B-Rich Posted August 15, 2019 Posted August 15, 2019 Last night, while watching the Campeones Cup game, my daughter was amazed to find that the MLS team was actually named "Atlanta United FC" (and not just "Atlanta FC")... which led to us takling about the fact that there are THREE (3) teams in the league with the name "United", and five (5) teams with just the designation "FC" (and several more with FC as an additional term)... which then led to us having a pretty lively discussion on which league has the best team nicknames. Here is what we determined, worst to first (and our arguments behind the rankings) WORST / 5th: MLS. Mainly on the fact that there is so much repetitiveness in the nicknames as pointed out above; she was of the opinion that is was not so bad "because it is being European", but she is 22 and into that. While I, being the old dad, said it was just a bunch of pretentious Europhiling, best exemplified by the ridiculousness of REAL Salt Lake (what the hell is royal about it?) and she caved when I brought up "Sporting Kansas City". 4th: NBA. We both agreed that the NBA was pretty low on the list for a few reasons. One is the two most egregrious examples of relocated teams with bad names, the Los Angeles Lakers and Utah Jazz. I also pointed out that while 'Clippers' was okay in its current location, it was certainly not the great fit it was in its previous locale (also true of the Memphis Grizzlies). Second was that the league has the largest amount of singular nicknames: Heat, Magic, Jazz, Thunder. One or two is a nice spice; like mustard on a sandwich. Four? That's getting to be overwhelming. And last reason was the extreme wimpiness and current graphic misconnection of the Washington Wizards. 3rd: NHL. The NHL has some great names, including great old ones (Boston Bruins, Chicago Blackhawks, Toronto Maple Leafs, Detroit Red Wings) and quite few good new ones (San Jose Sharks, Tampa Bay Lightning, and the tout ensemble Florida Panthers-- we both like when a team place and name is an actual total thing, as in Texas Rangers, Buffalo Bills, Colorado Rockies). The NHL loses to the remaining two leagues, though, for having the Minnesota WILD, which has a great graphic package but a dumb name. Plus "Blue Jackets" is kind of cumbersome and contrived; historically they were called "blue coats" and at the start they got the 'jacket' thing in there I'm sure for that early Civil War bug logo/mascot. 2nd/1st (kind of a tie; we each argued the merits): MLB / NFL. Daughter says MLB, I say NFL. I picked NFL because I can't think of a bad name in the bunch; she said the Browns was a boring name with no imagination; I pointed out the MLB Reds was just a boring. I also pointed out the cumbersome nicknames of the 1998 expansion (Diamondbacks isn't that bad, but Devil Rays was just forced-- the term is "Devil Fish" or "Manta Rays", not "Devil Rays", and now it's just RAYS trying to mean both the aquatic creature AND sunshine, which is pretty lame). We agree that in baseball, the classic baseball names are great (both Soxes, Yankees, Cubs) some of the 'newer" names are perfect and relate to their areas well (Astros, Royals, Mariners). Even the two relocated teams which kept their names work okay-- 'Giants' is generic, and while Dodgers may have originally referred to "trolley dodgers" in Brooklyn, it is almost as appropriate for traffic dodgers in modern L.A. Again, with the NFL, I can't think of a bad name among them. Daughter says Texans is boring (along with the Browns) so they are in second place for her. What say you folks in the Sports Logo Community? It is what it is.
MilSox Posted August 15, 2019 Posted August 15, 2019 Hard to argue these rankings. Had Tampa Bay not botched their name, I think MLB would be the clear winner here. The NFL really phoned it in with their last round of nicknames.... Titans being the only new one from the 90s or 2000s that's somewhat unique. And even that was pirated from the old AFL.
Maroon Posted August 15, 2019 Posted August 15, 2019 I 100% agree with the rankings, because while I actually like European-style names for soccer/football clubs, I agree that the legion of FCs are far too repetitive for a nation that prefers unique monikers. And ya, Real Salt Lake is an egregious misuse of Euro-style naming conventions. I also agree with the reasoning behind the NBA and NHL for why they'd be ranked that way. I'd place MLB ahead of the NFL, but that's likely due to some personal bias rather than an objective determination. But even so, apart from the aforementioned Rays, MLB nicknames are either steeped in history or tradition, or make perfect sense for the club for newer teams. I also actually really love the nicknames for both the Reds and the Browns, and count the history behind those team names as an identity asset, no matter how "boring" some may find them. In regards to the NFL, I'm fine with the nickname for the most recent expansion team (Texans), although I do find "Titans" arbitrary and "Jaguars" rather generic. But both leagues have classic, unique nicknames (such as Yankees, Red Sox, White Sox, Orioles, Reds v Steelers, Dolphins, Raiders, and Packers). StL Cardinals - Indy Colts - Indiana Pacers - Let's Go Blues! - Missouri State Bears - IU Hoosiers - St Louis City SC
neo_prankster Posted August 15, 2019 Posted August 15, 2019 Towards the last couple minutes of this clip, Jerry Colangelo explains his choice of "Suns" for Phoenix's NBA club. Perfect for a warm-weather city, but would the branding still be effective if for some reason they instead went with Arizona Apollos? The Fictional Story of Austus
buzzcut Posted August 15, 2019 Posted August 15, 2019 1. NFL This gap is on purpose... 2. MLB/NHL/NBA/MLS The CCSLC's resident Geelong Cats fan. Viva La Vida or Death And All His Friends. Sounds like something from a Rocky & Bullwinkle story arc.
~Bear Posted August 15, 2019 Posted August 15, 2019 NFL probably has the best. It's the only league without a team with a double-name and doesn't have any really god-awful names. Some names are generic, granted, but a lot of the more generic names have historical reasoning behind them. The worst name in the NFL is probably the Buccaneers because it's so long and wonky, especially with "Tampa Bay" preceding it. The MLB similarly has some generic names with historical significance (naming a team the "Phillies" would not fly today), but it has it's own share of meh names. One that wasn't mentioned in the OP was the Washington Nationals, which I personally dislike because it shares the name of the league they play in. These two are still miles ahead of their counterparts. The NHL also has too many double names and singular names for my liking (Red Wings gets a pass) and the whole idiocy that is the Vegas Golden Knights. I was going to go on a tangent about the Maple Leafs, but apparently they aren't named exactly how I thought. Kudos for grammar I guess. The NBA has the worst names of the Big 4, with a lot of the major reasons pointed out in the OP. One that was not mentioned is arguably the worst modern sports name: the Brooklyn Nets. That's like naming a football team the Endzones or a hockey team the Goals.
B-Rich Posted August 18, 2019 Author Posted August 18, 2019 On 8/15/2019 at 2:30 PM, neo_prankster said: Towards the last couple minutes of this clip, Jerry Colangelo explains his choice of "Suns" for Phoenix's NBA club. Perfect for a warm-weather city, but would the branding still be effective if for some reason they instead went with Arizona Apollos? That's a neat clip... thanks for sharing it! It is what it is.
Section30 Posted August 18, 2019 Posted August 18, 2019 On 8/15/2019 at 3:43 PM, ~Bear said: The NBA has the worst names of the Big 4, with a lot of the major reasons pointed out in the OP. One that was not mentioned is arguably the worst modern sports name: the Brooklyn Nets. That's like naming a football team the Endzones or a hockey team the Goals. I can't believe nobody has mentioned the very epic 90s monstrosity that is the Toronto Raptors Minnesota Amateur Hockey League MAHL Wiki
Denver_The_Sinaloa Posted August 18, 2019 Posted August 18, 2019 4 hours ago, Section30 said: I can't believe nobody has mentioned the very epic 90s monstrosity that is the Toronto Raptors they should have been the Huskies
PrimalCookie Posted August 18, 2019 Posted August 18, 2019 To be honest, the only non-plural name in the NBA that I don’t like is Thunder. Jazz doesn’t fit at all with Utah, of course, but it’s quirky and I like that. Heat makes sense for Miami, and it doesn’t hurt that the logo they came up with is really nice. Finally, while I’m incredibly biased, I think Magic is great. There’s not many things you can name an Orlando team after - you can either have something space related (the Rockets cover that base), orange/citrus related (the only one from that group that sounds good is the Oranges), and Disney. Orlando Magicians doesn’t flow as well as Magic, and Stars is too generic, especially for a team that, alongside the Hornets and Heat, kickstarted the 90s in the NBA.
B-Rich Posted August 19, 2019 Author Posted August 19, 2019 On 8/18/2019 at 9:56 AM, Magic Dynasty said: To be honest, the only non-plural name in the NBA that I don’t like is Thunder. Jazz doesn’t fit at all with Utah, of course, but it’s quirky and I like that. Heat makes sense for Miami, and it doesn’t hurt that the logo they came up with is really nice. Finally, while I’m incredibly biased, I think Magic is great. There’s not many things you can name an Orlando team after - you can either have something space related (the Rockets cover that base), orange/citrus related (the only one from that group that sounds good is the Oranges), and Disney. Orlando Magicians doesn’t flow as well as Magic, and Stars is too generic, especially for a team that, alongside the Hornets and Heat, kickstarted the 90s in the NBA. I'll go with you on the Heat and Magic, and agree on "Thunder", but the UTAH Jazz name being described as simply "quirky" I completely disagree with. It's BAD, a joke of a name. it's also the legacy of an owner (Sam Battistone) being so cheap he couldn't change an obviously mismatched name that sounded utterly ridiculous then and remains utterly ridiculous now, 40 years later. When Larry Miller completed his purchase of the team in 1986, he should have been the one to change the name. It is what it is.
BigRed618 Posted August 19, 2019 Posted August 19, 2019 The thing with MLS is that they want the fans and media to go with unofficial, ubiquitous nicknames, as other clubs of the world do. Having said that, I’m not sure how the league measures up even if you include those... NYCFC: Pigeons DC United: Black and Red Atlanta United: Stripes Orlando City: Lions Toronto FC: Reds FC Cincinnati: Blue and Orange FC Dallas: Hoops or Toros Sporting KC: Wizards Minn U: Loons LAFC: Black and Gold Even then, a lot of these need work, since we're just going by what colors some of them wear.
jc... Posted August 26, 2019 Posted August 26, 2019 On 8/15/2019 at 4:43 PM, ~Bear said: I was going to go on a tangent about the Maple Leafs, but apparently they aren't named exactly how I thought. Kudos for grammar I guess. Do Canadians refer to those big bumps in the road as "Frost Heafs?"
leopard88 Posted August 27, 2019 Posted August 27, 2019 13 hours ago, jc... said: Do Canadians refer to those big bumps in the road as "Frost Heafs?" Maybe they would if the singular wasn't "Frost Heave". Most Liked Content of the Day -- February 15, 2017, August 21, 2017, August 22, 2017 ///// Proud Winner of the CCSLC Post of the Day Award -- April 8, 2008 Originator of the Upside Down Sarcasm Smilie -- November 1, 2005
Dynasty Posted August 27, 2019 Posted August 27, 2019 I know fans would probably be opposed to it (maybe, I don't know), but I'd see no issue in just calling every MLS team "city name SC". It's not called football/futbol in the States so SC is more preferable than FC IMO. It would be unique in North American professional sports. The league doesn't have to be a Euro-wannabe and it also doesn't have to be like the big four. Fans could even use unofficial nicknames for their clubs (Go Reds, Go Loons).
_DietDrPepper_ Posted August 28, 2019 Posted August 28, 2019 13 hours ago, Dolphins Dynasty said: I know fans would probably be opposed to it (maybe, I don't know), but I'd see no issue in just calling every MLS team "city name SC". It's not called football/futbol in the States so SC is more preferable than FC IMO. It would be unique in North American professional sports. The league doesn't have to be a Euro-wannabe and it also doesn't have to be like the big four. Fans could even use unofficial nicknames for their clubs (Go Reds, Go Loons). At least it could be Crew SC, or Timbers SC, to avoid the ugly combination of the American styled names and European styled names, no team should be [city] [nickname] SC. Drop one of them please Follow the NFA, and My Baseball League here: https://ahsports.boardhost.com/index.php
Gothamite Posted August 30, 2019 Posted August 30, 2019 That Maple Leafs article fails to mention that they were named at least in part after the successful baseball club of the same name. Shades of the early NFL, coming into town and borrowing the local name. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.