Feb. 2004 webdav identity & naming challenge

[shiznit1083]

My top 3:

3. Aces - I like the idea and it's a very well made logo, however it wouldn't seem to fit in the NBA scheme of themes. I think it would make a great minor league baseball logo.

2. Heights - I'm really fond of the name. The logo is well done.

1. Royals - Excellent job. The theme is tied in together well. Excellent wordmark. Great fit for an NBA franchise.

[vicfurth]

I voted for the Bishops.

[Lucky1]

Once again... Where can the entries be seen? Or a link to them.

Bueller?...Bueller?

[fiasco!]

in the poll thread......probably near the bottom of the first page right now.

[vicfurth]

Wow, not one vote for me. Must be the cheesy "tribute" thing.

[Lucky1]

Thanks Bro!

Great stuff!

[NJTank]

I pinned it while the votes are taken to make it easier on everyone, becuase its gonna fall off tehir first page soon and get lost.

[Phil]

A brief critique of all of them...

Aces: Nice name, reasonable tie-in to the region. Logo is a little too cartoony (a human pilot or a plane might've been the better way to go). The tertiary logo reminds me of the old school Astros.

Bishops: Good logos, although the name is the weak link. The fusion of basketball and chess is very well done, I'm just not huge on the idea. The wordmarks are very nice.

Brigade: The one I voted for. Nice logo work (the secondary should be simpler IMO). Also, the logos vary a little too much... there's too many of them... I would've consolidated it down to the Primary logo (as is), the teriary or lettermark logo, and a modified version of the secondary wordmark. Very nice artwork, and I like the name. Would've been nice to see uniforms, but it got my vote anyway.

Chiefs: Too simple. There's nothing that makes it stand out in my mind.

Coasters: Interesting name selection, however the logo work is a little crudely put together. I believe there's a minor league Cyclones baseball team in the NY area that makes use of roller coaster imagery, I like that identity a lot.

Fusion: Too drab... the colours are depressing to look at. The Welder primary logo bears little relation to the rest of the identity. Secondary's nice, although the torches are a little... I dunno... odd... wordmarks are nice. Jerseys are hurt a lot by the colour scheme. And why is the welder always facing backwards?

More critiques to come...

[Phil]

As promised, here are the rest of the critiques.

Oh, and before I go any further, I must commend ALL entrants on their fantastic work. Clearly this is one of the premier contests ever held on this board, and the time and effort put behind each design is very evident. If I have critiqued your entry a little harshly, please know that saying "Great work" and "Outstanding work" every time would be redundant... you all have done very well and should be commended.

Heights: I like the name, with the 2 connotations. My main beef with the logo is that it only displays the one connotation. Also, the buildings are quite nondescript and boring... it could've been better if there was some inclusion of something uniquely Brooklyn (like the bridge or something like that). The art work is excellent, but I got confused why there were three so very similar logos (secondary and tertiary especially).

Heroes: While it'd be a good idea, I think it relies to heavily on a subject people don't like to see others profiting off of. Also, the logo work looks very clip-artish, and the BH doesn't stand out enough. I like the jerseys though, very nice.

Ironclads: The elements look too much like pasted together clipart. Also, most teams don't use downward sloping lettering because of the negative connotations (teams want to go up, not down)... certain hockey teams are an exception. The jersey designs aren't great for similar reasons (also, the third, with it's logo on the front and no numbers, is a no-no IMO).

Royals: The logo work is probably the best out of the bunch. The jerseys are sweet too. So why did it lose? Because it isn't the Webdav Identity Challenge, it?s the Webdav Identity and Naming Challenge. Sacramento already has dibs on royalty names in basketball (the NBA?s Kings, the WNBA?s Monarchs), and this is just too close to that. Especially with the crown, that figures into the Kings? logo as well.

Again, I stress great work everyone, and good luck to all!

[winters in buffalo]

I voted for Brigade, but I liked the Royals set as well - it looks very similiar to something I sketched out for the Emperors. I even used some of the same colors.

Excellent work all around guys!

[jayhawksfan]

I liked the brigade the best but they were all good.

[whchoclte]

Kudos to all who designed, very well done. Asa brooklynite i woudl be proud to have any one of these.

My vote the ACES. Original design, love the main logo. Secondary leaves me thinking there could have been more, but very well done.

Second i give to ROYALS. The knock on this is the NBA would never allow a Brooklyn team to take the name of teh old Cincinnati franchise, just would never happen. The package is great but the name is what got me.

Third is the BRIGADE. Once again original name, main logo hard a bit hard to read. Too many elemnets used, hat, flag, sword, and bridge.

I could not vote for the HEIGHTS because i designed it. Thanks for the feedback on it, I think there was a bit confusion on the marks because i only designed the main logo and was showing varaitons, like logo and wordmark, etc, never intended to be a secondary of third, because i didnt have time. Should have changed teh titles

I was picturing for a secondary soemthing along teh lines of a michael jordan guy, air symbol jumping over a building to show height. Since he is from Brooklyn. Also had the idea of making the basketbal on the top of the building like the ball on new years, but oh well another day.

Once again Kudos to all.

[rtrich11]

whchoclte, you can vote for your own design if you want. That's like running for President and not voting for yourself. Ok, not exactly.

Thanks for your vote, regardless (Aces). What would you like to see in a secondary logo, then? I guess there are many ways to go with it, but I'd like to hear your opinion, since you do good work. Perhaps a new symbol?

So, who's work is up there? Are we supposed to wait until the voting is completely over? If so, whchoclte and I blew it. I could guess some of the artists, but I'll hold off.

[shiznit1083]

I was the person behind the Bishops design.

[Brian in Boston]

SyPhi and whchoclte...

The idea that the National Basketball Association wouldn't - or shouldn't - allow a Brooklyn-based franchise to be named the Royals because of Cincinnati's historic link to the identity is of dubious credibility.

First and foremost, the Royals name in professional basketball didn't originally identify a Cincinnati-based club. The Royals operated in Rochester, NY for 12 seasons before moving to Cincinnati: 3 in the National Basketball League, 1 in the Basketball Association of America and 8 in the NBA. So, it's not as if a Cincinnati-based club originated the Royals identity in pro basketball.

Second, the Royals tenure in Cincinnati (15 seasons) only surpassed their history in Rochester (12 seasons) by a mere 3 seasons.

Further, upon moving to Kansas City-Omaha for the 1972-73 season, the team adopted the now familiar Kings identity. They've maintained that name through their 3 seasons splitting time between Missouri and Nebraska, their 10 seasons calling solely Kansas City home, and their 17 seasons in Sacramento. This means that the team has now sported the Kings name for 32 seasons, a total that surpasses the 27 seasons that the squad spent under the Royals banner. What's more, their 17 seasons as the Sacramento Kings marks their longest stretch in any single basketball league... in a single home city... continuously using a name.

As for the assertion that "Sacramento already has dibs on royalty names in basketball", how is it that the NBA allows the Washington Wizards (as well as their sister franchise the WNBA's Mystics) and Orlando Magic to all utilize identities that draw upon a mystical theme? What's up with the Seattle Supersonics and Houston Rockets both having names reflecting upon the aerospace industry? Is there a conflict between the Dallas Mavericks' and San Antonio Spurs' blatantly Western-themed names? And what of the former conflict between the NBA's Phoenix Suns and the WNBA's old Miami Sol? Better yet, how do we explain the presence of the NBA's Suns and the WNBA's Connecticut Suns in two different markets, under two different ownership groups? How is it that the NBA's Hornets now call New Orleans home, but the WNBA's Sting operate out of Charlotte? "Dibs" on themes of names? Come on!

What's more, if we'll allow for some cross-sport history to enter into the equation (And why shouldn't we? After all, the Brooklyn Chiefs incorporated a rather Brooklyn Dodger-esque "B" as their secondary mark. Plus, the proposed move of the Nets to Brooklyn marks the borough's first foray into major professional team sports since the departure of the late, lamented Dodgers for Los Angeles.), there are a couple of links between Brooklyn and the Royals name. The Brooklyn Royal Giants were a Negro League baseball team that at various times operated as an independent club, as well as a member franchise in the Eastern Colored League and Negro National League. What's more, Jackie Robinson broke into organized baseball with the Brooklyn Dodgers' top farm club, the Montreal Royals.

The NBA Brooklyn Royals... the WIN Challenge's BEST identity package OVERALL... INCLUDING the name.

Brian in Boston

[whchoclte]

Brian,

Those are great statistics and thanks for the history lesson, but in all honest that doesnt explain how Brooklyn would be granted the use of the Royals name. Maybe if the nets moved to Cincinnati yes. COuld they use it probably, would they i doubt ever. They would want soemthing new, something their own.

Hypothectically its like if the chicago bears moved to montana and called themselves the grizzlies. Then another franchise wants to adopt the nickname Bears. There is no way in hell that the NFL gives a franchise the rights to it unless they are from Chicago. Under no circumstances would that happen and you can quote all the stats you want.

And the old minor league/negro league baseball teams does not add credit to the idea of carrying over the old nickname of a nba franchise to a new one. The Montreal ROyals are from Montreal i dont care who played for them and the Royal Giants were from New york, not necessarily brooklyn.

Like i said I like the conpect very much, unis and all and think whoever designed it did a great job, but i dont see it being a viable option.

[Brian in Boston]

Actually, a Brooklyn-based NBA franchise wouldn't have to be "granted" the use of the "Brooklyn Royals" name.

The combination of the place-name Brooklyn (which can't be trademarked on its own) and team-name Royals is unique within the United States Patent and Trademark Office database. No entity currently claims protection for this identity... including within the Goods & Services category. Therefore, technically speaking, a registrant could gain protection for the trademark Brooklyn Royals. Further, that registrant could gain protection for the trademark as it is applied to "entertainment services - in the nature of rendering live basketball games and basketball exhibitions and the production and distribution of radio and television broadcasts of basketball games and exhibitions"... amongst other things, including the production and sale of various categories of retail souvenir goods imprinted with the Brooklyn Royals name and/or logos.

What's more, the National Basketball Association has no control over the names and/or marks of the Rochester Royals, Cincinnati Royals, Kansas City-Omaha Kings or Kansas City Kings. Those unique place-name/team-name combinations - as well as SPECIFIC historic logos which accompanied them - are trademarked by the Sacramento Kings Limited Partnership. However, these trademarks only protect the Sacramento Kings Limited Partnership's right to produce a variety of retail souvenir goods imprinted with the aforementioned Rochester/Cincinnati Royals and Kansas City-Omaha/Kansas City Kings name and logos. The only name and logo combination which Sacramento Kings Limited Partnership currently enjoys entertainment services trademark protection for is, in fact, Sacramento Kings. As a side note, Sacramento Monarchs is the trademarked property of WNBA Enterprises.

Therefore, legally, a professional basketball entity - including a potential relocated New Jersey Nets franchise - could obtain trademark protection for the Brooklyn Royals identity. The new team could argue that the former Rochester/Cincinnati Royals franchise abandoned active use of the Royals team-name upon moving to Kansas City in 1972. Obviously, this was because of the presence of a professional baseball franchise already using the identity. However, even upon moving to Sacramento in 1985, the team still made no effort to reclaim the Royals team-name for active use. The Brooklyn-based franchise could say that they make no claims to the Sacramento Kings' heritage in Rochester or Cincinnati or to revenue generated from sales of heritage clothing. They simply wish to utilize a name that no other NBA franchise is ACTIVELY using. If anything, the existance of a new team named the Royals would probably spur interest in the sale of "throwback" Rochester and Cincinnati Royals clothing... a BENEFIT to the current Sacramento Kings Limited Partnership.

Bottom line: This contest focuses on creating a HYPOTHETICAL identity for the New Jersey Nets HYPOTHETICAL relocation to Brooklyn. So, why can't we free our minds enough to HYPOTHETICALLY reason that the Sacramento Kings ownership group would have no problems granting a Brooklyn-based team the right to use the Royals name... particularly, when the Brooklyn Royals would have trademark law on their side.

Brian in Boston

[paynomind]

While i technically agree with all of BiB's points, I believe this thread has been used to express our opinions about the names. The debate whether is would be possible to name the team one thing or another is interesting, but I offer up the following.

*I* think the Royals name is not the best one here, not even in the top 5. It currently holds a lot of name recognition for the baseball team, and it is MY opinion that major sports teams should not share names.

Is it legal? Yes. Do others already do it? Yes.

Did I not vote for the Royals because the name seems generic, boring, and most of all already taken by an existing pro sports team? Yes.

[Phil]

Hey BiB, you obviously have a point, but I think this can be explained as well.

Houston and Seattle's connection to the airplane/space industries are concrete. The Dallas and San Antonio connections to a western theme make sense.

Any American team using a royalty nickname is odd right off the bat IMO, seeing as they fought a war in order to be free of a monarchy.

The Wizards and the Magic names are IMO too close to one another, and I don't think that needs to happen again. Just because there are name similarities doesn't mean I personally agree with them, nor does it mean they should be repeated.

The pointy crown theme only added to the similarities IMO.

[slapshot]

I created the Chiefs entry, and even though you can read the explanation, let me expand on it a little more.

Yes, the name "Chiefs" is taken by another team in another league. But I think the name ties in well to the history of Brooklyn, and especially with those people in public service (police & fire), I chose badge imagery to steer clear of Native American icons. There's not many "Indian" icons that can be used without looking like exploitation or sterotypes. The southwestern striping on the old Coyotes' uniform was a good example of that, but there's not much else.

If you do still think of Native Americans, then it also ties in with two former basketball teams in New York state...Brooklyn Indians (late 1940s) and Buffalo Braves. The bridge pillar striping on the shorts is also the shape of the feather used as the Braves' logo.

I intentionally used the Brooklyn Dodgers' "B" as a secondary logo. When you see the blue B, you think "Brooklyn", so I think it fits well. The Knicks used to have the "NY" logo of the Yankees on their uniforms for many years (discussed in a previous thread), so it's not uncommon to borrow effects from other teams (Cincinnati Reds-Chicago Bears letter C, San Fran Giants & 49ers SF combo, etc.).

Red, white and blue are very prominent in Brooklyn/New York professional athletic history. Besides the Patriotic influence (especially with the police badge logo), the Dodgers and Braves were red, white and blue. I kept silver in there because this ties in with the Nets history as well. The team colors would not have to change if the Nets moved to Brooklyn.

While some may feel the logo is very simplistic (it is compared to the other entries), it's similar to many other NBA logos for that reason (Lakers, Heat and Nets come to mind). There doesn't have to be this elaborate Sterling-type technique used for a logo to be successful (no knock on you, Sterling...you're illustrative techniques are miles beyond mine; I've seen your Buffalo hockey entries ). You just pretty much need a basketball in the logo to know what the team plays.

By the way, I voted for "Heights"...very catchy and defining of Brooklyn. I don't think the logo was too busy, it worked well with the ball.