Worst Current Sports Brands?

[GhostOfNormMacdonald]

The Angels are up there for me. Since moving to Angel Stadium they've had 4 different geographic identifiers. First they were California, which didn't make sense because California is massive and couldn't possibly support one team when you have multiple other teams in the state. Then they were Anaheim, which made a lot of sense since they play in Anaheim, and won a world series with that name. Then they became the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, which makes no sense at all, is clunky as hell, and can't be put on a uniform. Then they corrected the mistake of serving two cities by cutting the wrong city from the name and becoming just Los Angeles. 

 

Seriously, that brand is a damn mess. They don't even have a city name on any merchandise. They need to either: a) Move to LA or a closer suburb of LA which would make the name make sense, but would ruin them because LA is solidly Dodgers territory or b) rebrand as Anaheim and embrace being Orange County's team.

[Quillz]

6 hours ago, QCS said:

Los Angeles Clippers

Based on what you said about a brand having a connection to the fans, though, the Clippers wouldn't qualify. As awful as they've been for most of their history, they've also always had a distinct following. Either Laker haters liked them, or it was because they used to play in a different arena (and will again in the future) and thus drew from slightly different areas.

[Quillz]

5 hours ago, Maroon&Gold said:

First they were California

I think the logic behind this was when they made the change, they were the only American League team in California. (The A's moved in later). I have no idea if that was their real intent, but it always made a bit of sense to me. Granted, I've stated before I'm not a fan of state-named teams in general with a few exceptions. I think LA Angels was always their best name and I'm glad they went back to it, but they really should promote it more. I think I'd be fine with them focusing more on the team name if they continued to have a region-based locator. (i.e. NEW ENGLAND or even something like SoCal).

[Quillz]

5 hours ago, Maroon&Gold said:

Then they became the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim

This was due to a legal dispute. Moreno wanted to rename the team "LA Angels" right off the bat (no pun intended) but the city of Anaheim sued and that was the clunky compromised reached. The moment he was able to drop the "of Anaheim," he did. Everyone knew it was bad but that's how the law works sometimes.

[SFGiants58]

6 hours ago, QCS said:

 

• Cleveland AL: This team needs to burn it down and start over. They look fine, I guess, but their primary is easily the most boring in sports and they're pretty much "nondescript RWB MLB team #4" right now. New name, new colors, new attitude is all needed in Cleveland right now. (And I don't wanna hear about that cut C or whatever it's called, it gives off a "noble savages" vibe and that's still a problem.)

So who do I think is the worst overall? Cleveland AL. The team simply has no direction. They have nothing unique to them, not a color scheme, not a name, nothing. The best thing this team can do start over. End the "Cleveland Indians" franchise and start anew with a new name and new colors. Don't honor the old team at all, don't even mention them. Act like a brand new team and finally have some semblance of branding peace. 

 

Undoubtedly this. We're also talking about a team that last won a World Series 72 years ago. They don't have the same "lovable losers" marketing, "playing in a little vintage stadium in the third-largest market in the US," and "relatively consistent identity for most of their existence" points that the Cubs had. They're just largely irrelevant and playing in a division that's historically weak.

 

There's nothing that would be lost in rebranding Cleveland AL entirely. Sure, Major League, but it's far from the most historically-significant baseball movie. The Angels in the Outfield remake has more cultural currency among younger fans.

[Quillz]

Bring back the Cleveland Spiders. They may have lost 101 road games but that makes them unforgettable and you could genuinely build a unique identity around the moniker.

[sky1324]

1 hour ago, Quillz said:

Based on what you said about a brand having a connection to the fans, though, the Clippers wouldn't qualify. As awful as they've been for most of their history, they've also always had a distinct following. Either Laker haters liked them, or it was because they used to play in a different arena (and will again in the future) and thus drew from slightly different areas.

I think there's a difference between being a fan of a team and having a distinct connection to the brand. I'd argue most Clippers fans don't have a major connection to this specific logo/jerseys. The older logos had more significance, but they needed to be gotten rid of due to Sterling. They definitely have their following, but they also have a bland and confused identity.

[Quillz]

1 minute ago, QCS said:

I think there's a difference between being a fan of a team and having a distinct connection to the brand. I'd argue most Clippers fans don't have a major connection to this specific logo/jerseys. The older logos had more significance, but they needed to be gotten rid of due to Sterling. They definitely have their following, but they also have a bland and confused identity.

I was talking more about the Clippers as a whole, their brand, not necessarily their current look. I actually don't dislike their current look all that much, but it didn't do much in terms of gaining or losing fans. I dunno exactly what made the Clippers appealing other than they weren't the Lakers, but it was most certainly distinct enough that the Lakers-Clippers rivalry has always been meaningful.

[sky1324]

8 minutes ago, Quillz said:

I was talking more about the Clippers as a whole, their brand, not necessarily their current look. I actually don't dislike their current look all that much, but it didn't do much in terms of gaining or losing fans. I dunno exactly what made the Clippers appealing other than they weren't the Lakers, but it was most certainly distinct enough that the Lakers-Clippers rivalry has always been meaningful.

For sure. I think they'd make more meaningful connections if they had a solid brand. The SD colors of baby blue and orange are unique to them and I think they'd be more noticeable as a team to adopt instead of just being the LA "not the Lakers". It'll help being in a different arena, but a unique color scheme and branding would do wonders for them in my opinion. It's tough to forge a brand around being "the other LA team" and not around your own name and culture.

[Morgan33]

10 hours ago, QCS said:

Vancouver Canucks: They look good now, but they can't pick an identity to save their lives...  but I think the team just needs to pick one and don't stray from it.

 

I keep hearing over and over again how the Canucks need to "just pick an identity and stick with it" when that's exactly what they've done for the past 13 years...

[mattr1198]

40 minutes ago, Morgo said:

 

I keep hearing over and over again how the Canucks need to "just pick an identity and stick with it" when that's exactly what they've done for the past 13 years...

Nevertheless its still really weird to see the Canucks be the only team where their primary logo doesn't feature any colors on the jersey set (outside of white of course). That has to be the only case of that in all 4 sports.

[sky1324]

8 hours ago, Morgo said:

 

I keep hearing over and over again how the Canucks need to "just pick an identity and stick with it" when that's exactly what they've done for the past 13 years...

Well, here's what I see: yes, they've used the Orca for 13 years, but they also have the Johnny Canuck logos and the Stick-in-rink and the Flying Skate throwbacks (even if it was just for one season), but fans argue over which should be the primary full-time, meaning the Canucks have issues with branding. There needs to be a full-time commitment to one, in my opinion, which would mean getting rid of the others outside of throwback use. That's just my opinion, of course, but right now they're trying to have it all three ways but that doesn't work well enough.

[Rj0498]

1. Toronto Raptors. You had a team with a unique color scheme, (purple/red/black) cool looking modern uniforms and a fun logo but, you change all of that for a color scheme that a vast majority of the league wears (red/black), boring uniforms and a logo that while admittedly decent, is inferior to their previous one.

 

2. Atlanta Hawks. When I first saw little snippets of their logo, I liked what I was seeing. People have been clamoring for their "pac-man" logo  for so long. The logo still looks fantastic it is just everything else that is terrible. Crappy uniforms that even an ACC team would laugh at and an ugly color scheme that really wants to appeal to kids and teenagers a la Seahawks/Thunder.

 

3. Tampa Bay Rays. They have a great color scheme (I am a sucker for double blue sports uniforms) but, their identity is incredibly bland. They had a really cool name ( Devil Rays) and a dope logo but, they had ugly uniforms so to compensate for that they give us the world's most boring baseball uniforms and a logo that is just as boring.

[Morgan33]

5 hours ago, QCS said:

Well, here's what I see: yes, they've used the Orca for 13 years, but they also have the Johnny Canuck logos and the Stick-in-rink and the Flying Skate throwbacks (even if it was just for one season), but fans argue over which should be the primary full-time, meaning the Canucks have issues with branding. There needs to be a full-time commitment to one, in my opinion, which would mean getting rid of the others outside of throwback use. That's just my opinion, of course, but right now they're trying to have it all three ways but that doesn't work well enough.

 

The Canucks will always have branding issues and most of them go back to inexplicable decision to replace their blue, white & green scheme back in the 70's.

Still, I think they've rectified the situation as best as possible.  They restored their original scheme & the last striping configuration associated with it, decided the Orca was a stronger primary mark than the stick and rink and have kept things completely consistent since.  A Canucks identity is never going to be universally accepted, they've simply had too many, but picking something in 2007 and sticking with it since was the very best thing they could do.

[sky1324]

16 minutes ago, Morgo said:

 

The Canucks will always have branding issues and most of them go back to inexplicable decision to replace their blue, white & green scheme back in the 70's.

Still, I think they've rectified the situation as best as possible.  They restored their original scheme & the last striping configuration associated with it, decided the Orca was a stronger primary mark than the stick and rink and have kept things completely consistent since.  A Canucks identity is never going to be universally accepted, they've simply had too many, but picking something in 2007 and sticking with it since was the very best thing they could do.

I agree, the Orca is the best identity they have. Despite that, they've had somewhat of an identity crisis multiple times before, so I felt it was worth mentioning.

[disman00911]

Agree with most of the teams listed.  Disagree with a few others though.

 

MLB

Cleveland Indians – Where to begin? Boring uniforms (especially the road grays and navy alt).  Even more boring primary logo (it’s a letter C!) Well, other teams have a letter as their primary you say. For example, the Tigers have an Ol English D as their primary logo.  Difference is that logo has been associated with the Tigers for DECADES and has become iconic.  You would think a simple, traditional look would work for a franchise that’s been around for over a 100 years yet it doesn’t.  Also, the other red/navy blue teams (Red Sox, Braves, Cardinals, etc) look better than they do.  

 

MOD EDIT: We're not going there. 

 

Texas Rangers – Maybe too soon as they haven’t taken the field in them due to the Coronavirus crisis halting many sports right now.  But the new threads are a big downgrade from what they had before.  The Rangers still can’t seem to figure out if they are red-first team or a blue-first team.  (I prefer them in royal blue then red).  Also why are they still using that 92-04 Expos-like primary logo since they overhauled their uniforms?  The Rangers also jumped on the powder blue bandwagon and are wearing them at home?!  Powder blue only works for certain teams (i.e. the Royals and Blue Jays). 

 

Tampa Bay Rays – The uniform template isn’t bad but why couldn’t they keep green as a primary color.  There are too many navy blue teams in baseball as it is.  The 2000s Rays uniforms was an underrated look.

 

LA Angels of Anaheim, Orange County, California, USA – Ok, I over exaggerated there.  More so on their name than their logos and uniforms (don’t like the red script on red jersey though).  If the Ducks can embrace their city, so should the Angels.  I was finally getting used to them as the ANAHEIM ANGELS as I’m old enough to remember them as the CALIFORNIA Angels.  Call yourselves the LOS ANGELES Angels when you actually build a new stadium in LOS ANGELES.

 

Cincinnati Reds - Time for an upgrade.  Drop the black-billed cap and the black drop shadow on the uniforms.

 

Minnesota Twins – The home jerseys are a downgrade from what they had before (they had it right the first time when Target Field first opened).  Also, gold doesn’t work for them, despite attempting to differ from the other navy/red teams.

 

Arizona Diamondbacks – Either you are a black/Sedona Red/sand team or a black/Sedona Red/turquoise team.  Choose one.  Nice for them to dump the dark black road uniforms though.

 

Miami Marlins - still not perfect, but a major improvement over that black/orange mess with the Maroon 5-inspired logo.  Bring back the teal!

 

NFL

Tennessee Titans - What a mess! From the font to being yet another navy-blue helmet team.  The old Titans look, while not perfect, was acceptable.

 

Arizona Cardinals - Logo is great, but the uniforms (especially the road whites with the red yoke) are a piping mess.  Also, gray facemasks don’t work with modernized uniforms (unless gray or silver is an actual team color).

 

Cincinnati Bengals – Still wearing the 2004 uniforms, I see.  From the unnecessary white panels to the heavy orange drop-shadow.  The helmets are still great, though.  Also the Tiger-striped “B” logo is a downgrade from the excellent Bengal head logo.

 

Atlanta Falcons – Too early with their recent rebrand but would had still put them here if they kept the 2003-2019 uniforms.  Red-Black Gradient uniforms.  Monochromes (plus the all-white look has white socks).  Large “ATL” font.  Did the Falcons not learn from the Browns?

 

LA Rams – They may be off this list depending on how their new uniforms look.  In this team’s defense, the mismatch road uniforms (with the St. Louis-era colors) is due to the NFL’s limits on when a team can change its uniforms.

 

Jacksonville Jaguars – An overall improvement on what they had before but too simplistic.  The 1995-2008 uniforms could have been a modern classic has they kept them.

 

NBA

I could just put the entire league here with all the “association” jerseys, “statement” jerseys and so on that don’t match the regular jersey looks (excluding throwbacks).

 

LA Clippers - Ugly logo, BFBS jersey.  Now I’m starting to miss the Lakers-ripoff logo (not Donald Sterling though).  Make powder blue/brunt orange the new color scheme.  What could have been.

 

Oklahoma City Thunder - Generic colors/uniforms and they STILL have that ugly logo!  I miss the Seattle Supersonics.

 

Atlanta Hawks – The only thing that looks good in volt are tennis balls.  Plus, the primary logo lacks the team’s other colors (volt, dark gray).  You’d think they were a red/white team instead of a dark gray/volt/red team.

 

Houston Rockets - Wish this team would go back to their classic colors (red/yellow (gold)) There are already 3 other teams in red/black.

 

Toronto Raptors – They may be a winning team these days, but what makes them stand out from the other red/black teams in the NBA?  Also, what’s up with the gold?  Bring back purple!

 

Cleveland Cavaliers – Logo is okay but the uniforms are bland and too many colors (black AND navy blue as a tertiary color?)

 

Denver Nuggets – drab color scheme.  Was finally getting used to them with powder blue/yellow/navy.

 

NHL

Tampa Bay Lighting – When simplicity goes wrong.  Maple Leafs colors in a Red Wings template.

 

Ottawa Senators – agree with what’s already been said.  They should add gold as a 3^rd color, use black as the primary color (to differ from the other red/black teams), and make this the primary.

 

Anaheim Ducks – Is it possible for them to drop black (besides the Kings already have it) and combine orange (as a 3^rd color) with the Disney-era colors (jade & eggplant)?

 

Calgary Flames – only use black as a 3^rd color.  Change the color of shorts from black to red.

 

Soccer – I don’t follow the MLS too much but the recent Chicago Fire rebrand is such a downgrade.

 

Rescued from the “Worst Brands”

If this post was asked a year ago, the following teams would had made the list:

San Diego Padres (brought back the brown and no longer a boring navy blue team)

Milwaukee Brewers (no longer a mish-mash between old and current.  Plus, the MB Glove logo is fully back)

Tampa Bay Buccaneers (they look like a pro football team again!)

Cleveland Browns (They look like the Browns again!  Hooray!)

[SFGiants58]

MOD EDIT: We're not going there. 

 

 

 

 

 

[sky1324]

7 hours ago, disman00911 said:

Agree with most of the teams listed.  Disagree with a few others though.

 

MLB

Cleveland Indians – Where to begin? Boring uniforms (especially the road grays and navy alt).  Even more boring primary logo (it’s a letter C!) Well, other teams have a letter as their primary you say. For example, the Tigers have an Ol English D as their primary logo.  Difference is that logo has been associated with the Tigers for DECADES and has become iconic.  You would think a simple, traditional look would work for a franchise that’s been around for over a 100 years yet it doesn’t.  Also, the other red/navy blue teams (Red Sox, Braves, Cardinals, etc) look better than they do.  The Indians missed a golden opportunity for a complete overhaul 

 

MOD EDIT: Adjusted quote to match edited original post. 

 

That's how teams get to this point: multiple eras with different colors but the same name. With a new name, the franchise has clear, different eras that helps to separate it from the older name. For example, when the Bullets changed to the Wizards, they switched color schemes. Despite my opinion that they shouldn't have changed the name, they wisely separated from the Bullets by going to a blue/copper color scheme, making sure fans knew the Bullets and Wizards eras of the team are separate. (They later threw a wrench in this by switching back to RWB, but it was long enough after the change to make it somewhat acceptable.) I think that if Cleveland AL were to change everything (which is what they should do), a name change should be first on the list, even if it's to avoid brand confusion.

[Ridleylash]

MOD EDIT: We're not going there. 

[sky1324]

MOD EDIT: We're not going there.