UFL Team Names & Logos

[Lee.]

We should play guess the next uniform color combo

Sure thing. I'll go first.

Green/Blue/Silver/Black. I win.

[BBTV]

OK...a calmer dissenting voice.

This is the branding approach the NBA initially took with the first incarnation of the D-League. Said branding approach was an unmitigated failure, and prompted the NBA to eventually design and break out individual logos, probably because the league was losing more money than a tax writeoff should. At the same time, however, the league really only survived (as a legal entity anyway...those original 8 markets are all Hiroshima'd) because NBA money was behind it. The UFL doesn't have NFL money behind it.

An approach of selling "the league brand" as opposed to individual teams also doesn't gibe with this league's purported raison d'etre of serving "underserved" football markets. If you have such a goal, wouldn't it be within your best interests to attempt to build local support for each individual team by creating unique local identities?

Not sure that the NBDL comparison is fair, because you're talking about a true developmental league funded by a financially-stable and established parent league.

As for the bolded part, the answer is obviously yes. Of course you want to create unique local identities.

If there was a legitimate 5-year or even 10-year outlook, then that would be the approach. However, they seem to be realistic in knowing that there's only a <50% chance that they'll even make it out of year one. What they need to do is hope against hope that their product is good, and then make is so that when someone tunes into a game on TV, they know beyond any shadow of a doubt that they're watching a UFL game. Like I said earlier, they're treating this season like a big exhibition. If the average fan tunes in and sees teams in unique uniforms and mascots running around, maybe they think that it's just a college that they've never seen before, or a Canadian team, or something else.

I really believe that selling the UFL brand is the key for season one, and then, if they're successful (a big "if") and get people's attention, they can let those regional identities develop naturally, which is preferable IMO to conjuring them up in a board room before the teams ever take the field (think old-time baseball, where a lot of the teams were actually nicknamed by their fans or the media, after they've had a chance to develop character and a natural identity.)

There's no right or wrong approach - I think that they could easily do this the traditional way too, and it would be hard to criticize. They seem to (smartly) realize that this is a long shot, so they're taking a chance. I probably would never have thought about doing it this way, but now that I think about it, I think it's genius.

[Mac the Knife]

I think the branding has taken a back seat to the on-field football product, which bodes well for its future. The USFL and XFL were fantastic at marketing - so much so that when the actual product was brought to the public, they took a look at it, sniffed, then walked away. The UFL seems to be doing the opposite here, and that's probably a good thing.

That said, the concept of the California Redwoods not having red in their color scheme is nothing short of ridiculous. It's a COLOR CHANGE. No need for a dramatic overhaul of what seems to be the league-wide uniform template, merely different colors. How hard could it have really been, and how much detraction from the overall UFL brand would it have caused?

From a design standpoint, UFaiL. From a long-term strategic aspect however, I understand what they're doing: marketing themselves as clearly an inferior product to the NFL, but asking "Hey, give us a few years." Meanwhile they seem to be working behind the scenes - hard - on developing an on-field product that doesn't completely suck wind. That's the right approach IMHO.

[rams80]

I think the branding has taken a back seat to the on-field football product, which bodes well for its future. The USFL and XFL were fantastic at marketing - so much so that when the actual product was brought to the public, they took a look at it, sniffed, then walked away. The UFL seems to be doing the opposite here, and that's probably a good thing.

That said, the concept of the California Redwoods not having red in their color scheme is nothing short of ridiculous. It's a COLOR CHANGE. No need for a dramatic overhaul of what seems to be the league-wide uniform template, merely different colors. How hard could it have really been, and how much detraction from the overall UFL brand would it have caused?

From a design standpoint, UFaiL. From a long-term strategic aspect however, I understand what they're doing: marketing themselves as clearly an inferior product to the NFL, but asking "Hey, give us a few years." Meanwhile they seem to be working behind the scenes - hard - on developing an on-field product that doesn't completely suck wind. That's the right approach IMHO.

As of last checking, their best players are J.P. Losman and Adam Archuleta. Their product needs a little refining....or Michael Vick.

[GeorgesL]

They stole Orlando's idea. It would've been perfect for them.

[GeorgesL]

http://www.ufl-football.com/press/2009/08/...form_guidelines

The California Redwoods.

Also, what is the font used on this banner?

I have that same question regarding the UFL font.

[oldschoolvikings]

When I'm aimlessly flipping channels, and a football game pops up, I stop and watch.

I will watch a run of the mill CFL game even if I don't recognize the teams.

I will watch random USFL highlights on ESPN classic.

I will watch Converence USA College football on thursday nights when the world series is on another channel.

Today while going to the library, I pulled off to the side of the road to watch the local high school team run drills.

OK, maybe I'm a freak. But maybe not, maybe I'm not the only one. Yeah, the uniforms suck, the identities are non-existent. But it's football. I'm gonna watch.

[logoman]

It looks like the UFL logo font is a modified version of Colossal Bold.

[DarkJourney]

I can tell you that no one here in the Bay Area will give a crap about the California Redwoods especially without San Francisco, Oakland or San Jose in front of it's nickname. They have to compete against the 49ers, Raiders, Warriors, Sharks and a possible Giants post season run. Good luck with that when 12 fans show up at AT&T park.

[RichardWitham]

actually i want them to do well, i support alot of pro league teams, and want them to do well. i think it will fill up because it'll be cheaper than giants games to get into AT&T park, so that is good.

[chuckymack]

Bad economy + cheap seats + football = attendance.

Don't get me wrong: they're not gonna sell out every game?or any game, for that matter?but people will go.

[DarkJourney]

Not in the Bay Area during the peak fall/winter sports season

[FiddySicks]

Not in the Bay Area during the peak fall/winter sports season

Yeah, definitely not. AT&T Park is absolutely stunning, but droves of people aren't going to go watch minor league football with everything else the bay area has to offer, no matter how nice the stadium is. The Demons couldn't do it, and they were playing during a relatively slow sports period (the Warriors were AWFUL that season too, and the Sharks were far enough away to not pull away too many fans from the Demon "Fan Base"), the UFL is starting at the WORST possible time. With everything else just sports wise the city alone has to offer, the Redwood Trees are gonna get eaten up. And to top all of that off, if the Giants make the post season it could potentially screw up the UFL schedule (I'd assume schedules have been made in case this happens, but with this league who knows), making it that much harder to attract fans.

I really gotta wonder who in the Hell is running this league, it's an absolute train wreck and camps haven't even opened yet. It's starting to make the new ABA look good.

[Brian in Boston]

It doesn't make any sense to pay Plan B or someone else a ton of money (x4) to develop identities and uniforms etc.

The problem with your reasoning is that the United Football League has paid several vendors to develop the brand packages, logos and uniforms that UFL franchises will utilize this year. I know that Landor Associates, Purepartner and Bendigo have all collaborated with the UFL on various parts of the branding effort and I am sure that these firms aren't simply providing their services out of the goodness of their hearts. Said firms are undoubtedly charging a significant fee for their services.

Bottom line? Don't kid yourself - the powers-that-be at UFL headquarters have dropped serious coin in the pursuit of what amounts to a single uniform template, a limited color palette, team names that run the gamut from solid (Sentinels) to cutesy (Tuskers) to uninspired (Redwoods), and four yet-to-be-unveiled team logos. What's more, they've hired a minimum of three firms to provide them with these less-than-stellar examples of team branding.

Oh, and let's not fall all over ourselves commending the UFL for supposedly engaging in "genius" outside-the-box thinking and choosing to accentuate the league brand over individual team brands in the circuit's early-going. The failure to come up with unique, dynamic, well-designed individual identity packages - including uniforms - for each of the UFL's four teams is, quite frankly, a result of the league's leaders rushing this product to market in 2009, rather than waiting another year and launching in 2010. By the time the decision was made to go forward this Fall, there was too little time left to have branding professionals engage in adequate creative and vetting processes for individual logos and custom uniforms for each of the four teams. Corners had to be cut. As a result, in some sort of face-saving measure, the UFL's powers-that-be have concocted this back-story that claims a single "Premiere Season" uniform template and limited color palette is part of some purposely sought-after league-first branding campaign. Sure. And the "Name the Team" contest was a legitimate vehicle for choosing team identities, as opposed to a ploy that generated a list of e-mail addresses of potential fans that can be used for mass-marketing purposes.

[RIPmetrodome]

It doesn't make any sense to pay Plan B or someone else a ton of money (x4) to develop identities and uniforms etc.

The problem with your reasoning is that the United Football League has paid several vendors to develop the brand packages, logos and uniforms that UFL franchises will utilize this year. I know that Landor Associates, Purepartner and Bendigo have all collaborated with the UFL on various parts of the branding effort and I am sure that these firms aren't simply providing their services out of the goodness of their hearts. Said firms are undoubtedly charging a significant fee for their services.

Bottom line? Don't kid yourself - the powers-that-be at UFL headquarters have dropped serious coin in the pursuit of what amounts to a single uniform template, a limited color palette, team names that run the gamut from solid (Sentinels) to cutesy (Tuskers) to uninspired (Redwoods), and four yet-to-be-unveiled team logos. What's more, they've hired a minimum of three firms to provide them with these less-than-stellar examples of team branding.

Oh, and let's not fall all over ourselves commending the UFL for supposedly engaging in "genius" outside-the-box thinking and choosing to accentuate the league brand over individual team brands in the circuit's early-going. The failure to come up with unique, dynamic, well-designed individual identity packages - including uniforms - for each of the UFL's four teams is, quite frankly, a result of the league's leaders rushing this product to market in 2009, rather than waiting another year and launching in 2010. By the time the decision was made to go forward this Fall, there was too little time left to have branding professionals engage in adequate creative and vetting processes for individual logos and custom uniforms for each of the four teams. Corners had to be cut. As a result, in some sort of face-saving measure, the UFL's powers-that-be have concocted this back-story that claims a single "Premiere Season" uniform template and limited color palette is part of some purposely sought-after league-first branding campaign. Sure. And the "Name the Team" contest was a legitimate vehicle for choosing team identities, as opposed to a ploy that generated a list of e-mail addresses of potential fans that can be used for mass-marketing purposes.

you're a great debater.

well said brian.

as numerous others have already said: other than sentinels, i cant imagine any of the other names in professional sports. but the "rockfish" name might pop up somewhere in southeastern minor-league baseball someday

[leopard88]

. . . - like nobody wants to be uncool and disagree with the masses.

You know what, I'm going to be the uncool guy. I'm not completely sold on the mix-and-match of league colors concept, but I actually like the template . . . and this is coming from one of the older guys on the board, who drools over football jerseys with 3/4-length sleeves, sleeve stripes and shoulder loops that actually go all the way around.

[Gothamite]

I think the branding has taken a back seat to the on-field football product, which bodes well for its future. The USFL and XFL were fantastic at marketing - so much so that when the actual product was brought to the public, they took a look at it, sniffed, then walked away. The UFL seems to be doing the opposite here, and that's probably a good thing.

I'll actually disagree with you about the XFL. Their marketing was terrible.

There was a terrible schism within the organization as to whether they were producing a reality show (cameras on the sideline interviewing cheerleaders about their quarterback boyfriends' sexual exploits the night before) or a real football league.

On the one hand, you've got Dick Butkus playing up the on-field product. On the other you had the marketing, pushing away serious football fans with joke names. That's hardly an effective marketing strategy.

[TruColor]

I'll actually disagree with you about the XFL. Their marketing was terrible.

Weren't the XFL cheerleaders giving lap dances to fans during games? Or was that just a ridiculous rumor?

(It sure SEEMS ridiculous.)

[Gothamite]

Yep.

Sure seemed ridiculous at the time.

[BawlmerOreos]

The branding points (establish league before establishing teams) brought up here are very smart and valid.

BUT...without being able to sell tickets locally and rally community support in the 4 markets, this league will be doomed. Yes, on the national scale, the UFL needs to do anything and everything to sell itself as a brand. But if the teams don't feel "legitimate", they'll have more hurdles.

Maybe once the logos are introduced (which to match the uniforms, I guess, will also be green, black, blue and silver???) the teams will feel more legitimate. But right now...it all smells like exhibition.

The D-League comparison is VERY true. And we see now that those teams are now branded much better than they were at first.

The league's timing is perfect. (With the end of the AFL and the rise of HD and new cable networks like Versus.) If any secondary league is to work, this one has the best chance of any. But creating "generic" teams isn't starting them off on the right foot.

I think the names are very strong so far...although, I'm praying the Tuskers name goes the way of the Rockfish.

And this may be purely personal, but as a microcosm of their fan base, I was very excited to buy a shirt or jersey or hat of these new brands. After seeing the generic choices I have so far...I'm no longer pulling out my credit card.