North American Pro Leagues with best/worst team nicknames

[B-Rich]

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?

[clonewars2008]

Solid list but missing the CFL.

[MilSox]

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]

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).

[neo_prankster]

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?

 

[buzzcut]

1. NFL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This gap is on purpose...

 

 

2. MLB/NHL/NBA/MLS

[~Bear]

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]

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!

[Section30]

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

[Denver_The_Sinaloa]

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]

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]

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. 

 

[BigRed618]

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...]

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]

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".

 

[Dynasty]

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_]

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

[Gothamite]

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.