Worst Current Sports Brands?

[Bruhammydude]

MOD EDIT: We're not going there.  

[sky1324]

2 minutes ago, Bruhammydude said:

But how do you change a brand that's over 100 years old? They had already got of everything outside of the name, it just doesn't make sense to abandon history just to please a small percent of their fan base. I think they did the right thing by changing logos (although the block C is super boring), but it's too late at this point to change history. What's next, the Minnesota Vikings have to change names because Scandinavians don't like it? Both the Redskins and the Indians both take their name from Native American players on their team back in the day, and people were fine with it until around the 21st century. I feel like there's a good compromise to make, to get rid of any Native American imagery, but to keep the name for the die-hard fans. Sorry for ranting, I just feel like there's too much history to just throw away. 

But the name is the problem. By using Native Americans as mascots and caricatures, it demeans actual Native Americans and poorly colors other people's perceptions of them without proper exposure. It's possible to use Native American imagery with respect and care (see: Kachina Coyotes) but using them as mascots isn't ok. The Vikings comparison is a bad one because vikings a) don't really exist anymore and b) aren't a marginalized people that people like the ones in charge of these teams would oppress. Brands can change at any time, and I'd argue that just because is 100 years old doesn't make it subject to modern standards and criticism. At the bare minimum, Washington NFL's nickname is a literal racial slur and should be changed. When the APA has studied this and shown that these team names have lasting, negative consequences, I think it's not unreasonable to expect and demand something better for a people that are so important to this country's history.

[SFGiants58]

MOD EDIT: We're not going there. 

 

[Ridleylash]

14 minutes ago, Bruhammydude said:

But how do you change a brand that's over 100 years old? They had already got of everything outside of the name, it just doesn't make sense to abandon history just to please a small percent of their fan base. I think they did the right thing by changing logos (although the block C is super boring), but it's too late at this point to change history. What's next, the Minnesota Vikings have to change names because Scandinavians don't like it? Both the Redskins and the Indians both take their name from Native American players on their team back in the day, and people were fine with it until around the 21st century. I feel like there's a good compromise to make, to get rid of any Native American imagery, but to keep the name for the die-hard fans. Sorry for ranting, I just feel like there's too much history to just throw away. 

The Cleveland Indians, as a brand, are forever associated with Little Red Sambo. That's just the truth, as evidenced by people bitching when the team dropped him. It's just better for everyone to bite the bullet on a new brand altogether.

 

The Redskins are literally a pejorative slur for Native American peoples. Imagine the outrage if a team today named themselves something akin to that.

5 minutes ago, QCS said:

By using Native Americans as mascots and caricatures, it demeans actual Native Americans and poorly colors other people's perceptions of them without proper exposure. It's possible to use Native American imagery with respect and care (see: Kachina Coyotes) but using them as mascots isn't ok.

I'd say the Blackhawks are also a good example, since despite using the image of a Native warrior, that's literally because the entire team is, itself, named after a specific Native warrior, and they've done well in terms of outreach.

[SFGiants58]

MOD EDIT: We're not going there. 

[sky1324]

MOD EDIT: We're not going there. 

[The_Admiral]

The Ottawa Senators have been a branding disaster for almost twenty years now and it's always been completely avoidable. Years of mismatching logos, misused fonts, ugly sweaters, ascended alternates, a total mess.

 

The Indians can be salvaged with a little effort (and a strict fan code of conduct). I still like the idea of midnight blue and dark red on cream as their own variation on red/white/blue. It'd look appropriately vintage, I think.

[DCarp1231]

MOD EDIT: We're not going there.

[sky1324]

MOD EDIT: We're not going there. 

[DCarp1231]

4 minutes ago, QCS said:

Well, it's the use of icons like the tomahawk, arrowhead, chieftains, and other items often associated with Native Americans. It was a common stereotype of Native Americans (see Disney's Peter Pan for a good example of this) and often refers to Native Americans as "noble warriors" or the like, denying them their place among the "civilized" white folk. It's just another way to demean them while pretending to be respectful.

Makes sense now. I wasn’t quite sure what you meant at first. I understood the “noble savages”, but didn’t connect it.

[sky1324]

Just now, DNAsports said:

Makes sense now. I wasn’t quite sure what you meant at first. I understood the “noble savages”, but didn’t connect it at first.

Yeah, it's not the most obvious thing to spot and is pretty darn common, unfortunately. 

[The_Admiral]

Black Hawk's place in American culture is basically "well we kicked your ass but you sure put up a good fight," which is not only noble-savage-adjacent but the whole idea behind the hockey handshake line, so it all works out rather tidily, in my opinion.

[infrared41]

On 4/11/2020 at 1:51 AM, mattr1198 said:

1. All of Cleveland Sports: I couldn't choose one. Sorry to say Cleveland, in my honest opinion, all your brands are horrible in one way or another.

 

Yeah, we don't really care. 

[infrared41]

Folks, let's walk back the talk about the reasoning behind teams using images of my people (Native American, Indigenous, whatever) in their logos. We've been over every angle of this debate. 

 

I had to edit a whole bunch of stuff. I don't like to have to do that. Keep it to the uniforms, logos, etc. A friendly reminder...

 

4. No Discussion of Native American Team Name Controversies

This topic, like various political topics, often devolves into name calling, straw man construction, and other assorted "tactics" not suitable in intelligent, mutually respectable debate.

 

Thanks. 

 

 

[SFGiants58]

If we want to avoid MOD EDIT stuff, I maintain that the Tampa Bay Lightning have never had a truly good brand. They had the seeds of one in their pre-Edge days, but they screwed it up with awful logos. The logos got better with the Edge rollout, but the templates blew. Then came the Maple Wings and terrible third sweaters.

 

The basis of a good Lightning brand would be to lighten the blue to a powder-like shade and incorporate more black throughout the set. Replacing the logos with something more in-line with the Edge logos would also work. 

[Ridleylash]

2 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

The basis of a good Lightning brand would be to lighten the blue to a powder-like shade and incorporate more black throughout the set. Replacing the logos with something more in-line with the Edge logos would also work. 

I've always been a fan of Tampa going for an electric blue to tie around the team name. Add black and white and make them not just use the Red Wings template and I think that's an identity that could look pretty damn slick.

[infrared41]

6 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

If we want to avoid MOD EDIT stuff

 

Also known as, you know, simply following the rules of the forum. 

 

4. No Discussion of Native American Team Name Controversies

This topic, like various political topics, often devolves into name calling, straw man construction, and other assorted "tactics" not suitable in intelligent, mutually respectable debate.

[BroncoBuff]

Not sure if this is 'Brand" criticism or 'Identity' criticism, but these two:

 

1. L.A. Lakers - The franchise moved to Los Angeles in 1961 from Minnesota - land of 10,000 lakes. L.A. kept the name, the Lakers brand, despite the fact there are NO natural lakes of any note there (Silver Lake is a man-made reservoir). Nothing more than a handful of artificial aqueducts, rivers and reservoirs built to provide fresh water to residents of its desert climate.

 

2. Utah Jazz -  The franchise moved to Salt Lake City in 1979 from New Orleans - the cradle of jazz music. Utah kept the name, the Jazz brand, despite the fact the culture there is the furthest thing from "jazzy." The radio industry has long considered the SLC market as "the place where alternative formats go to die." Tastes have expanded as the years have passed, but in the 70s the market couldn't support more than one country music radio station, much less a Jazz one.

 

 

 

[The_Admiral]

It's just grousing about how NBA teams were too cheap to redesign their uniforms when they moved. Been there, done that.

 

The Jazz do have one of the worst brands in sports, but it's not because they're hanging onto their nickname from New Orleans. They're all over the place in colors and styles, the main color palette is too drab and lacks the purple that had always been there in some form or another. 

[sky1324]

1 hour ago, the admiral said:

It's just grousing about how NBA teams were too cheap to redesign their uniforms when they moved. Been there, done that.

 

The Jazz do have one of the worst brands in sports, but it's not because they're hanging onto their nickname from New Orleans. They're all over the place in colors and styles, the main color palette is too drab and lacks the purple that had always been there in some form or another. 

I believe they can't use purple because the NBA has designated the old logo (and as such, colors) as a legacy logo, locking them away with the exception of throwbacks. This is also why the Hornets couldn't use the classic Hugo even if Jordan wanted to.