Which team has the worst identity?

[BrianLion]

2 hours ago, BroncoBuff said:

Marlins changed from 'Florida' to 'Miami' ... I'm guessing for alliterative-ity .....

 

 

This was part of their deal for Miami building them a stadium in town. 

[Ark]

Florida Marlins sounds so much better.

[BroncoBuff]

29 minutes ago, BrianLion said:

 

This was part of their deal for Miami building them a stadium in town. 

 

Okay ... makes sense.

 

They don't mine much gold in Colorado anymore, which to me makes "Nuggets" a questionable nickname.  Franchise was The Rockets in the ABA, but changed it as the league maneuvered for merger ... NBA already had a Rockets, and in a city where that name made sense.

 

Enough bad identities for me for now ... how about a near-perfect one:

 

 

 

 

 

Rocky Mountains, and "purple" mountain majesty ... but they kinda botched the uniforms. The pin-strips are okay, but the hollow letters and numbers ring kinda hollow to me.  I would've preferred bold, Aachen-like characters.  .

 

[Uglybus]

2 minutes ago, BroncoBuff said:

 

Okay ... makes sense.

 

They don't mine much gold in Colorado anymore, which to me makes "Nuggets" a questionable nickname.  Franchise was The Rockets in the ABA, but changed it as the league maneuvered for merger ... NBA already had a Rockets, and in a city where that name made sense.

 

Enough bad identities for me for now ... how about a near-perfect one:

 

 

 

 

 

Rocky Mountains, and "purple" mountain majesty ... but they kinda botched the uniforms. The pin-strips are okay, but the hollow letters and numbers ring kinda hollow to me.  I would've preferred bold, Aachen-like characters.  .

 

Can you be a little quieter?

[BroncoBuff]

o k a y . . . . 

 

 

 

.

[MCM0313]

33 minutes ago, Uglybus said:

Can you be a little quieter?

?

[Morgan33]

50 minutes ago, BroncoBuff said:

Enough bad identities for me for now ... how about a near-perfect one:

 

 

 

Great colours, particularly for baseball, but that logo looks dated beyond belief.  The stroke around "Rockies" can't be ditched soon enough.

[Uglybus]

1 hour ago, MCM0313 said:

?

 The size of the font he uses is way too big. It gives me the impression that he's yelling. 

[hawk36]

On 7/25/2016 at 8:59 AM, Lights Out said:

Seriously, though, just look at some of the crap the Padres have worn since ditching brown.

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's like they're TRYING to be boring.

Totally agree. BORING. That being said, I think their primary look this year is pretty solid. Unfortunately for me, a brown fan, the current brown set isn't as successful. But keep the primary and work toward a better designed brown alt.

[OnWis97]

On 7/26/2016 at 7:33 AM, BroncoBuff said:

Please ... the Lakers and Jazz of course.   Both have nicknames that are specifically and uniquely linked to the cities they were in BEFORE Los Angeles and Salt Lake City.  That's just lazy. At least there are dolphins and marlins in Miami, diamondbacks in Arizona, wolves in Minnesota and Texans in Houston. 

 

Tied for the top spot: Ravens.  Because Poe wrote a poem by that name, and lived there on and off? Please.... By that logic, the Babes would make more sense ... baseball's not football, but it's closer than poetry.

 

My Top 3 all wear purple, hmmmm  ........  And don't say "No BroncoBuff! It's Forum Blue!!" because it's not. It's purple.  

Runners-up: White Sox and Red Sox.  Seriously?

_______________

 

Marlins changed from 'Florida' to 'Miami' ... I'm guessing for alliterative-ity .....

 

Which brings me to Cam Newton's Carolina (shouldda been) Cougars.  Not just for alliterative-ity, but also because it makes sense. 'Panthers' doesn't make sense, because there is no specific panther animal. Panterus is an animal family that includes most large cats, including jaguars, leopards, and Cougars. 

 

I was gonna defend the Clippers ('there's harbors all around LA!'), but then I Googled Clipper Ship. Not a single image less than 100 years old. And only drawings and paintings, because apparently the Clipper design was abandoned before the invention of photography .........

 

What, Ballmer?  2 Billion and you can't rebrand them something that makes sense????

 

 

It's funny how two uni-enthusiasts can be so different. No intent below to be combative; I just disagree with most of what you say.

 

You are taking up a notch on wanting locally-important names.  

 

Lakers/Jazz (see also, Dodgers and I suspect a couple of others).  Yeah, the idea of Utah Jazz or LA Lakers is odd.  And if they'd started as expansion teams there's be no excuse but ultimately, they had the same choice to make as the Colts, Rams, Flames and Athletics.  The Dolphins, D-Backs, T-Wolves, and Texans were expansion teams, so it's apples and oranges to compare them to the Jazz and Lakers.  OK, you could have used Twins, Brewers, etc. who made the switch to location-specific teams with the move.  But it's a balance between that and following the historic lineage (and I am NOT trying to get into the "history" debate that we've had here; just the rationale for these names).  So that said, having teams keep names helps make that very clear.  I think it's therefore OK to have Utah Jazz and LA Lakers.  If the Las Vegas expansion team names itself the Lobstermen, that would be stupid, of course, but they are an expansion team.  That said, I don't love the Jazz or Lakers overall identity.  Lakers get a pass because of their history, but they don't have much of a logo (though do have sharp uniforms).  The Jazz are OK but not great.

 

I think Ravens is a great name.  I am not understanding your logic.  You seem to like locally-relevant names but then because Ravens is not football (or sports?) - related it's bad?  Same thing would have applied to Minnesota Timberwolves or Minneapolis Lakers.  Ravens is a subtle local nod, not to mention a totally suitable name (unlike, say, Wild).  Now their dark purple and black, despite being the actual colors of a raven, is brutal.  I actually agree with you that Ravens is among the worst identities, but not because of the name.  Speaking of black and purple, there's just not enough contrast, so I also disagree with you on Rockies.  "Purple Mountains Majesty."  Hmmm.  Never thought of that.  Nevertheless the black and purple just don't look good to me; and the CR is getting a bit tired.  Just a difference in our taste.  Ironically, I respect them for holding an identity for a long time; that's what should happen.  I just don't happen to like this one.

 

Carolina Cougars would have been roughly as good as Panthers; maybe better for the alliteration.  Panthers still exist, much like Indians (as opposed to a particular tribe) so it's a serviceable name in my opinion.

 

Red Sox / White Sox:  Interesting one. It's tough to argue with that these names would not fly for a 21st century expansion team.  But it's a great homage to history, when teams had weird names and some just stuck.  There are no Pirates in Pittsburgh, but they were named that by opposing teams after "pirating" other players.  That's great stuff.  White Sox and Red Sox (and Phillies, Athletics; maybe Reds) are a great nod to the long history of MLB.

 

Clippers have a terrible identity, but since your focus seems more on the names, I don't know that it's important that clipper ships are no longer prevalent (assuming it's true), if they have history in San Diego (where the team was named) and/or LA.  The steel industry is dying; I don't want the Steelers to change their name.  Same comment on the Nuggets; it's part of Colorado history, if not present.  See also, 49ers.

[OnWis97]

12 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

Totally agree. BORING. That being said, I think their primary look this year is pretty solid. Unfortunately for me, a brown fan, the current brown set isn't as successful. But keep the primary and work toward a better designed brown alt.

I agree that the HOME primary is solid; but it kinda adds to the mess that is the Padres.

 

Just curious; not as successful how?  Sales? Wins/Losses? Or you just don't love it?

[hawk36]

9 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

I agree that the HOME primary is solid; but it kinda adds to the mess that is the Padres.

 

Just curious; not as successful how?  Sales? Wins/Losses? Or you just don't love it?

I mean not as successful design wise. While the SD is well crafted, the PADRES word mark on the brown is somewhat "clunky" and not as refined. I'd rather see a slightly modern version of their 1969 script or simply use the SD on the brown as well (along with the same piping used on the whites). At the very least use the same font used in the SD for the Padres word mark.

 

[BroncoBuff]

6 hours ago, Morgo said:

 

Great colours, particularly for baseball, but that logo looks dated beyond belief.  The stroke around "Rockies" can't be ditched soon enough.

 

I have a bit of Colorado Rockies "Logo Trivia" ...

 

The logo they first proposed to MLB was virtually the same, but the "struck" baseball was located outside the design's base semi-circle.  I tried to mock this up ... doesn't look right, but you get the idea.  MLB said "no, you gotta move the ball inside the image borders."  They have a well-known fear of anything within a batter's possible eyeline that might resemble a ball.

 

•  

 

LOOK at that shaky logo!!!!!! ....It was clean when I finished, but, trying to be sensitive to Uglybus' issues with sharp, loud noises, I whipped open Microsoft Paint and it's "stretch/skew" tool .... that's just 80%-80% .... echhh....

[Uglybus]

20 minutes ago, BroncoBuff said:

 

LOOK at that shaky logo!!!!!! ....It was clean when I finished, but, trying to be sensitive to Uglybus' issues with sharp, loud noises, I whipped open Microsoft Paint and it's "stretch/skew" tool .... that's just 80%-80% .... echhh....

Lol. They scare me! I've been hauling children for years without being repaired. It gives me PTSD!

[BroncoBuff]

1 hour ago, OnWis97 said:

It's funny how two uni-enthusiasts can be so different. No intent below to be combative; I just disagree with most of what you say.

 

You are taking up a notch on wanting locally-important names.  

 

Lakers/Jazz (see also, Dodgers and I suspect a couple of others).  Yeah, the idea of Utah Jazz or LA Lakers is odd.  And if they'd started as expansion teams there's be no excuse but ultimately, they had the same choice to make as the Colts, Rams, Flames and Athletics.  The Dolphins, D-Backs, T-Wolves, and Texans were expansion teams, so it's apples and oranges to compare them to the Jazz and Lakers.  OK, you could have used Twins, Brewers, etc. who made the switch to location-specific teams with the move.  But it's a balance between that and following the historic lineage (and I am NOT trying to get into the "history" debate that we've had here; just the rationale for these names).  So that said, having teams keep names helps make that very clear.  I think it's therefore OK to have Utah Jazz and LA Lakers.  If the Las Vegas expansion team names itself the Lobstermen, that would be stupid, of course, but they are an expansion team.  That said, I don't love the Jazz or Lakers overall identity.  Lakers get a pass because of their history, but they don't have much of a logo (though do have sharp uniforms).  The Jazz are OK but not great.

 

I think Ravens is a great name.  I am not understanding your logic.  You seem to like locally-relevant names but then because Ravens is not football (or sports?) - related it's bad?  Same thing would have applied to Minnesota Timberwolves or Minneapolis Lakers.  Ravens is a subtle local nod, not to mention a totally suitable name (unlike, say, Wild).  Now their dark purple and black, despite being the actual colors of a raven, is brutal.  I actually agree with you that Ravens is among the worst identities, but not because of the name.  Speaking ob black and purple, there's just not enough contrast, so I also disagree with you on Rockies.  "Purple Mountains Majesty."  Hmmm.  Never thought of that.  Nevertheless the black and purple just don't look good to me; and the CR is getting a bit tired.  Just a difference in our taste.  Ironically, I respect them for holding an identity for a long time; that's what should happen.  I just don't happen to like this one.

 

Carolina Cougars would have been roughly as good as Panthers; maybe better for the alliteration.  Panthers still exist, much like Indians (as opposed to a particular tribe) so it's a serviceable name in my opinion.

 

 

 

Wow, you're right ... my standard is almost entirely based on local/regional significance or lack of it.  Can't deny some of the best ones do have such a connection though: Texas Rangers, Colorado Rockies, Detroit Pistons, Dallas Cowboys, Boston Patriots (though I hate 'em). ...  

 

That said, unlike most guys in here, I have no problem with "concept" names like Lightning, Wild, Avalanche, Thunder. 

 

But none of this excuses the Lakers and Jazz, for the following ADDITIONAL reasons: Not only is New Orleans a one-of-a-kind cradle of jazz; and Minnesota home to 10,000 freakin' lakes ...... L.A. has NO lakes, I mean NONE. Silver Lake is not a lake, it's a man-made reservoir. The man's name was Silver.  Further, though I have no personal experience with it, I'd be willing to wager the jazz scene in SLC is an absolute wasteland.  Probably not unlike the gay scene in Riyadh.  Your point about the Dodgers is a good one, I never saw a trolley in Los Angeles. (Although there IS a trolley here in downtown Seattle, the South Lake Union Trolley. Problem was the acronym: "Ride the SouthLakeUnionTrolley!", but with the acronym ... they actually made several hundred t-shirts - collector's items now - before they realized their goof, the dumb bastards. Anyway, it's the South Lake Union Streetcar now).

 

Ravens still sucks because they went out of their way to link it to Poe's poem. If they'd said, "we named it after the bird that flies around and does stuff," that would've been far more passable to me.

 

Your analogy of the broad, generic 'Panthers' to the broad, generic 'Indians' was so right on so many levels ... it seemed almost genius to me, I actually stopped thinking entirely for 30 seconds. Panthers comes off my bad list.

[chcarlson23]

4 hours ago, BroncoBuff said:

 

 

Wow, you're right ... my standard is almost entirely based on local/regional significance or lack of it.  Can't deny some of the best ones do have such a connection though: Texas Rangers, Colorado Rockies, Detroit Pistons, Dallas Cowboys, Boston Patriots (though I hate 'em). ...  

 

That said, unlike most guys in here, I have no problem with "concept" names like Lightning, Wild, Avalanche, Thunder. 

 

But none of this excuses the Lakers and Jazz, for the following ADDITIONAL reasons: Not only is New Orleans a one-of-a-kind cradle of jazz; and Minnesota home to 10,000 freakin' lakes ...... L.A. has NO lakes, I mean NONE. Silver Lake is not a lake, it's a man-made reservoir. The man's name was Silver.  Further, though I have no personal experience with it, I'd be willing to wager the jazz scene in SLC is an absolute wasteland.  Probably not unlike the gay scene in Riyadh.  Your point about the Dodgers is a good one, I never saw a trolley in Los Angeles. (Although there IS a trolley here in downtown Seattle, the South Lake Union Trolley. Problem was the acronym: "Ride the SouthLakeUnionTrolley!", but with the acronym ... they actually made several hundred t-shirts - collector's items now - before they realized their goof, the dumb bastards. Anyway, it's the South Lake Union Streetcar now).

 

Ravens still sucks because they went out of their way to link it to Poe's poem. If they'd said, "we named it after the bird that flies around and does stuff," that would've been far more passable to me.

 

Your analogy of the broad, generic 'Panthers' to the broad, generic 'Indians' was so right on so many levels ... it seemed almost genius to me, I actually stopped thinking entirely for 30 seconds. Panthers comes off my bad list.

Ravens is a good name for the team, because when most people think of Baltimore, they think of Crab or Edgar Allen Poe... Poe's most famous story was the Raven... The connection is very good and works well for the team.

 

So then let me guess, you hate names like Toronto Maple Leafs, cause Maple Leafs are not just in Toronto??? 

[VancouverFan69]

While I no longer put stock into what Canucks President Trevor Linden says, he, bluntly, stated on local sports radio station, TSN 1040 Vancouver,  that there's "no chance" of the Canucks in getting rid of the orca in favour of Johnny Canuck. I still think something could happen by the Canucks 50th anniversary season but in the meantime, the Canucks shall continue, sadly, to be part of this thread.

[Morgan33]

Good.  They just need to get rid of the arched script.

[VancouverFan69]

32 minutes ago, Morgo said:

Good.  They just need to get rid of the arched script.

 

The team is called the Vancouver Canucks, not the "Vancouver Orcas" nor the "Orca Bay Canucks". Named after Johnny Canuck, whose lumberjack profession has deep historic roots in BC and the City of Vancouver was built on the lumber industry. 

[Morgan33]

5 minutes ago, VancouverFan69 said:

 

The team is called the Vancouver Canucks, not the "Vancouver Orcas" nor the "Orca Bay Canucks". Named after Johnny Canuck, whose lumberjack profession has deep historic roots in BC and the City of Vancouver was built on the lumber industry. 

 

Another team is called the "Boston Bruins" not the "Boston Hubs," what's your point?

 

The Orca looks like a logo.  Johnny Canuck looks like an illustration.