Minor/Independent/Collegiate League Baseball Logo/Uniform Changes

[BeerGuyJordan]

2 hours ago, hettinger_rl said:

 

Overall this is an upgrade. But that bull doesn't look right. Seems like it has a pacifier in its mouth.

I think it looks more like it has two noses, but still an upgrade.

[mjd77]

Certainly not one of the better bull logos I've seen.

[JaMikePA]

Check out the new uniforms for the Binghamton Rumble Ponies:

 

https://www.facebook.com/pg/RumblePoniesBB/photos/?tab=album&album_id=1290203407726843

[DustDevil61]

34 minutes ago, JaMikePA said:

Check out the new uniforms for the Binghamton Rumble Ponies:

 

https://www.facebook.com/pg/RumblePoniesBB/photos/?tab=album&album_id=1290203407726843

 

I didn't know the Rumble Ponies split games between Binghampton and New York.

Edited December 14, 2016 by DustDevil61
Better

[Burmy]

Staten Island's team will remain the Yankees for 2017:
http://www.milb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20161219&content_id=211867892&fext=.jsp&vkey=news_t586&sid=t586

[schlim]

An interview with Brandiose about weird names for minor league teams.

[The_Admiral]

For Jacksonville Jumbo Shrimp general manager Harold Craw,

Pan-crustacean solidarity going on here.

[SJAnfield]

The Pecos League have filled the void left by the Cal League detracting by adding Bakersfield and High Desert to their lineup, and now appear to be poised to add Monterey to their league as well. The Monterey Amberjacks seem to have the best branding in the league. 

 

http://www.montereyamberjacks.com/monterey.asp?page=2

[BeerGuyJordan]

2 hours ago, SJAnfield said:

The Pecos League have filled the void left by the Cal League detracting by adding Bakersfield and High Desert to their lineup, and now appear to be poised to add Monterey to their league as well. The Monterey Amberjacks seem to have the best branding in the league. 

 

http://www.montereyamberjacks.com/monterey.asp?page=2

Wow, way better than the Tucson Saguaros, at least.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

I have spent the past few days listening to and watching broadcasts of baseball games from the 1930s through to the 1980s.  While I was looking around on YouTube, I came across this, a telecast of an International League game between Syracuse and Columbus from 1992.

 

 

Beautiful!   This is exactly what a minor-league baseball game should look like -- anyone can see at a glance that it's a Blue Jays affiliate against a Yankees affiliate.  (The block numbers on the Columbus uniforms don't look as good as varsity numbers would.  But the uniform as a whole clearly succeeds in conveying the look of the Yankees.)

 

And this broadcast further demonstrates that the Syracuse Chiefs of that period were the best-dressed minor-league team of all time.  A couple of years later, upon the switch to button-downs and belts, they would achieve perfection.

 

  

 

I really cannot praise these Syracuse uniforms enough.  Not only are they beautiful in their own right, but they also demonstrate an important design principle, namely, the importance of looking like the organisation that you represent.  

 

Finally, uniforms such as these allow players to look like professionals, and to present themselves with dignity.

 

[BeerGuyJordan]

@Ferdinand Cesarano

 

Looking like your parent affiliate can be a great move, but stripping a team of their identity to do it is a horrible move. If you think that a team like the Mud Hens, Indy Indians or Bison needs to change colors any time they change affiliations, you're dead wrong, especially since the identities are older than many MLB teams. That's just in Triple-A. You try to work over the Crawdads or Mudcats, and those fanbases would have a fit. 

 

Since hockey is my main sport, lets look at that, sure, teams like the Wolf Pack and Griffins can look like their affiliate and have it work for them. If you are honestly suggesting that the Hershey Bears (Capitals) or Rochester Americans (Sabres) change to their parent organization's color and look, you can't see the forest for the trees. The IceCaps, Moose and Condors looked better before the new colors were forced on them.

 

Suggesting that affiliates look great when copying their major league team is fine. Suggesting that every team should be doing it is an affront to some of the greatest identities in sports and is just questionable aesthetics.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

On 12/27/2016 at 10:46 AM, BeerGuyJordan said:

@Ferdinand Cesarano

 

Looking like your parent affiliate can be a great move, but stripping a team of their identity to do it is a horrible move. If you think that a team like the Mud Hens, Indy Indians or Bison needs to change colors any time they change affiliations, you're dead wrong, especially since the identities are older than many MLB teams. That's just in Triple-A. You try to work over the Crawdads or Mudcats, and those fanbases would have a fit. 

 

Since hockey is my main sport, lets look at that, sure, teams like the Wolf Pack and Griffins can look like their affiliate and have it work for them. If you are honestly suggesting that the Hershey Bears (Capitals) or Rochester Americans (Sabres) change to their parent organization's color and look, you can't see the forest for the trees. The IceCaps, Moose and Condors looked better before the new colors were forced on them.

 

Suggesting that affiliates look great when copying their major league team is fine. Suggesting that every team should be doing it is an affront to some of the greatest identities in sports and is just questionable aesthetics.

 

 

There are many minor-league team names that are highly recognisable, such as the Toledo Mud Hens, the Indianapolis Indians, and the Buffalo Bisons.   The Durham Bulls are another.

But this doesn't mean that such teams shouldn't look like their parent clubs.  When the Buffalo Bisons were affilliated with the White Sox, they had uniforms that looked like the White Sox.

 

 

 

 

When they were affilliated with the Indians, they had uniforms that looked like the Indians.

 

 

 

 

And that is precisely how it should work. 

 

Now that the team is an affilliate of the Blue Jays, they ought to look like the Blue Jays.  It's good that they have an alt in the style of the Blue Jays' current uniform (albeit with red letters)...

 

 

 

 

 

 

...and that they have done a Jays-themed throwback.

 

 

 

But the Jays-style uniform should be their primary design.  This in no way compromises the uniqueness of the name "Buffalo Bisons".

 
And this principle applies likewise to all other minor-league teams with unique nicknames and identities, regardless of level.

Another good example of beautifully incorporating the parent club's aesthetic is the uniform of the Tidewater Tides from the late 1980s.

   

 

 

 

There again you have a unique name (which the team has ruined by dropping the locality name "Tidewater", but that's another story), paired with the look of the parent club, the Mets.

All these examples show that a minor-league team looking like the parent club does not conflict with having a unique name and identity.  

So I maintain that, if an observer cannot instantly tell the affilliation of a minor-league team by looking at its uniforms, then something is wrong.

 

 

[BeerGuyJordan]

4 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

 

There are many minor-league team names that are highly recognisable, such as the Toledo Mud Hens, the Indianapolis Indians, and the Buffalo Bisons.   The Durham Bulls are another.

But this doesn't mean that such teams shouldn't look like their parent clubs.  When the Buffalo Bisons were affilliated with the White Sox, they had uniforms that looked like the White Sox.

 

 

 

 

When they were affilliated with the Indians, they had uniforms that looked like the Indians.

 

 

 

 

And that is precisely how it should work. 

 

Now that the team is an affilliate of the Blue Jays, they ought to look like the Blue Jays.  It's good that they have an alt in the style of the Blue Jays' current uniform (albeit with red letters)...

 

 

 

 

 

 

...and that they have done a Jays-themed throwback.

 

 

 

But the Jays-style uniform should be their primary design.  This in no way compromises the uniqueness of the name "Buffalo Bisons".

 
And this principle applies likewise to all other minor-league teams with unique nicknames and identities, regardless of level.

Another good example of beautifully incorporating the parent club's aesthetic is the uniform of the Tidewater Tides from the late 1980s.

   

 

 

 

There again you have a unique name (which the team has ruined by dropping the localitiy name "Tidewater", but that's another story), paired with the look of the parent club, the Mets.

All these examples show that a minor-league team looking like the parent club does not conflict with having a unique name and identity.  

So I maintain that, if an observer cannot instantly tell the affilliation of a minor-league team by looking at its uniforms, then something is wrong.

 

 

I get where you're coming from, but essentially requiring a team to abandon their look every time their affiliation changes is bad doctrine for two reasons.

 

1: Fanbase continuity. For those teams that are geographically near the parent organization, owned by them and have a local fanbase that generally also supports the parent organization, go for it. Memphis, Gwinnett, Pawtucket, even Louisville, go for it. For Nashville, Charlotte, Buffalo and other teams that have changed hands more than three times, you sacrifice creating a local identity and history for those fanbases to be proud of. All for an aesthetic tie-in that the majority of your fanbase couldn't care less about. Fans in Nashville don't care about looking like the A's, Brewers, or Pirates.

 

2: Taking a step backward. Say you have a team with beautiful uniforms based on team A. Their affiliation changes to a team that has a horrendous uniform set. Your doctrine leaves no room for them to keep their set, especially since it now looks like a different farm system.

 

Overall, I'm more open to the idea if it is just uniform style and text, but parent clubs often force horrible color schemes for the identity, as part of the deal. 

 

Leaving room for it, where it works, but not applying it, as a hard doctrine, is best.

 

Since this is a baseball thread, I'll leave it at that, and not go off into a tirade about how this irks me even more in minor league hockey.

[Sodboy13]

5 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

    
So I maintain that, if an observer cannot instantly tell the affilliation of a minor-league team by looking at its uniforms, then something is wrong.

 

The Lansing Lugnuts do not need to dress like the Toronto Blue Jays. The Burlington Bees do not need to ditch yellow for red to mimic the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. The Chicago Wolves do not need to dress like the St. Louis Blues. The Kane County Cougars sure as hell do not need to dress like the Arizona Diamondbacks. You would do well to refrain from speaking in absolutes on your sartorial preferences.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

4 hours ago, Sodboy13 said:

The Lansing Lugnuts do not need to dress like the Toronto Blue Jays. The Burlington Bees do not need to ditch yellow for red to mimic the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. The Chicago Wolves do not need to dress like the St. Louis Blues. The Kane County Cougars sure as hell do not need to dress like the Arizona Diamondbacks. You would do well to refrain from speaking in absolutes on your sartorial preferences.

 

The absolute nature of this pronouncement of mine might be exaggerated eeeever so slightly.  But the principle that a minor-league team should look like its parent -- that an organisation should have a unified look -- is a sound one.  

 

If there were a few exceptions to this principle here and there, that wouldn't bother me, and might even be charming.  But minor-league teams having their own looks seems now to have become the norm, and that's unfortunate.  There really ain't that many "special" minor-league identities!

 

What's more, the uniforms are getting farther from the Major League aesthetic standard, at the same time as the nicknames are becoming ever sillier (Fire Frogs, Yard Goats, Rumble Ponies, Baby Cakes).  

 

So I guess I am cranky about it because I almost feel humiliated by proxy for these players who have to wear these awful designs and who will have to come to terms with being a Fire Frog or a Baby Cake.  

 

When I see a matchup like the one in the video, in which the players look like grown-up professionals, it gives me a feeling of relief.  And then I immediately get annoyed as I understand why I felt that relief -- because the contemporary visual standard in the minor leagues is so terrible.

[Sodboy13]

I agree with you that the tacky, overdone Brandiosity that seems to be overtaking Minor League Baseball is, on the whole, a loss for good design and branding. Yet there are some recent examples in the affiliated minors that show a competent, unique identity that eschews the kitchen sink approach can still occur in the morass of forced wackiness. I am not 100% opposed to minor league clubs copying the parent's identity, so long as some character unique to the farm team is implemented. I think the South Bend Cubs did this very well. Going to hockey, because I'm much more familiar with its lower tiers, the old Iowa Stars of the AHL tweaked a major-league identity to the point where they were dressing better than their parent club; the current Iowa Wild are a shining example of a team that couldn't be bothered to do anything but change the location name on the logos. And slapping the Rockford IceHogs' cartoon pig on the front of a Chicago Blackhawks jersey is incongruous as all get-out.

[WSU151]

On 12/21/2016 at 1:40 PM, SJAnfield said:

The Pecos League have filled the void left by the Cal League detracting by adding Bakersfield and High Desert to their lineup, and now appear to be poised to add Monterey to their league as well. The Monterey Amberjacks seem to have the best branding in the league. 

 

http://www.montereyamberjacks.com/monterey.asp?page=2

 

The Amberjacks have a great logo, but the wordmark is a complete ripoff of another team (which escapes me at the moment, but I'll find it).  Other teams in the league have pretty weak identities.

[Burmy]

5 hours ago, WSU151 said:

 

The Amberjacks have a great logo, but the wordmark is a complete ripoff of another team (which escapes me at the moment, but I'll find it).  Other teams in the league have pretty weak identities.

That would be the af2's Stockton Lightning (their brand is frequently ripped off these days).

 

Anyway, the Pecos League is planning a fourth California League team-the California City Whiptails (named after the lizard).  Here's their logo:

 

[WSU151]

9 minutes ago, MBurmy said:

That would be the af2's Stockton Lightning (their brand is frequently ripped off these days).

 

Anyway, the Pecos League is planning a fourth California League team-the California City Whiptails (named after the lizard).  Here's their logo:

 

 

 

No it's not that one.  Completely different fonts.  I've seen the E and S in Amberjacks before...

 

The Whiptails logo isn't that bad.

[The_Admiral]

Minor leagues should have a good blend of copied-wholesale, team-inspired, and independent branding. I think that's reasonable.