gotham Jets played in New Jersey, I don't think we'd have nearly as much whining about this. But because NYC and NY State happen to have the same name, people get all bogged down in it. And 9 out of 10 times, these people do not think the Washington Redskins should be called the Maryland Redskins (I realize the person that started this debate actually does think that so at least he's consistent; but I rarely hear this). Why? Because DC is not a state? Essentially, Maryland is to DC as New Jersey is to New York State. Right? The Giants and Jets play in suburban NYC. The people of NYC, and their suburbs (which happen to be in three states) cheer for those teams (for the most part).

So it really is like suggesting we cheer for the Auburn Hills Pistons. And boy am I glad we did not see a name change from Detroit Lions to Pontiac Lions back to Detroit Lions.

[Teal]

NBA:

- Clippers

- Bucks

- 76ers

- Rockets

- Thunder

- Raptors

MLB:

- Padres

- Rockies

- Diamondbacks

- Marlins (bring back the teal)

NFL:

- Browns

- Titans

- Rams

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

this location thing is odd to me. i dont see whats wrong with claiming the nearest major city as your home.

Santa Clara (49ers) is basically in San Jose, and a long way from San Francisco.

I understand why teams want to be named after a "cooler" city (even when they are in a completely different State) but would say I'd draw the line at bypassing the closest big city in favor of a cooler big city much farther away.

Seeing as how the Niners, Jets, and Giants have been San Francisco and New York respectively for over 50 years (more for the Giants and Niners) I don't think they should now have to change to the San Jose 49ers and New Jersey Giants/Jets.....

These debates always drive me bonkers. Particularly the Jets/Giants debate.

The Jets and Giants represent NYC. People get far too hung up on the state name. If NYC was actually called, say, "Gotham" and the Gotham Giants and Gotham Jets played in New Jersey, I don't think we'd have nearly as much whining about this. But because NYC and NY State happen to have the same name, people get all bogged down in it. And 9 out of 10 times, these people do not think the Washington Redskins should be called the Maryland Redskins (I realize the person that started this debate actually does think that so at least he's consistent; but I rarely hear this). Why? Because DC is not a state? Essentially, Maryland is to DC as New Jersey is to New York State. Right? The Giants and Jets play in suburban NYC. The people of NYC, and their suburbs (which happen to be in three states) cheer for those teams (for the most part).

So it really is like suggesting we cheer for the Auburn Hills Pistons. And boy am I glad we did not see a name change from Detroit Lions to Pontiac Lions back to Detroit Lions.

Hate this argument. Because they don't play in city limits doesn't make them "not that city's team". Newark, Hoboken, E. Rutherford... is suburban New York City. Yes it would be ideal if the Giants played in Manhattan and the Jets played in Queens, but they don't. Auburn Hills is suburban Detroit; Landover suburban DC, and so on.

With that said, the only one I have somewhat of a problem with is the 49ers situation. It's not so much the distance, but it's because a completely different major city in San Jose. It's almost like a Baltimore team playing in Washington DC (that distance is actually shorter). Yes, the bay area is like one giant metropolis, but there are 3 major cities at the opposite ends of the triangle. Not saying they should be re-named, but there should've been a stadium built in San Fran, or no further south than Palo Alto.

[hawk36]

this location thing is odd to me. i dont see whats wrong with claiming the nearest major city as your home.

Santa Clara (49ers) is basically in San Jose, and a long way from San Francisco.

I understand why teams want to be named after a "cooler" city (even when they are in a completely different State) but would say I'd draw the line at bypassing the closest big city in favor of a cooler big city much farther away.

Seeing as how the Niners, Jets, and Giants have been San Francisco and New York respectively for over 50 years (more for the Giants and Niners) I don't think they should now have to change to the San Jose 49ers and New Jersey Giants/Jets.....

I'd agree except for in the Niners' case, there are 2 large, major cities closer than San Francisco to where they actually play.

Worst City/Name offenders in the NFL

1. 49ers

Santa Clara to:

- San Francisco 38 miles

- Oakland 33 miles

- San Jose 5 miles

2. Dolphins (technically still Miami name though)

Miami Gardens, Florida to:

- Miami 14 miles

3. Bills

Orchard Park, NY to:

- Buffalo 11 miles

4. Giants/Jets

East Rutherford, New Jersey to:

- New York City 9 miles

4. Cowboys

Irving, Texas to:

- Dallas 9 miles

6. Redskins

Landover, Maryland to:

- Washington DC 7 miles

[Cosmic]

3. Bills

Orchard Park, NY to:

- Buffalo 11 miles

4. Giants/Jets

East Rutherford, New Jersey to:

- New York City 9 miles

In no universe is it 11 miles. The borders of OP and Buffalo are less than two miles apart; the stadium is 9 miles from City Hall. MetLife Stadium is 6 miles away from Central Park. Is it really much different than Jacksonville, which annexed an area 2/3 the size of Rhode Island as its "city"?

[hawk36]

3. Bills

Orchard Park, NY to:

- Buffalo 11 miles

4. Giants/Jets

East Rutherford, New Jersey to:

- New York City 9 miles

In no universe is it 11 miles. The borders of OP and Buffalo are less than two miles apart; the stadium is 9 miles from City Hall. MetLife Stadium is 6 miles away from Central Park. Is it really much different than Jacksonville, which annexed an area 2/3 the size of Rhode Island as its "city"?

Could be incorrect. I just found a site when you type in one city, and then the other, and then it says how many miles it is between the two.

[Tigers6884]

this location thing is odd to me. i dont see whats wrong with claiming the nearest major city as your home.

Santa Clara (49ers) is basically in San Jose, and a long way from San Francisco.

I understand why teams want to be named after a "cooler" city (even when they are in a completely different State) but would say I'd draw the line at bypassing the closest big city in favor of a cooler big city much farther away.

Seeing as how the Niners, Jets, and Giants have been San Francisco and New York respectively for over 50 years (more for the Giants and Niners) I don't think they should now have to change to the San Jose 49ers and New Jersey Giants/Jets.....

I'd agree except for in the Niners' case, there are 2 large, major cities closer than San Francisco to where they actually play.

Worst City/Name offenders in the NFL

1. 49ers

Santa Clara to:

- San Francisco 38 miles

- Oakland 33 miles

- San Jose 5 miles

2. Dolphins (technically still Miami name though)

Miami Gardens, Florida to:

- Miami 14 miles

3. Bills

Orchard Park, NY to:

- Buffalo 11 miles

4. Giants/Jets

East Rutherford, New Jersey to:

- New York City 9 miles

4. Cowboys

Irving, Texas to:

- Dallas 9 miles

6. Redskins

Landover, Maryland to:

- Washington DC 7 miles

And to think, the Lions probably used to be on this list 20 years ago. (the old Pontiac Silverdome).

[Gothamite]

MetLife Stadium is closer to 5 miles due west from the west side of Manhattan. That 9 miles you found was almost certainly driving directions to downtown, maybe City Hall.

[hawk36]

Brings to question how the site figured the distance. Probably city center to city center instead of closest city edge to city edge.

That being said, on Google

1. From the Cow Palace (just south of the SF city limits) to the Santa Clara Convention Center (northwest edge of Santa Clara) it's at least 35 miles.

2. From MetLife Stadium to the Lincoln Tunnel entrance in Weehawken it's 8.7 miles. BUT since NJ and NY share a border you could technically say they are 0 miles away from each other.

[The_Admiral]

Again, the cultural differences between the suburbs and their host city tend to vary from city to city. I just happen to live in one that has almost nothing in common with its burbs outside of crappy weather.

I don't think non-downtown Milwaukee and the inner-ring suburbs are worlds apart. Milwaukee versus Waukesha County or Ozaukee County, yeah, definitely.

[Dexter Morgan]

For people not familiar with the area. This is from my back porch, MetLife Stadium with NYC skyline behind it.

[sportstar1212]

I think it's perfectly fine for the Jets and Giants to use "New York" in their name. They're NYC's teams, simple as that. If there were already a team that plays in, say, Queens, it would be an issue. It would be like the New Jersey Devils calling themselves the New York Devils, despite there already being the Rangers and Islanders.

And for that reason, I'm actually in favor of the Red Bulls to be "New Jersey", now that there's a team that plays in NYC proper.

[Sport]

The Blue Jackets knocked it out of the park in 2007 and I'd be okay if they never changed again.

Maybe their thing could be to release a new alternate every few years while leaving their perfect home and road uniforms untouched.

[hawk36]

I think it's perfectly fine for the Jets and Giants to use "New York" in their name. They're NYC's teams, simple as that. If there were already a team that plays in, say, Queens, it would be an issue. It would be like the New Jersey Devils calling themselves the New York Devils, despite there already being the Rangers and Islanders.

And for that reason, I'm actually in favor of the Red Bulls to be "New Jersey", now that there's a team that plays in NYC proper.

I think if NYCFC takes off like many think, at the expense of Red Bull, Red Bull will change to New Jersey and embrace their home state.

Jersey Bulls

[Dexter Morgan]

I think it's perfectly fine for the Jets and Giants to use "New York" in their name. They're NYC's teams, simple as that. If there were already a team that plays in, say, Queens, it would be an issue. It would be like the New Jersey Devils calling themselves the New York Devils, despite there already being the Rangers and Islanders.

And for that reason, I'm actually in favor of the Red Bulls to be "New Jersey", now that there's a team that plays in NYC proper.

I think if NYCFC takes off like many think, at the expense of Red Bull, Red Bull will change to New Jersey and embrace their home state.

Jersey Bulls

There is 0% chance of that hapoening. Use your head, what fool would abandon a NY identity? Does thst make any business sense for Red Bull?

[Gothamite]

Nope. Not going to happen.

Maybe you'll see a return to "New York/New Jersey Metrostars" when Red Bull finally sells. But I don't see them turning their back on the city under any circumstances. Even if NYCFC is the huge smash I expect it to be, I don't see RB just giving up altogether on whatever tenuous claim they have to the city.

My problem with them is that ignoring New York sure seemed to be their business model until NY2 was announced. But even when they showed no interest in the city, they weren't confident enough in that to adopt "New Jersey" alone. And why would they? The Nets tried it and failed. The Devils haven't been a smashing success. Why should the Red Bulls/Metrostars think they'll succeed?

[habsfan1]

The Baltimore Ravens uniforms and the Oakland Raiders logo.

[hawk36]

I may be way off but isn't the New Jersey part of the metro area around Red Bull Arena larger than most MLS team cities (+/- 1,000,000)? Do those living there not care about New Jersey and consider themselves New Yorkers? Seems like they would have plenty of population to pull from all over New Jersey. And then there could be a great New Jersey / New York derby. I mean if Brooklyn can have a team, can't New Jersey?

But again, I'm speaking from thousands of miles away and don't really know the area.