Ark

Which team has the worst identity?

Recommended Posts

NBA

Clippers (Loved the powder blue uniforms in Buffalo and San Diego but the Los Angeles brand has gotten worse and worse)

Thunder (The SuperSonics had a strong brand, the Thunder's just seems like its thrown together)

honorary mention - Hawks, Jazz, Rockets

 

MLB

Padres (I just wish they'd go back to the brown & yellow)

Diamondbacks (it kills me because they're the home team. They should just go with turquoise and purple, and make the purple a darker shade for more contrast)

honorary mention - Brewers, Indians, Marlins

 

NFL

Jaguars (those helmets pretty much negate anything else they've done, not a big fan of the logo either)

Buccaneers (love the old creamsicle uniforms, and even like the first rebrand, but the new look and over-sized logo don't work for me)

honorary mention - Browns, Dolphins, Lions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One that I've never understood is Real Salt Lake in MLS.  A name that copies Real Madrid?  With uniforms that copy the Spanish national team?  In Utah?  Makes no sense to me.

5wczir440kjh2tgbuasfh1hc2.png1669723.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread really depends an awful lot on what you think of as an "identity." With me it has to do with the nickname and logo(s) correlating, as well as the cohesiveness and quality of the uniform set. So, here are my picks for worst:

 

MLB - Padres. Even with the Swinging Friar making an occasional appearance, this is a team that doesn't know what its colors are (the recent addition of yellow seems like a shot in the dark to me - or in the sunshine, as the case may be), and it doesn't really even have a style of its own, and hasn't since ditching the sand-colored road unis. Personally I'd like a return to brown and orange like in the late '80s, but with more innovative uniforms like those from the late '70s and early '80s. One thing for sure, though: The navy blue is B-O-R-I-N-G.

 

NBA - Clippers, then Thunder. I actually think the Thunder's logo, while nominally better than LAC's, has even less to do with the team name, but OKC goes ahead slightly for having somewhat respectable uniforms, while LAC's are almost as bad as their logos.

 

NFL - This one's tougher. The Buccaneers still have the whole pirate thing going for them, plus their logo and helmet are very solid in my view. The Jags have the worst helmet, but they're starting to stake out their own look uniform-wise. The Browns don't use anything that represents their name other than the color, but that's been their thing forever, and even with the awful new uniforms, they still have the "plain orange helmet with brown-white-brown stripes" thing going for them, which is nice. The Titans' logo feels generic but they've developed their own distinct look over the years.

 

I'll be controversial here and go with the Jets. Their logo doesn't mean anything, their primary shade of green is way too dark, there's that famous matching problem...a few simple tweaks and they could look so much better...the logo is a classic-ish one but its weaknesses feel more pronounced when it is paired with uniforms that also have issues. This isn't to say that the Jets' logo, helmet, or uniforms are individually the league's worst because none of them are. The mismatched greens definitely drag them down some.

 

NHL - I don't really have a strong opinion about this one. I'd probably say Ducks if not for their primary logo, which is decent. The Wild's look is often criticized but there are a few things about it that I really like. The Kings and Coyotes both seem to have weak identities to me...I also feel like the Predators have never fully found their groove...plus the Hurricanes don't look great and their logo isn't very good. I think in the end I'd take either the Hurricanes or Kings here. Yes, LA's logo is related to their nickname but it's not a good logo. Carolina's logo isn't as easily identified as being a Hurricane as LA's is as being a crown. I'll go with the Hurricanes, even though I haven't seen their current uni set enough to form a strong opinion (though I know it's hated here).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Kings' current look is weak, but at least I know what it's going for. It's trying to be an updated version of the Gretzky-era look and coming off as an inferior version of it instead. It's not strong, but it makes sense in-context. Plus they have a unique-to-the-league colour scheme.

Carolina? The colour scheme's kind of played out. Granted, they should probably get a pass and be allowed to run with red, black, and white because of the colours of an actual hurricane warning flag. The problem was the timing.

Chicago owned red, black, and white in the NHL for ages. Then the Senators came about in the early 90s. That was cool. The original Sens were red, black, and white, and the Sens were emphasizing black over red anyway. Plus they had a bit of gold. So no real infringement on Chicago. Then the Devils switch out green for black and suddenly they're red, black and white. I mean...sure. Whatever. It's more devil-y I guess, even though the team was never actually named for the fire-and-brimstone devil, but whatever. At least they're in the East and Chicago's in the West. Then the Sabres drop blue and gold for black, red, and white and it's like "come the :censored: on."

Then the Whalers move to North Carolina and boom. They're red, black, and white too. Again, it works. It just seemed like a "me too!" at the time. I was 10 when the Whalers moved, and even I was noticing something of a trend.

 

Logo-wise...I don't know. The Hurricanes' mark always seemed a bit too skewed for my liking. The warning flag alternate is the much superior mark. If there was going to be any positive about removing the warning flags from the hem striping? It would have been that they were promoting the flag logo to full-time status, and they didn't want that much warning flag repetition on the sweaters. Instead they drop their signature striping element and keep their not that great logo.

If they insisted on a primary that looked like a hurricane? Something like this would have worked. Not that exactly, but that general shape. Much more instantly recognizable as a hurricane, in my opinion.

 

The sweaters are really where it all just falls apart. Take Tampa. Yeah, they abandoned a unique identity in an attempt to look like an Original Six team by ripping off two of them, but at least they managed to match their home and road looks. Mostly. Say what you will about their current identity. It's consistent if nothing else. You can't even say that for Carolina. They stripped away everything that made their look stand out and then opted for two "traditional" looks. Like they decided they were going to go super-traditional and it came down to two designs. And Petey K just went "why not both?" despite the fact that it looks stupid. The road look at least has its own identity about it, sort of. The home though? It's just a Maple Leafs sweater in Red Wings colours. The opposite of what the Lightning did. And then they kept their modern alternate because of course they did.
The Wild have three different mismatching uniforms, but at least they can fall back on a unique colour scheme and a good logo. The Hurricanes can't even do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Currently? The Dallas Mavericks. A fantastic name wasted on meh everything else.

 

Honorable mentions: Columbus Blue Jackets, Arizona Diamondbacks and Cleveland Indians (just cuz they can't decide what they want to do), Houston Rockets

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ScubaSteve said:

Currently? The Dallas Mavericks. A fantastic name wasted on meh everything else.

 

Honorable mentions: Columbus Blue Jackets, Arizona Diamondbacks and Cleveland Indians (just cuz they can't decide what they want to do), Houston Rockets

I picked the Clips for the NBA but I agree with the Mavs as a good candidate.  The uniforms are clean, but almost too clean (or "streamlined"...I dunno).  They are completely lacking in soul.  The logo is not terrible (putting them above the Clips) but the uniforms are just so blah.  And the modern feel they have is almost like a reverse of the earth-toned Astros.  The colors and even the logo (which gives me almost a robo-horse feel) don't seem to befit a team called the Mavericks.  More a team called the "Robot Horses" or something.  I did not let that get in the way of my love for those Astros uniforms, so I won't allow it to be an issue here...does not matter, the uniforms are miserable.

 

 

12 hours ago, MCM0313 said:

This thread really depends an awful lot on what you think of as an "identity." With me it has to do with the nickname and logo(s) correlating, as well as the cohesiveness and quality of the uniform set. So, here are my picks for worst:

 

MLB - Padres. Even with the Swinging Friar making an occasional appearance, this is a team that doesn't know what its colors are (the recent addition of yellow seems like a shot in the dark to me - or in the sunshine, as the case may be), and it doesn't really even have a style of its own, and hasn't since ditching the sand-colored road unis. Personally I'd like a return to brown and orange like in the late '80s, but with more innovative uniforms like those from the late '70s and early '80s. One thing for sure, though: The navy blue is B-O-R-I-N-G.

 

NBA - Clippers, then Thunder. I actually think the Thunder's logo, while nominally better than LAC's, has even less to do with the team name, but OKC goes ahead slightly for having somewhat respectable uniforms, while LAC's are almost as bad as their logos.

 

NFL - This one's tougher. The Buccaneers still have the whole pirate thing going for them, plus their logo and helmet are very solid in my view. The Jags have the worst helmet, but they're starting to stake out their own look uniform-wise. The Browns don't use anything that represents their name other than the color, but that's been their thing forever, and even with the awful new uniforms, they still have the "plain orange helmet with brown-white-brown stripes" thing going for them, which is nice. The Titans' logo feels generic but they've developed their own distinct look over the years.

 

I'll be controversial here and go with the Jets. Their logo doesn't mean anything, their primary shade of green is way too dark, there's that famous matching problem...a few simple tweaks and they could look so much better...the logo is a classic-ish one but its weaknesses feel more pronounced when it is paired with uniforms that also have issues. This isn't to say that the Jets' logo, helmet, or uniforms are individually the league's worst because none of them are. The mismatched greens definitely drag them down some.

 

NHL - I don't really have a strong opinion about this one. I'd probably say Ducks if not for their primary logo, which is decent. The Wild's look is often criticized but there are a few things about it that I really like. The Kings and Coyotes both seem to have weak identities to me...I also feel like the Predators have never fully found their groove...plus the Hurricanes don't look great and their logo isn't very good. I think in the end I'd take either the Hurricanes or Kings here. Yes, LA's logo is related to their nickname but it's not a good logo. Carolina's logo isn't as easily identified as being a Hurricane as LA's is as being a crown. I'll go with the Hurricanes, even though I haven't seen their current uni set enough to form a strong opinion (though I know it's hated here).

Interesting points regarding the degree to which a uniform represents the name.  


It's not always possible to truly do that (Thank Goodness the Canadiens never tried), but I also feel that it's not always necessary even when it is possible.  I am really, really glad that the Yankees never went all-in with an Uncle Sam motif. I like that the Blue Jackets are not really going for a logo that's true to the name; there's a lot of opportunity for minor league-quality crap there.  And I am thankful for the minimal use by the Tigers. Also the Pistons...I guess the horse (power) kinda did that; and it was not a great logo, IMO.  I prefer what they are doing now.

 

The Thunder is an interesting one.  Decent color scheme; crap logo that was probably designed before the team was even named.  I'd be curious to see whether other ideas have ever made headway there...there could be some danger in trying too hard to match the logo to the name.

 

With the Jets, I am kinda with you.  I liked the subtle nod to planes in the 1980s logo.  I really liked that whole look (particularly, uncharacteristically for me, when they added black).  Removing a subtle "jet" motif for no "jet" was the wrong way to go and would have just been confusing had they not been going back to a glory day look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

The Kings' current look is weak, but at least I know what it's going for. It's trying to be an updated version of the Gretzky-era look and coming off as an inferior version of it instead. It's not strong, but it makes sense in-context. Plus they have a unique-to-the-league colour scheme.

Carolina? The colour scheme's kind of played out. Granted, they should probably get a pass and be allowed to run with red, black, and white because of the colours of an actual hurricane warning flag. The problem was the timing.

Chicago owned red, black, and white in the NHL for ages. Then the Senators came about in the early 90s. That was cool. The original Sens were red, black, and white, and the Sens were emphasizing black over red anyway. Plus they had a bit of gold. So no real infringement on Chicago. Then the Devils switch out green for black and suddenly they're red, black and white. I mean...sure. Whatever. It's more devil-y I guess, even though the team was never actually named for the fire-and-brimstone devil, but whatever. At least they're in the East and Chicago's in the West. Then the Sabres drop blue and gold for black, red, and white and it's like "come the :censored: on."

Then the Whalers move to North Carolina and boom. They're red, black, and white too. Again, it works. It just seemed like a "me too!" at the time. I was 10 when the Whalers moved, and even I was noticing something of a trend.

 

Logo-wise...I don't know. The Hurricanes' mark always seemed a bit too skewed for my liking. The warning flag alternate is the much superior mark. If there was going to be any positive about removing the warning flags from the hem striping? It would have been that they were promoting the flag logo to full-time status, and they didn't want that much warning flag repetition on the sweaters. Instead they drop their signature striping element and keep their not that great logo.

If they insisted on a primary that looked like a hurricane? Something like this would have worked. Not that exactly, but that general shape. Much more instantly recognizable as a hurricane, in my opinion.

 

The sweaters are really where it all just falls apart. Take Tampa. Yeah, they abandoned a unique identity in an attempt to look like an Original Six team by ripping off two of them, but at least they managed to match their home and road looks. Mostly. Say what you will about their current identity. It's consistent if nothing else. You can't even say that for Carolina. They stripped away everything that made their look stand out and then opted for two "traditional" looks. Like they decided they were going to go super-traditional and it came down to two designs. And Petey K just went "why not both?" despite the fact that it looks stupid. The road look at least has its own identity about it, sort of. The home though? It's just a Maple Leafs sweater in Red Wings colours. The opposite of what the Lightning did. And then they kept their modern alternate because of course they did.
The Wild have three different mismatching uniforms, but at least they can fall back on a unique colour scheme and a good logo. The Hurricanes can't even do that.

 

 

I agree, though despite any lack of consistency between the home, road, and alternate, I do like that they at least kept the alternate. It's now the best look in the jumbled mess of their set because it retains the character of the older Canes sets. Sure, I'd like a predominantly red warning flag hem stripe on it (and the old set back, of course), but at least you know it's the Carolina Hurricanes when looking at them.

 

Speaking of which, the Hurricanes' first two sets managed to take an overused color scheme (Red/Black/White) and made it unique with the warning flag stripes, NASCAR-esque number font, and splash of silver. Nowadays? I see a lifeless Team Canada/Detroit Red Wings Frankenstein's monster of blandness.

 

Granted, if I had my druthers I would've used a Red/Dark Gray/Black scheme or basically replaced silver with light blue (like I did in my now-ancient NHL concepts thread) to set them even further apart while using virtually the same template, but what the Hurricanes had was far superior to what they wear now.*

 

As for the Lightning: It's an unpopular opinion, but I find their current logo better than their previous logos, and I do like blue as the predominant color. That said? The Lightning needs heavy doses of black: Black helmet, black pants, plenty of black in the hem stripes, black alternate (I might lighten their blue to a shade not unlike the Minnesota Timberwolves/OKC Thunder, as I again toot my own horn), perhaps with a touch of silver in there, too. However, as Ice Cap said, the Lightning have a coherent--if bland--identity.

 

</horn tooting>

Edited by DustDevil61
Added links to concepts and an 's' to 'needs'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NBA- Clippers, They lacked an identity before, but at least they had the unique cursive script which was kind of their thing. Now they look so generic. Very close second, OKC. Their uniforms at least have some distinct features. That logo, though...

 

NHL- I don't think any team clearly lacks an identity, but the Hurricanes and Bluejackets are borderline. Neither have seemed to find their groove. 

 

NFL- I could be completely wrong, but I still don't find that the Houston Texans have really made their mark. Other than that, the Jets. 

 

MLB- Padres and Brewers. Twins close behind.  

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On June 21, 2016 at 1:20 PM, DustDevil61 said:

I do like that they at least kept the alternate. It's now the best look in the jumbled mess of their set because it retains the character of the older Canes sets. Sure, I'd like a predominantly red warning flag hem stripe on it (and the old set back, of course), but at least you know it's the Carolina Hurricanes when looking at them.

 

Speaking of which, the Hurricanes' first two sets managed to take an overused color scheme (Red/Black/White) and made it unique with the warning flag stripes, NASCAR-esque number font, and splash of silver. Nowadays? I see a lifeless Team Canada/Detroit Red Wings Frankenstein's monster of blandness.

 

This.  The best uniform they've ever had was the one they captured the Stanley Cup in.  The alternate is still great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/16/2016 at 6:08 PM, insert name said:

What identity?

kevin-Durant-russell-Westbrook-oklahoma-

8191115d4299bf9bda000a1c20c04efe_crop_noJazz-Thunder-Basketball-1095x1254.jpegRussell-Westbrook-Kevin-Durant.jpg

55b8f50014044.image.jpg

Oklahoma-City-Thunder-Logo.jpg

 

THIS X 1,000,000!   It's like they forgot to make a relevant logo to replace these "place-holder-ass-f***" logo/uniform. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/17/2016 at 3:07 AM, WideRight said:

Clippers and Thunder are bad, but my hands down winner are the Cleveland Browns.  No logo, plain word mark and the worst uniforms in the NFL.  How do you have a team in 2016 with no logo?   I am fine with no logo on the helmet, but you have to have one for all other types of uses.  

 

The Browns identity is actually a lack of identity.

 

Conspiracy-Keanu.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the criticism directed at OKC is a little unfair considering that the NBA has several teams with a logo that is nothing but a basketball and a name. How are the Pistons for instance any better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On June 24, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Est1980 said:

 

THIS X 1,000,000!   It's like they forgot to make a relevant logo to replace these "place-holder-ass-f***" logo/uniform. 

 

IIRC, wasn't the Thunder's branding specifically generic because they didn't have a name chosen timely enough to develop a proper identity? They get my vote. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chawls said:

 

IIRC, wasn't the Thunder's branding specifically generic because they didn't have a name chosen timely enough to develop a proper identity? They get my vote. 

Has that ever been confirmed or do we just assume?  That really is what it looks like happened, though.  And the Thunder definitely belong in this conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/23/2016 at 9:47 PM, imawalkingcorpse said:

NBA- New Orleans Pelicans.

NFL- New York Jets Ugly colors, ugly uniforms and no Jet

NHL- Minnesota Wild

 

 

 

 

 

Besides the obvious Clippers answer, New Orleans would be near the top of my NBA list as well.  While I don't think their uniforms are that bad, I do think the color scheme they went with is.  I'd call it uninspiring.  With a name like Pelicans they had a chance to be a little bold with the color scheme and obviously chose not to.  Based on a lot of the fan concepts we saw leading up to the re-brand, we saw a lot of teal, yellow, and black, which IMO would have been a great idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/21/2016 at 0:04 AM, radchad said:

One that I've never understood is Real Salt Lake in MLS.  A name that copies Real Madrid?  With uniforms that copy the Spanish national team?  In Utah?  Makes no sense to me.

5wczir440kjh2tgbuasfh1hc2.png1669723.jpg

 

RSL has nothing on the Red Bulls...

 

1271px-New_York_Red_Bulls_logo.svg.png

 

mike-grella-new-york-red-bulls-mls-04182

 

int_150726_red_bulls_benfica.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/2/2016 at 2:33 PM, steven919 said:

I think the criticism directed at OKC is a little unfair considering that the NBA has several teams with a logo that is nothing but a basketball and a name. How are the Pistons for instance any better?

I'm not sure it's "unfair", but you do make a good point.  If the Detroit Pistons were a new team in Detroit and unveiled the current logo, we'd all think it sucks.  The horse-and-exhaust logos create a better identity than the current primary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, WSU151 said:

I'm not sure it's "unfair", but you do make a good point.  If the Detroit Pistons were a new team in Detroit and unveiled the current logo, we'd all think it sucks.  The horse-and-exhaust logos create a better identity than the current primary.

 

All the Pistons had to do was keep the blue, red and white and keep the uniforms the same when they changed the logo. After all, they won back-to-back championships in those colours during the "Bad Boys" era. Changing the colours to teal and yellow is like the Bulls changing their colours to whatever. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.