Team Name vs Logo what is more important...

[Mingjai]

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.

As I mentioned in the previous thread, I feel the same way about Real Salt Lake. I still can't think of a worse name than that. But their identity package--logos and colors--salvages a lot.

[eriqjaffe]

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?)

"Friar" is derived from "frère" which is, indeed, French for "brother". You would also be correct in that the naming relates to the Catholic church - many of the prominent cities in California were originally Catholic Missions. In fact, the Mission San Diego de Alcalá (located about a mile from Qualcomm) was the first of the Spanish Missions along El Camino Real to be built in Alta California.

So...uh...the name is of tremendous historical significance, basically.

[Jamikel]

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!!!

Well, not COMPLETELY random. The Romans had a system called the Cursus Honorum, which was the sequence of offices a politician had to serve before they could become a Senator. This sequence included service in the Roman military. So even though the logo isn't a depiction of a Senator, it isn't completely unrelated.

[EvoSero]

There's kind of a big spectrum of topics in this thread.

With MLS names, I think the best are the hybrids, even though there are few. An example is the new Seattle Sounders FC. It's basically a hybrid of American and Euro style naming.

For the topic in general, the logo and uniforms are what matters more. It's whether the colours, logo, or apparel are horrible that will determine how often people wear it, if at all. The actual name will always come second to that.

Sure, fans will buy and wear stuff at games or bars or whatever, but if you hate a team's colours or logo, are you going to drop $100-200 on a jersey? Or wear a t-shirt or hat around when not at a game?

There seems to be a lot of bashing the older logos and names though, and I think they deserve more credit. Sure, there are some lame names by today's standards, but the key is they actually have a history. Names were chosen for respectable reasons, not just from people submitting animal names or for marketing reasons. Afterall, focus groups are horrible and should never be used as a reliable source.

Look up the history of any team name prior to the last 30-40 years, and there's a lot of history there. In some cases people have no idea, like the Redskins, Blackhawks, Braves, and Indians. Look them up, and see if you can guess which two are rip-offs of the third, and which is a tribute to a WWI battalion.

Someone mentioned hating the Cincinnati Reds, which came from Cincinnati Red Stockings, with red being the colour of Cincinnati. Incidentally, the Boston Red Sox were really just a rip-off, originally being the Boston Red Stockings. Stockings was change to Sox becuase "Sox" fit easier in newspaper headlines.

The names might not be glamorous or provide the best material for marketable logos, but team names used to change a lot, and there's a reason why some have stuck.

After all, most logos from the last 30-40 years have either been redone or desperately need to be redone. It's the logos that don't need to be redone that are the best. And it's not always just tradition. Who can complain about the Yankees, Dodgers, or Red Sox logos? The Maple Leafs or Red Wings?

Sometimes you get a logo like the Washington Capitals, where the original was clearly dated, but attemps to redesign a logo in the 90s were too bland and had no distinction amongs all the other 90s logos, and now they use an updated version of a 35 year old logo.

But regardless of how good a logo looks at first, if it can't stand up for 10-20 years, it's not a great logo. Sometimes you just get ridiculous attemps, like with the Blue Jays between 1996-2004. Talk about an abortion of design. I don't think one logo lasted more than a couple years, if even two.

[BB61]

Allow me to offer you the best possible comparison for this argument.

Toledo Storm...

Toledo Walleye...

You tell me which is more important.