PackerFan98 Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 Whoa.Is that an 80s pullover jersey with the "OKLA" graphic?And why do they need a version of the Dodgers' "home run ball" logo if they have their own shield logo?How else are we supposed to know they're affiliated with the Dodgers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uk-owns-iu Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 66ers or Redhawks, nothing else. Especially these parent company knock off designs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPDesign Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 Full style guide: https://localtvkfor.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/okc-dodgers-media-kit.pdfIn a related note: it's safe to say Oklahoma City likes the color blue.Thunder = double blue.66ers rebrand to become to literally be called the Blue.Barons are predominately blue.And now the Redhawks go full-on Dodger Blue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clintau24 Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 It's been a disturbing trend for minor league teams to reflect the parent team more and more recently. I don't like it at all. But as far as logos go, these are really nice. Just wish we had a bit more creativity with these minor league teams. Quote "I believe in Auburn and love it!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 The only time the minor league team should have the same name as the parent team is never.Wrong. it's great for regional teams like the Cubs, Cardinals, and Braves. It doesn't work quite so well for teams on the coasts, for some reason. While farm systems of Cardinals and Braves dotting the heartland sounds right, I can only associate "Dodgers" with Brooklyn, Los Angeles, and Vero Beach. I would never think to associate them with Oklahoma City in any way. Quote ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmac Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 The only time the minor league team should have the same name as the parent team is never.Wrong. it's great for regional teams like the Cubs, Cardinals, and Braves. It doesn't work quite so well for teams on the coasts, for some reason. While farm systems of Cardinals and Braves dotting the heartland sounds right, I can only associate "Dodgers" with Brooklyn, Los Angeles, and Vero Beach. I would never think to associate them with Oklahoma City in any way.It would probably help if the affiliates were located anywhere near the parent clubs on the coasts. There's no need to brand a team in Oklahoma based on a team in Los Angeles, California. It feels very forced. Nothing about Oklahoma City connects with the Los Angeles Dodgers. Don't brand them as such. Quote https://www.behance.net/bmatukewic8043 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DustDevil61 Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 I'm not too high on the logos and set, but I actually don't mind when minor-league teams take their parent clubs' names...as long as they're close to their parent clubs. It gives an opportunity for the minor-league team to take the name in another direction creatively. Of course, the downside is that if and when an affiliate change comes, the team's pretty much bound to another overhaul.This doesn't really work because Okahoma City and Los Angeles are half a continent away from one another and the Red Hawks set didn't need to go. Quote AKA @LanRovr0 on Twitter LED Sig Credits to packerfan21396 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 And it's also not as if the Dodgers have a long, uninterrupted history of referring to all their affiliates as the Dodgers. Hell, I still think they're affiliated with the 51s from time to time. Quote ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burmy Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 1. The fans liked the RedHawks name.2. If the name HAD to be changed, the fans would've liked it to be the 89ers.3. The Dodgers IGNORED their fans and dumped the successful brand and mascot.That's how I see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmac Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 1. The fans liked the RedHawks name.2. If the name HAD to be changed, the fans would've liked it to be the 89ers.3. The Dodgers IGNORED their fans and dumped the successful brand and mascot.That's how I see it.You're not wrong. The weird thing about this is that the fans are now forced to be (LA) Dodger fans. You don't have to be a fan of the big league team to be a fan of the minor league team. I know it's just a business strategy, but I feel like everyone has figured out to go the opposite direction. Quote https://www.behance.net/bmatukewic8043 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cajunaggie08 Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 I believe the Dodgers are now part owners of the Oklahoma City club so it sort of makes sense why they are forcing their branding on the club despite the Dodgers name having almost zero positive effect in OKC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPDesign Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 1. The fans liked the RedHawks name.2. If the name HAD to be changed, the fans would've liked it to be the 89ers.3. The Dodgers IGNORED their fans and dumped the successful brand and mascot.That's how I see it.I agree with 2 & 3. I grew up in OKC, and the whole Redhawks thing was pretty "meh." You never saw many people repping Redhawks gear, especially less so after the Thunder came to town.But I think any town would choose nostalgia over something new. Of course people would want the 89ers back, 1889 has a historical significance to the area. The Dodgers don't.But now the important part: they just announced they will sell Dodger Dogs at the games. So in that aspect alone, the rebrand is a win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFloridianLogoMan Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 As for Daytona, ANY NAME that's not "DAYTONA SPEED" should be fine with me, and given Studio Simon's past work, I don't think we're going to see a name like that. (fingers crossed)You do know that Studio Simon, Brandiose etc do not choose the names right?How embarrassing for me. No I didn't. Now I do Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capeaters Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 Not diggin' the new logo set. Old logos was waaaay better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 The only time the minor league team should have the same name as the parent team is never.Wrong. it's great for regional teams like the Cubs, Cardinals, and Braves. It doesn't work quite so well for teams on the coasts, for some reason. Wrong. So long as we're making bold declarations. "Staten Island Yankees" and "San Jose Giants" work every bit as well as "Iowa Cubs" and "Gwinnett Braves". Quote The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaha32 Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 I'm not liking the interlocking LA forced into OkLAhoma but I do like the OKC lettering in the same style as the Brooklyn Dodger days. The way the KC are arranged made me think Royals for a split second but that thought went away quickly. I always liked the Redhawks logos but I guess they're history now. Quote DesignsByHahn.com Behance Dribbble Instragram Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mojo Maniac Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 Not sure I'll ever get over how horrid the "OKLA" wordmarks are. The rest of the identity, IMO, wouldn't look so bad if it weren't for that contrived shortcoming. Quote From San Berdoo to Kalamazoo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohryan Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 The only time the minor league team should have the same name as the parent team is never.Maybe it's me, but I'd rather watch the Iowa Cubs than the Iowa PorkChopzz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burmy Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 The only time the minor league team should have the same name as the parent team is never.Maybe it's me, but I'd rather watch the Iowa Cubs than the Iowa PorkChopzz.But would you rather have them than the Iowa Oaks (a concept I've seen BEAUTIFULLY done several times)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 Well, do you think the odds are better the Iowa team would choose your beautifully-rendered Oaks or PorkChopzz with eight alternate logos and twelve caps? Quote The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.