Jump to content

Edmonton CFL team rebrands as "Elks"


Sec19Row53
 Share

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, QCS said:

"87ers" is five syllables. That's a lot of syllables to say, in my opinion, especially when "Delaware" is only three. In my opinion, the closer you can get to two syllables (or one), the better and less clunky the name is. Bonus if the city name is two syllables as well.

Philadelphia Seventy-Sixers (10)

Inland Empire Sixty-Sixers (9)

San Francisco Forty-Niners (8)

Delaware Eighty-Seveners (8)

 

I think Washington Thirty-Twos (6), which is an even split between city (3) and name (3), would bode well amongst syllable aficionados. Especially if you can just shorten it by 1 syllable to DC Thirty-Twos (5) or go further and shorten it by 2 by calling them the DC ‘Twos (3).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, DNAsports said:

Philadelphia Seventy-Sixers (10)

Inland Empire Sixty-Sixers (9)

San Francisco Forty-Niners (8)

Delaware Eighty-Seveners (8)

 

I think Washington Thirty-Twos (6), which is an even split between city (3) and name (3), would bode well amongst syllable aficionados. Especially if you can just shorten it by 1 syllable to DC Thirty-Twos (5) or go further and shorten it by 2 by calling them the DC ‘Twos (3).

Yeah all four of those are bad. I give 49ers a slight pass because a "49er" was a thing, but it's not great. 32s is just a weird name. It's not like there are 32 players on a football team, it's 32 because there are 32 NFL teams? I'm honestly not sure. As a grandfathered-in nickname, it's fine. As a modern rebrand? Terrible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32s? Doesn't exactly roll off the tongue and doesn't mean anything to anyone. Nobody cares about the Boston football Braves, and their choice of ripping off the baseball Braves with a word people probably shouldn't say is why we're in this mess (that and the cops murdered a black guy). It's gonna be Red something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, QCS said:

Yeah all four of those are bad. I give 49ers a slight pass because a "49er" was a thing, but it's not great. 32s is just a weird name. It's not like there are 32 players on a football team, it's 32 because there are 32 NFL teams? I'm honestly not sure. As a grandfathered-in nickname, it's fine. As a modern rebrand? Terrible.

As pointed out to @spartacat_12 earlier who had a very similar response, it references the year the team was founded, 1932. It’s a good way to represent the history of the franchise, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, DNAsports said:

As pointed out to @spartacat_12 earlier who had a very similar response, it references the year the team was founded, 1932. It’s a good way to represent the history of the franchise, IMO.

Meh, doesn't make that connection instantly. They can keep the "Founded 1932" in their logo set, that's a fine enough nod to their history. Let's try and get a more marketable name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, QCS said:

Meh, doesn't make that connection instantly. They can keep the "Founded 1932" in their logo set, that's a fine enough nod to their history. Let's try and get a more marketable name.

Unfortunately as @the admiral pointed out, it’s likely coming from a name starting with “Red-“ which itself is just a cop out that Dan Snyder would 120% use to his advantage 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It's probably going to be the Washington Warriors. 

 

It was an option along with many other names in a list of names sent to Washington Football Team season ticket holders.  He'll probably keep the logo that the Football Team has now, wait 5 years and then bring back the old logo as a giant middle finger to everyone who forced him to change the team's name in the first place. I don't think he bought out his co-owners just to sell it to Bezos, after all. 

Edited by Red Comet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Red Comet said:

It's probably going to be the Washington Warriors. 

 

It was an option along with many other names in a list of names sent to Washington Football Team season ticket holders.  He'll probably keep the logo that the Football Team has now, wait 5 years and then bring back the old logo as a giant middle finger to everyone who forced him to change the team's name in the first place. I don't think he bought out his co-owners just to sell it to Bezos, after all. 

The funny part about that is how they only wanted it to be a temporary logo, yet it’s being well received amongst the fans. At least the ones who welcome the change.

 

I kinda hope they put it at midfield this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one of the things I like best about this logo is that they didn't feel the need to match the angle of the helmet antlers to the antlers on the logo.   Not everything can or should be matchy-matchy.

 

The Rams can learn something from the Elks. 

 

fbo-cfl-edmonton-name-20210601.jpgEFT_Social_1920x1080_4.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stylistically, I really like the Elks logo and I LOVE the name. It was a no-brainer and I’m glad they didn’t screw that up. I do take issue with the antler, however. They look more like a reindeer’s antler than an elk’s antler. Elk have a distinctive “whale tail” at the top like this:

spacer.png

 

I took the liberty making a quick and dirty edit to the logo, which makes the antler more elk-like:

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, 8BW14 said:

Stylistically, I really like the Elks logo and I LOVE the name. It was a no-brainer and I’m glad they didn’t screw that up. I do take issue with the antler, however. They look more like a reindeer’s antler than an elk’s antler. Elk have a distinctive “whale tail” at the top like this:

spacer.png

 

I took the liberty making a quick and dirty edit to the logo, which makes the antler more elk-like:

spacer.png

I agree with you but can't help but think that the subtle 'E' in the points is why they may have gone the minimalist route.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the nickname but the main logo isn't all that impressive. At first glance, I thought it was for a hunting outfitters store.

In comparing this logo to the rest of the team logos in the CFL, it is towards the top near Toronto and Hamilton. However, it doesn't help matters that the CFL is a league filled with mediocre to bad logos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, DNAsports said:

Especially if you can just shorten it by 1 syllable to DC Thirty-Twos (5) or go further and shorten it by 2 by calling them the DC ‘Twos (3).

Nicknames of nicknames suck.

 

I like what the Elks have done and can't wait to see the uniforms. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said:

Nicknames of nicknames suck.

 

I like what the Elks have done and can't wait to see the uniforms. 

Just so we’re clear... you don’t like “The Pack”, correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, DNAsports said:

Just so we’re clear... you don’t like “The Pack”, correct?

Not when referring to the team name, as in Green Bay Packers -- never Green Bay Pack. This is unlike the example you used above, the DC 'Twos. See also Arizona D'backs or New York G-men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.