Team Name vs Logo what is more important...

[GMac]

There has been a small debate that has started in the Philly MLS, it started off as a Euro vs American identity thing, but it made me ask the question can a team have a terrible Name but still have a great identity package and still be marketable?

As well on the flip side can a team have a great name or be established and then release an identity thats absolutly the drizzling :censored:s and still put money in the coffers?

The two examples I though of for each side was the Montgomery Biscuits, I thought that was the goofiest name ever but the Identity package is so perfect for MiLB it won me over. And the OKC Thunder while having so much promise with the name, they came up with the ball on ski's... or if you want to talk established the infamous buffaslug...

just thought this would be a great discussion topic..

[BJBerthiaume]

With the 2 examples you have provided, it proves the point that the logo package is more important. Once released, the name isn't talked about much, but as we show here, the uniforms are continuously critiqued.

[Epiphanic]

I'd say the graphical representation is the more important of the two.

Slightly tangential to the topic, I don't hate the Euro-names, I just prefer the North American ones.

[BBTV]

You have to put your personal beliefs aside a bit when considering really old teams, as many have un-designable names (Phillies - seriously?) or logos that would never see the light of day today, but are still in use out of respect for tradition.

For anything that is designed today, in this era of marketing, merchandising, focus groups, etc., I think that the name + logo package + uniforms are all part of the identity, and all of those components really need to work together.

[OnWis97]

Minnesota Wild. Terrible name. I was really disappointed when they came up with it.

But I like the logo package a lot and feel that there is some redemption there.

[Firefly]

Houston Texans.

A truly terrible name announced at the same time they revealed an absolutely gorgeous logo. That logo took all the sting out of such a disappointing name.

Now the Houston 1836 are a different matter.

A smooth logo could not smooth over such an awful name. It was insulting to both Mexican Americans (who love the hell out of our Dynamo) and to those with good taste (names with numbers? what is this? the internet). The okay name and okay shield that followed worked. Of course, winning really helped.

[tBBP]

You have to put your personal beliefs aside a bit when considering really old teams, as many have un-designable names (Phillies - seriously?) or logos that would never see the light of day today, but are still in use out of respect for tradition.

For anything that is designed today, in this era of marketing, merchandising, focus groups, etc., I think that the name + logo package + uniforms are all part of the identity, and all of those components really need to work together.

Henceforth why half the "identities" in Major League Baseball don't work for me.

I agree with the second part of this here post. I think that the broken part of this equation that caused so much blowback by the Rays organization was in the logo package. Without going all political or religious, the identity went from looking like what many call "product of the '90s" (I personally thought it was among the best in the bigs) to something entirely too conservative (again--I ain't gettin' all political or religious about this here ).

The Minnesota Wild and Houston Texans are great examples of the premise of this thread. i ain't never been to Minnesota (save for one trip to the Mall of America), so I don't know what's up there; I can only visualize based off hearsay. But that logo really does encompass so much of what one would see out in the natural "wild"--animals, a creek somewhere, plenty of trees, oh--and maybe a North Star in the sky, all rendered in pretty much the most ingenious manner I've ever seen. The Texans' logo is so rediculously simple and yet so ridiculously effective and unmistakably "Texan", so it's an absolute win. In fact...I can't think of one person who doesn't like that logo--except, perhaps, for several fans of Jaguar Nation in Jacksonville.

Oh--and the uniforms of both ain't too shabby, either (even though I believe the Wild shoulda never abandoned their old green jerseys).

I think the last completely new identity that really won for me was the Tampa bay Buccaneers back in '97. The whole look has this "edgy, ripped" look to it, from the logo package to the choice of typography--it really just jumps out at you, or at least me. Add to all that the look was then, and very much is still now, unique. The same can be said of the previous Jaguars identity. Again, choice of unique typography (proprietary as it may be), logo package--it all worked. (And..am I the only one who kinda saw a "cat tail" in the some of the letters and numbers of the previous typography? I always thought that was a neat little subtlety.) Add to all of this the choice of color in these teams' identites--something that in this day and age seems to be taken sorely for granted. At the time of the Buccaneers' makeover, I don't think any other major pro team ever thought to use any shade of gray as a main team color. Though several other teams may have done it around the same time frame, teal was still relatively new to the sports landscape when the Jags were born--that was certainly the case in the NFL.

So, in my mind, like BBTV said, logo package (Imma throw use of typography in here as well), uniforms, and name all should work together. See Oklahoma City Thunder for a perfect example of how that got blown up.

[BrandMooreArt]

i say yes to both questions. i think you'll find both examples in every pro sports league. the lesser of two evils would probally be the great identity with a goofy name. the Cincinnatti Reds and Cleveland Browns come to mind

[Saintsfan]

I think the whole thing has to go together. The Montgomery Biscuits whole identity works because when you see the logos you see that the name is deliberately goofy. The Wild identity works as a package because it encapsulates what peoples idea of Minnesota is. The Houston Texans package works as a great image of what Texas should be, without trampling on the Cowboys. The OKC Thunder thing doesn't work because the logo is so obviously a cheap and quick knock off. When they get a decent logo sorted, then the package will be great.

Baseball is a bit different because logos are not necesary to the team identity. You don't have to think about the hanging socks when you think Red Sox, for instance. A little bit of the same is true for Basketball too. But in Football and Hockey, where the logos are generally more prominent, they are crucial as part of the package. But in baseball and basketball it seems to me that the uniform becomes somewhat more important than the logos. (incidentally the Thunder also need to sort out there uniforms.)

[Burmy]

Houston Texans.

A truly terrible name announced at the same time they revealed an absolutely gorgeous logo. That logo took all the sting out of such a disappointing name.

Now the Houston 1836 are a different matter.

A smooth logo could not smooth over such an awful name. It was insulting to both Mexican Americans (who love the hell out of our Dynamo) and to those with good taste (names with numbers? what is this? the internet). The okay name and okay shield that followed worked. Of course, winning really helped.

Well then, I guess the Philadelphia 76ers and New England Patriots (Revolution too) should change their names too...They're insulting to British-Americans, right?

[hawk36]

San Diego Padres

For me, a born and bred San Diegan, the worst has to be the Padres. I love the name but will not wear their trendy navy/light blue/sand stuff with the horribly rendered wordmark. The friars wore brown and were not associated with sail boats. The new identity makes me cringe anytime I see the Pads play.

[IceCap]

Houston Texans.

A truly terrible name announced at the same time they revealed an absolutely gorgeous logo. That logo took all the sting out of such a disappointing name.

Now the Houston 1836 are a different matter.

A smooth logo could not smooth over such an awful name. It was insulting to both Mexican Americans (who love the hell out of our Dynamo) and to those with good taste (names with numbers? what is this? the internet). The okay name and okay shield that followed worked. Of course, winning really helped.

Well then, I guess the Philadelphia 76ers and New England Patriots (Revolution too) should change their names too...They're insulting to British-Americans, right?

I have to agree here. I don't get how Houston 1836 is offencive to Mexican Americans. There was a war and Mexico lost. Thems the breaks. Sorry.

Besides, I saw it more as celebrating Texas' victory, not Mexico's defeat. People ARE to overly sensitive sometimes.

[tBBP]

San Diego Padres

For me, a born and bred San Diegan, the worst has to be the Padres. I love the name but will not wear their trendy navy/light blue/sand stuff with the horribly rendered wordmark. The friars wore brown and were not associated with sail boats. The new identity makes me cringe anytime I see the Pads play.

You know what I've never understood about the San Diego Padres' identity?

I understand the major league team name was taken from a minor league team that played in San Diego back in like the '30s or something like that, but "padre" is spanish for "father", no? I'm also pretty certain the word "friar" was french for "brother", correct? In this particular instance, I'm gonna guess the Padres' particular friar character was a member of the Carmelite order due to the long brown robe as well as the team's use of the color back in the day, no? (It's been a while since I've had a world history class...) Now, unless there's a link I'm missing here, I'm not making the connection.

(About the only thing I can think of is the use of the term "brothers" and "fathers", as it relates to priests in the Catholic church--maybe that's the link I'm missing?)

[Jamikel]

San Diego Padres

For me, a born and bred San Diegan, the worst has to be the Padres. I love the name but will not wear their trendy navy/light blue/sand stuff with the horribly rendered wordmark. The friars wore brown and were not associated with sail boats. The new identity makes me cringe anytime I see the Pads play.

You know what I've never understood about the San Diego Padres' identity?

I understand the major league team name was taken from a minor league team that played in San Diego back in like the '30s or something like that, but "padre" is spanish for "father", no? I'm also pretty certain the word "friar" was french for "brother", correct? In this particular instance, I'm gonna guess the Padres' particular friar character was a member of the Carmelite order due to the long brown robe as well as the team's use of the color back in the day, no? (It's been a while since I've had a world history class...) Now, unless there's a link I'm missing here, I'm not making the connection.

(About the only thing I can think of is the use of the term "brothers" and "fathers", as it relates to priests in the Catholic church--maybe that's the link I'm missing?)

Yeah, pretty much. Not unlike how Ottawa uses a Roman Centurion logo to represent a Roman Senator.

[The_Admiral]

Wow, that's a really good observation, Bucco. That never occurred to me. I'm not a Catholic, so I never gave it much thought, but yeah. As for their navy blue stuff, yeah it's all San Diego and no Padres, but that's fine, because every prior uniform blew, so it's a sensible redesign in the spirit (if not execution) of the '96 Utah Jazz.

I guess the Philadelphia 76ers and New England Patriots (Revolution too) should change their names too...They're insulting to British-Americans, right?

The dynamic there is totally different than the one in Houston and you know that perfectly well.

[Firefly]

I have to agree here. I don't get how Houston 1836 is offencive to Mexican Americans. There was a war and Mexico lost. Thems the breaks. Sorry.

Besides, I saw it more as celebrating Texas' victory, not Mexico's defeat. People ARE to overly sensitive sometimes.

Well, that was the claim. I think it was just an excuse to get rid of that awful name. It's not like we have anyone protesting the San Jacinto monument (where Sam Houston ended the Texas Revolution in our favor) or the colossal statue of Houston in Hunstville.

[BallWonk]

Well, that was the claim. I think it was just an excuse to get rid of that awful name. It's not like we have anyone protesting the San Jacinto monument (where Sam Houston ended the Texas Revolution in our favor) or the colossal statue of Houston in Hunstville.

Maybe there should be people protesting those. Not because they're offensive to Mexicans or anything, but because those are some uuuuugly monuments. Did Texas really need to give those two monument commissions to Albert Speer and the marketing department of the Big Boy diner chain?

Texas-ribbing aside, I guess I tend to think that the logo is more worthy of critique in most cases. Because the name isn't likely to change, ever, while many teams do change logos and uniforms with some frequency. So continuing to care very much that "Wild" is a crap name for a hockey team doesn't do me any more good than, say, wishing we had a base-10 clock instead of 24 cycles of base-60. Minnesota is going to be the Wild next year just as surely as midday will still be called "twelve o'clock." King Canute and the tide and all that.

Whereas if I have an issue with the Wild logo or uniforms, it's just possible that public criticism will influence team decisions regarding rebranding or redesign. They're still gonna be the Wild in five years, but they'll probably have new uniforms by then, which makes discussion of the uniforms interesting and discussion of the name not.

(I'd make a few exceptions for truly terrible names that are simply unredeemable, like the Los Angeles Lakers or the Utah Jazz. You can have the best logos and uniforms in the world, but if your team in Los Angeles is called the Lakers, you're just always going to look stupid. And that deserves ceaseless ridicule.)

[Firefly]

Maybe there should be people protesting those. Not because they're offensive to Mexicans or anything, but because those are some uuuuugly monuments.

You should see what's around them. One is literally surrounded by petrochemical plants. The latter is near a nasty state prison that executes more people per year than anywhere in the free world.

[mmejia]

Maybe there should be people protesting those. Not because they're offensive to Mexicans or anything, but because those are some uuuuugly monuments.

You should see what's around them. One is literally surrounded by petrochemical plants. The latter is near a nasty state prison that executes more people per year than anywhere in the free world.

It's also near Sam Houston State University (where I went to college) and Sam Houston National Forest. It's in a fine area.

[Blitz]

San Diego Padres

For me, a born and bred San Diegan, the worst has to be the Padres. I love the name but will not wear their trendy navy/light blue/sand stuff with the horribly rendered wordmark. The friars wore brown and were not associated with sail boats. The new identity makes me cringe anytime I see the Pads play.

You know what I've never understood about the San Diego Padres' identity?

I understand the major league team name was taken from a minor league team that played in San Diego back in like the '30s or something like that, but "padre" is spanish for "father", no? I'm also pretty certain the word "friar" was french for "brother", correct? In this particular instance, I'm gonna guess the Padres' particular friar character was a member of the Carmelite order due to the long brown robe as well as the team's use of the color back in the day, no? (It's been a while since I've had a world history class...) Now, unless there's a link I'm missing here, I'm not making the connection.

(About the only thing I can think of is the use of the term "brothers" and "fathers", as it relates to priests in the Catholic church--maybe that's the link I'm missing?)

Yeah, pretty much. Not unlike how Ottawa uses a Roman Centurion logo to represent a Roman Senator.

The absolute best part of Ottawa's identity, is that the name 'senators' is meant to represent the Canadian Senate being in Ottawa - Even the ancient Roman Senators were still just elected politicians, not soldiers... the centurian (which actually really more closely resembles a spartan warrior) on their logos is completely random!!!