Minor/Independent/Collegiate League Baseball Logo/Uniform Changes

[8BW14]

I like the name and the overall feel/look of the logo, especially the wordmark, but the fish looks more like a guppy than a tarpon to me.

[Norva]

As someone who grew up in Tampa I love the name change. The Tarpons name is great and has a lot of history in the city and league. I'm excited

[TBGKon]

I never thought i'd see the day that the Tampa Yankees would change their name.  

 

I like it, and it helps the name has history in the area but went dormant for 30 years.

[TBGKon]

54 minutes ago, 8BW14 said:

I like the name and the overall feel/look of the logo, especially the wordmark, but the fish looks more like a guppy than a tarpon to me.

 

Id say they did a good job in logo form.

[PhysicalGraffiti]

5 minutes ago, AstroBull21 said:

I never thought i'd see the day that the Tampa Yankees would change their name.  

 

I like it, and it helps the name has history in the area but went dormant for 30 years.

 

I was really surprised to see this. I knew they wanted to make changes in their minor league system as they did with Scranton, but I never thought they'd do it with Tampa. Kind of sad.

[8BW14]

3 minutes ago, AstroBull21 said:

 

Id say they did a good job in logo form.

I don't know, maybe it's the pose of the fish, but it feels small and dopey. Tarpon are known for being big, fast and aggressive and I don't get that feel from the logo. I know its minor league and kitschy and I'm not one of those people who thinks all logos need to be snarling and serious, but something more along the lines of the look and feel of the Pensacola blue wahoos would be more befitting of a team named the Tarpons, IMO.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

This never would have happened if Steinbrenner were alive.

I know that many people will applaud this change; but I don't like it.  I prefer the direction that the D-League is taking, with most of their teams sharing the nicknames of the parent club. I also don't mind a minor-league nickname that is different, but is clearly derived from the parent club's, such as the Memphis Redbirds and the Greensboro Swarm; either way, the identity of the minor league team is linked to the parent club.

In most cases, the only identity that a minor-league club needs is that of the parent club.  The exceptions are few and far between: Durham Bulls, Indianapolis Indians, Rochester Red Wings, Syracuse Chiefs, and maybe a handful more.  But those are long-established names.  For a team to make a change today from the parent club's name to a new name feels wrong.  To the Tampa Tarpons and the Gwinnett Stripers I say "bah!"; and regarding really bad ones such as the Binghamton Rumble Ponies (formerly Mets) and the Omaha Storm Chasers (formerly Royals), I go further and let out a hearty cry of "feh!"
 

 

[Brian in Boston]

15 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

I prefer the direction that the D-League is taking, with most of their teams sharing the nicknames of the parent club.

 

Except that most NBA G-League teams don't, in fact, share the nicknames of their parent NBA clubs. The majority of NBA G-League franchises - 15 of the circuit's 26 teams... 16 of 27, counting next year's Capital City Go-Go - have unique monikers.   

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

26 minutes ago, Brian in Boston said:

58 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

I prefer the direction that the D-League is taking, with most of their teams sharing the nicknames of the parent club.

 

Except that most NBA G-League teams don't, in fact, share the nicknames of their parent NBA clubs. The majority of NBA G-League franchises - 15 of the circuit's 26 teams... 16 of 27, counting next year's Capital City Go-Go - have unique monikers.

 

You are correct; I was mistaken in asserting that most D-League teams share the parent club's nickname.

However, I mentioned in my previous message that the desireable thing is that the minor league team's identity be based on that of the parent club.  So those teams D-League with the same nicknames, combined with those teams with derivative nicknames, do indeed constitute a majority of the league (17 out of 26, or 17 out of 27 when the Go-Go begin).

 

If the Tampa Yankees had become the Tampa Pinstripes or the Tampa Bambinos (Bambini?), that would've been fine, as that would not break the link in the team's identification with its parent club.

(This is why I liked when the Yankees' top farm club was the Columbus Clippers.  This team was not founded with the Yankee Clipper in mind, as it was affilliated with the Pirates at its founding.  But its name took on a strong association with the Yankees, and probably should have been dropped when the team's affilliation changed.)

[Brian in Boston]

With the exception of those teams operating in the complex-based development leagues in Florida, Arizona and the Dominican Republic, the vast majority of minor league baseball teams are not owned by their parent-clubs. Rather, they're independently - sometimes, locally - owned. As a result, the potential for affiliation changes is all too real. Under your preference, a minor league franchise's identity would be replaced, on a whim, whenever its parent-franchise changed. 

In my opinion, it is far better when minor league affiliates adopt branding that is tied to local culture and history. Not only are such brands more likely to resonate with local fans, but they need not be changed in the event that a new parent-franchise comes to town. 

[Waffles]

2 hours ago, Brian in Boston said:

In my opinion, it is far better when minor league affiliates adopt branding that is tied to local culture and history. Not only are such brands more likely to resonate with local fans, but they need not be changed in the event that a new parent-franchise comes to town. 

 

Agreed - it also makes it easier local fans who might be put off by the parent club (particularly in the case of a polarizing team like the Yankees) to buy in to their hometown team.

 

A Tampa resident who wants a local minor league team to pull for, but isn't fond of the Yankees, might have trouble getting on board with a team that looks like this:

[tron1013]

I thought for sure that the Gwinnett Stripers name change created the most significant potential for embarrassing on-air reporting mishaps in all of MiLB. Thank you, Tampa Tarpons, for proving me wrong. 

[WSU151]

2 hours ago, Waffles said:

 

Agreed - it also makes it easier local fans who might be put off by the parent club (particularly in the case of a polarizing team like the Yankees) to buy in to their hometown team.

 

A Tampa resident who wants a local minor league team to pull for, but isn't fond of the Yankees, might have trouble getting on board with a team that looks like this:

 

To be fair, though, there are like 4 FSL teams in the Tampa region.

[JaMikePA]

I like the Tampa Tarpons brand, but it's awfully close to that of the Tampa Bay Rays. I guess it doesn't help the Rays chose to mimic the Yankees, as the Yankees have a greater following there. 

[panthers_2012]

The Lake Erie Crushers, a while back,  released their 10 year anniversary logos. It looks like it's gong to be used mostly on social media and marketing material. I like how they did incorporate the red from the past logo set. 

[RichO]

21 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

You are correct; I was mistaken in asserting that most D-League teams share the parent club's nickname.

However, I mentioned in my previous message that the desireable thing is that the minor league team's identity be based on that of the parent club.  So those teams D-League with the same nicknames, combined with those teams with derivative nicknames, do indeed constitute a majority of the league (17 out of 26, or 17 out of 27 when the Go-Go begin).

 

If the Tampa Yankees had become the Tampa Pinstripes or the Tampa Bambinos (Bambini?), that would've been fine, as that would not break the link in the team's identification with its parent club.

(This is why I liked when the Yankees' top farm club was the Columbus Clippers.  This team was not founded with the Yankee Clipper in mind, as it was affilliated with the Pirates at its founding.  But its name took on a strong association with the Yankees, and probably should have been dropped when the team's affilliation changed.)

 

Why is that desirable at all? I guess from a top-down perspective it makes it easy to identify, but you only really need to pay attention to where your favorite team has affiliates. It's not like being able to glance at minor league standings and know whose team is what tells you anything remotely useful about other teams' player development. Meanwhile for minor league owners it has to help to have a little local identification for the team, and sell a little merch along the way while affiliation agreements are on 2 year cycles (though everyone involved prefers stability there).

 

 I can't figure out how there is any actual benefit for anyone to this thing you think is optimal and just results in a very sterile baseball world.

[Gothamite]

On 12/11/2017 at 10:22 AM, Waffles said:

The Tampa Yankees are now the Tampa Tarpons:

 

A great step toward making the Yankees farm system more interesting, identity-wise.

 

That's a great wordmark.  The name is perfect, with three decades of history in the city.

 

I don't love the logo, but the subtle pinstripes are a great touch.  Wonder what the cap logo will be like - an isolated T from the wordmark?

[UnclearInitial]

I actually think the Tarpons did it perfectly. Unique name, but a brand clearly derived from the parent with  navy pinstripes.

[Big Yellow Flag]

Minor league teams should always be different when possible.

 

Reason 1. In twenty years, a team can have four or five different affiliates. Fans aren't going to buy a new jersey and a cap every single time, especially when those jerseys and caps are just carbon copies of the big league clubs, maybe with some letter changes.

 

Reason 2. If, say, a Giants fan has to move to Nashville for work. Will he stop being a Giants fan? Not in today's world of MLB.tv. Will he become a "Nashville A's" fan on top of that? Not any more than I'd root for the "Sacramento Giants." But he can go to Sounds games just like A's fans can still scoot over to Sacramento and watch the River Cats.

 

Reason 3. Minor league teams, especially but not exclusively those that are locally/privately owned, rely on public engagement on the local level and on merchandise sales cross-country. For the first, you "need" a brand that connects with the locals over a brand that changes regularly based on which big club you're affiliated with. For the second, well, of the top twenty five teams in terms of licensed sales, only three shared the name (OKC, Iowa, and South Bend). The money's just not there if you're not unique.

 

EDIT to add more evidence, courtesy of Forbes. Of the thirty most valuable teams in 2016, which includes ticket sales, merchandise, et al, it's once again only three teams that share the name making the list. Oklahoma City, Iowa, and Pawtucket (plus the Reading Fightin' Phils, but they're only sort of sharing). It doesn't make sense to share, financially.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

 

3 hours ago, Big Yellow Flag said:

Minor league teams should always be different when possible.

 

Reason 1. In twenty years, a team can have four or five different affiliates. Fans aren't going to buy a new jersey and a cap every single time, especially when those jerseys and caps are just carbon copies of the big league clubs, maybe with some letter changes.

But "some letter changes" is pretty significant when the logo itself is just a letter.  I can understand not wanting to have the exact same logo as the the parent club; the ideal case is when the logo is a different letter from the parent club's logo but is identifiably based on it.

The classic Pawtucket hat with just the P is a perfect example of this, as is the cap of the San Jose Giants.  Another good one is from the Jacksonville Expos, in which the logo is a combination of E and J in the style of the Expos' E and M; and the Bend Rockies / Portland Rockies, whose BR / PR logos were in the style of the parent club's CR logo.

 

 

     

 

 

But even if a team has a separate nickname, its visual identity can still be tied to its parent club.  Here are some excellent examples of that:

 

    

 

 

There is no doubt what organisations those teams belong to.

 

And when a team's affilliation changes, so should its uniform style.  When the Buffalo Bisons were affilliated with the White Sox, their uniforms looked like the White Sox.  When they were affilliated with the Indians, their uniforms looked like the Indians.

      

 

 

Now that they are affilliated with the Blue Jays, they have done specialty days in which they wore Jays-themed uniforms, which should be their regular look.

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Big Yellow Flag said:

Reason 2. If, say, a Giants fan has to move to Nashville for work. Will he stop being a Giants fan? Not in today's world of MLB.tv. Will he become a "Nashville A's" fan on top of that? Not any more than I'd root for the "Sacramento Giants." But he can go to Sounds games just like A's fans can still scoot over to Sacramento and watch the River Cats.

 

I think that it's highly doubtful that someone could become a fan of a minor league team without being fully aware of that team's affiliation.  Teams tout the whole "see tomorrow's stars today" thing, often calling attention to any of its former players who made the big leagues.  Anyone rooting for the Nashville Sounds is rooting for the A's prospects and hence for the A's; and I strongly suspect that every fan knows this.

 

 

 

4 hours ago, RichO said:

Why is that [a minor league team having an identity that is tied to that of the parent club] desirable at all? I guess from a top-down perspective it makes it easy to identify, but you only really need to pay attention to where your favorite team has affiliates. It's not like being able to glance at minor league standings and know whose team is what tells you anything remotely useful about other teams' player development. Meanwhile for minor league owners it has to help to have a little local identification for the team, and sell a little merch along the way while affiliation agreements are on 2 year cycles (though everyone involved prefers stability there).

 

 I can't figure out how there is any actual benefit for anyone to this thing you think is optimal and just results in a very sterile baseball world.

 

3 hours ago, Big Yellow Flag said:

Reason 3. Minor league teams, especially but not exclusively those that are locally/privately owned, rely on public engagement on the local level and on merchandise sales cross-country. For the first, you "need" a brand that connects with the locals over a brand that changes regularly based on which big club you're affiliated with. For the second, well, of the top twenty five teams in terms of licensed sales, only three shared the name (OKC, Iowa, and South Bend). The money's just not there if you're not unique.

 

EDIT to add more evidence, courtesy of Forbes. Of the thirty most valuable teams in 2016, which includes ticket sales, merchandise, et al, it's once again only three teams that share the name making the list. Oklahoma City, Iowa, and Pawtucket (plus the Reading Fightin' Phils, but they're only sort of sharing). It doesn't make sense to share, financially.

 

It's just a matter of presenting a product honestly.  Something should "do what it says on the tin", as the English say.  An affilliated minor league team is there for one purpose: to identify prospects and to prepare them for the use of the Major League club, either as players or as assets in trades.  While I get that there is some potential money to be made by obscuring this fact, that is hardly a thing to be embraced or celebrated.  Luring customers on false pretenses is not a legitimate business model.  

 

If "the money's not there if you're not unique", then perhaps Major League clubs should end the practice of offloading the responsibilities of running minor league teams to local "owners", and should begin owning and subsidising these teams themselves.

And, from the standpoint of aesthetics, it is clear that tying a minor league team's identity to its Major League parent club in no way limits the creativity that can go into the team's logo and uniforms.  One cannot look at the pictures above and seriously assert that a landscape with uniforms and caps such as those is "sterile".

 

While it's true that the trend in baseball is going away from the idea described here, I am pleased to see that the trend in basketball is towards this direction.