Minor League Teams sharing Major League Teams' Identity in design

[Patchez]

Dallas Start - Texas Stars

I think it is either moronic or just plain playing to the stupidity of many (not all) Texans out there (secede already Texas ;-) to have both teams share the same nickname and similar logos. (half joking... if offended, see bottom of post!)

But to my broader point here, I think that ALL pro "farm" teams should have separate identities, colors and uniform designs than that of their affiliated major leaguers have. More emphasis on an identity to the minor league teams' locale and not their major league affiliate. I am not just picking on hockey, all sports apply!

Heck, while I'm up here balancing myself on a large plastic bottle (no soapbox available, we use liquid detergent!), all college and high school teams should at least replace their cloned logos of the major leaguers. (Throw a local logo designer a bone! Even a pro bono bone!)

Pro players in the minors aspiring to be major leaguers should not professionally wear major league uniforms until and when they earned a spot on the major's roster IMHO.

I like the fact that, for example, the AHL Chicago Wolves have their own identity, not mere clones of the NHL Atlanta Thrashers. Not to mention my liking the assortment of specialty jersey designs the Wolves come up with from time to time for home games (putting some designer(s) to work.)

Unlike the AHL Rockford Ice Hogs who had pretty good looking jerseys until they joined the AHL and affiliated with the Chicago Blackhawks, then copied the traditional (old & tired looking*) Hawks design. Why do the minor league teams have to shove it in your face that they feed some of their players to a particular major league team in such a way. Fans of each team would know that fact going in and casual fans don't need to be hoodwinked into believing they are seeing ALL future major leaguers out there on the ice, field or court.

Yeah, I know that their thought might have been they'd be selling more jerseys if they looked like their NHL affiliate, but isn't that what "alternate" uniforms were all about anyway? Are all small market sports towns that hard up to be like the big ones? I wouldn't think so! Can't a fan in Rockford buy a Blackhawks sweater AND a Ice Hog sweater? I'm just saying!

Unique designs and colors for the minors will ALSO benefit the design community giving more folks opportunity to share their creativity, not to mention make a living doing so.

We as a community should discourage the practice of cloning the majors' designs and colors. Will it change this practice... probably not.

(Oops, my detergent bottle just collapsed. gotta get off!)

What is your opinion on my ranting???

*I am not knocking the Blackhawks logo... still one of the best out there!

P.S. Alternate post opening line for offended hockey fans, Texans, or wannabe Texans...

New York Yankees - Staten Island Yankees

I think it is either moronic or just plain playing to the stupidity of many (not all) New Yorkers out there to have both teams share the same nickname and similar logos!

[The_Admiral]

In baseball, old teams with established large regional followings and nicknames that aren't too city-specific do well with variations on the parent club: there's a nice unity that comes from dotting the Southeast with farm clubs called the Braves, or the Cardinals in the Mid-South. On the other hand, a network of Diamondbacks affiliates all called the Diamondbacks wouldn't work. With the hundreds and hundreds of minor league baseball teams, there's plenty of room for classic names and unique identities.

As for hockey, I'm somewhat inclined to say that more affiliates should take on the names of their parent clubs, because we can't fill out a thirty-team NHL without resorting to the banality of "Predators" and "Hurricanes," or really terrible names like "Thrashers," "Wild," and "Lightning," to say nothing of small-time stinkers like "Iowa Chops," "Toledo Walleye," "Abbotsford Heat," "Niagara IceDogs," "Rockford IceHogs," "Sarnia Sting," "Brampton Battalion," and "Pee Dee Pride." Not to say the AHL and major-juniors don't have good nicknames, but the bad ones sure are eye-catching.

Funny you mention the Wolves. They're an odd duck as far as minor-league teams go: the ineptitude of the Blackhawks from about 1994-2007 forced them to position themselves as a de facto major league team. Not only have they bothered to craft an independent visual identity, they're also pretty independent as a farm team. While other affiliates exist to solely develop prospects, the Wolves have traditionally cared more about functioning as an actual top-to-bottom enterprise, by acquiring name players, playing to win, and marketing themselves. I'm glad they have such a strong identity, but you have to remember that not every AHL team will find itself in the position of caring about their visual identity like the Wolves did. Meanwhile, down the tollway,

Unlike the AHL Rockford Ice Hogs who had pretty good looking jerseys until they joined the AHL and affiliated with the Chicago Blackhawks, then copied the traditional (old & tired looking*) Hawks design. Why do the minor league teams have to shove it in your face that they feed some of their players to a particular major league team in such a way.

Because that's part of how they put butts in seats, that's why. And as for the IceHogs, they haven't gone far enough in aping the parent team: take on the Blackhawks name and drop the awful "IceHogs" moniker. Design a variation on the Indian head, even go back to spelling it Black Hawks if you'd like. Give these guys some dignity. Who would want to be a pig on ice? It's a terrible name for a team in the second-highest league. Maybe it was good enough for the beer leagues, but it's not good enough now. Just be the Blackhawks.

[Snarf]

I think it depends on how much marketing the minor league team can get by being closely associated with the big club. In Buffalo, the Bisons changed their colors and logo this season to become more close to the Mets. They still have their own identity, but people know they are the Mets farm club. Now it would make no sense for the Las Vegas 51's to change to Blue Jays colors, because I am sure the people of Vegas don't care about the Jays. So it makes since from club to club.

Now the Norfolk Tides do it all wrong. They wear their royal blue and light blue at home. And on the road they wear Orioles black and orange. Just pick a color scheme and go with it. No home and road colors.

[TBGKon]

Personally, I wish minor league teams would brand their own identity. Now I understand that there are some teams (Yankees, Braves, etc.) that work well, but even if these teams were to create identites related to the parent name (Bombers, Clipper, etc. for Yankees).

Perfect example of my though was when the Florida State League's Lakeland Tigers changed to the Flying Tigers. The name keeps the relation to Detroit, while giving it some local flair (since the ballpark in Lakeland is on the site of a former WWII Airbase).

I could come up wit countless names for the teams that are in the Florida State League with major league names, and I wish more would become their own teams, rather than a pawn of the major club.

[oddball]

It doesn't bother me either way. I don't see it as a problem, or that teams should do it. I think it should be up to the teams what they want to call their affiliates. I know the LA Kings have recently kept their minor league teams in the royalty theme.

[Discrim]

I know one thing about Rockford: they gotta bring back the pig butt.

[TTaylor44]

I know one thing about Rockford: they gotta bring back the pig butt.

I 100% agree with that.

[The Fixer]

i have nothing of revelance to say,

i just want to say that my Uncle used to own the ice hogs, and i thought it was cool to see it here haha cause no one i know, has idea idea who they are

[epper]

I really like when the minor league team has a similar enough name that you know which big-league club they belong to, but its not exact.

Examples being:

Memphis Redbirds (STL-AAA)

Tucson Sidewinders (Former ARZ -AAA)

[chakfu]

I really like when the minor league team has a similar enough name that you know which big-league club they belong to, but its not exact.

Examples being:

Memphis Redbirds (STL-AAA)

Tucson Sidewinders (Former ARZ -AAA)

I like that too;

One thing to factor in though is the frequency that baseball affiliates change. Sticking with an independent identity is probably better than changing every few years.

[darkshadow1031]

I think it depends on how much marketing the minor league team can get by being closely associated with the big club. In Buffalo, the Bisons changed their colors and logo this season to become more close to the Mets. They still have their own identity, but people know they are the Mets farm club. Now it would make no sense for the Las Vegas 51's to change to Blue Jays colors, because I am sure the people of Vegas don't care about the Jays. So it makes since from club to club.

Now the Norfolk Tides do it all wrong. They wear their royal blue and light blue at home. And on the road they wear Orioles black and orange. Just pick a color scheme and go with it. No home and road colors.

On a note about affiliates waring the same colors as their parent clubs:

It makes it so much easier for organizations to purchase large quantities of the same colored equipment (socks, undershirts, ect) for all their affiliates. Players then can wear the same clothing all season - from the time they report to spring training and then with their minor league team, regardless if they move throughout the organization.

But there are exceptions. I know, for example, it is a big problem in the Cleveland Indians organization when all the teams wear dark blue/navy except for the Akron Aeros, who have black as their base color. When the organization purchased Majestic Therma Base long sleeve shirts imprinted with each team's logo, the Aeros were then stuck with a surplus of navy shirts that their players couldn't wear with their black/purple color scheme. This was then remedied by the team purchasing generic Under Armor undershirts for the players.

(I hope this made sense, it did in my head)

[Bigboy1083]

I like it when the teams try to connect with their affiliates.

NHL - L.A. Kings

AHL - Manchester Monarchs

ECHL - Ontario Reign

I love it when teams try to come up with there own identity, and connect with the city/state they call home.

NHL - New York Rangers

AHL - Hartford Wolf Pack - Named after the USS Seawolf (SSN-21) built in Groton CT.

ECHL - Charlotte Checkers - Named after the checked flag in racing.

I know, I'm being a homer with the last example, but you get my point.

[BBTV]

The '83 - ?? Portland Beavers used the Phillies old font for their wordmark and cap. The owner of the Reading Phillies bought the team in '85 (I think), and wanted to make them the Portland Phillies for some reason. Obviously, that never happened, though I'm not sure why it fell through. According to the team's website, the fans weren't happy about the name change so the owner backed off.

[Patchez]

Because that's part of how they put butts in seats, that's why. And as for the IceHogs, they haven't gone far enough in aping the parent team: take on the Blackhawks name and drop the awful "IceHogs" moniker. Design a variation on the Indian head, even go back to spelling it Black Hawks if you'd like. Give these guys some dignity. Who would want to be a pig on ice? It's a terrible name for a team in the second-highest league. Maybe it was good enough for the beer leagues, but it's not good enough now. Just be the Blackhawks.

I agree on your observations on the Chicago Wolves franchise's unique situation. I also agree that these decisions are tied into getting seats filled, but today the sale of licensed products is an ever increasing consideration. Products offered for sale beyond the region the teams plays in. As a sidebar, in this economy, charging major league prices at minor league games is NOT a way to fill seats.

I respectfully disagree that the minors should be more closely tied to the majors in terms of visual identity of the players on the ice/field/court when your emphasis was on the poor choice of the names of some teams.

As for the Blackhawks and the Ice Hogs. Since the Hawks were named after a WWI battalion that was named after one man, Chief Black Hawk of the Sauk Nation who resided in the Rockford/Rock River area, I can perhaps understand sharing Chicago's nickname, contradicting a bit my rant above. But I once saw a death mask of Chief Black Hawk at the Chicago Historical Museum at one time, and the current logo's facial profile matched that of the mask, so the idea of a logo of the different Native American is really a poor choice in my opinion. Should the team's named have been derived from the Blackhawk Nation, then another Native American portrait could be considered.

[BallWonk]

There is a balance to be had. My personal ideal would be for every minor-league team to have a locally appropriate or distinct name. From a marketing perspective, I believe that's the better way to build long-term value. I'm also a fan of bringing the parent club's identity into play through shared aesthetic elements. So I like how several Nats farm clubs have adopted various elements of the parent club's look -- Harrisburg's cap logo that mirrors the pretzel W, or the beveled block script in Columbus a few years back -- but kept their own names and sometimes colors. This can go horribly wrong -- see Syracuse and Buffalo -- but if done thoughtfully, it can give a team the best of both worlds from a brand-building perspective.

However, there are situations where adopting the parent club's name makes sense. Very low minors, for example, or minor leagues that have small natural fan bases (such as most minor-league hockey teams) and need to draw on the brand equity of the parent club to attract fans. I sorely miss the Cannons identity of the single-A team down the street from me, but adopting the Nationals name has helped the club gain regional attention it had struggled for years to attract. If the P-Nats were a double-A team, I would think that aping the parent club would be the wrong way to go, an example of short-term thinking at the expense of long-term brand building. So for example Bowie would be wrong to switch from the Baysox to the Orioles; if the affiliation changed tomorrow the Baysox would retain the bulk of their existing fan base, since the team has invested over the long haul in building value in the Baysox identity. But a single-A team playing in a glorified high school field like the P-Nats are probably better off associating themselves directly with their parent club, particularly given their geographic proximity.

[Gothamite]

The '83 - ?? Portland Beavers used the Phillies old font for their wordmark and cap. The owner of the Reading Phillies bought the team in '85 (I think), and wanted to make them the Portland Phillies for some reason. Obviously, that never happened, though I'm not sure why it fell through. According to the team's website, the fans weren't happy about the name change so the owner backed off.

Just to clarify, the Beavers adopted the same font the Phillies were using at the time.

The Beavers did this on at least one other occasion - in the late 1980s they wore Twins-inspired uniforms, reflecting a change in affiliation:

Same underscores as on Minneapolis' caps and jerseys, although "EAVER" doesn't have quite the same resonance as "WIN".

[TBGKon]

I like it when the teams try to connect with their affiliates.

NHL - L.A. Kings

AHL - Manchester Monarchs

ECHL - Ontario Reign

I love it when teams try to come up with there own identity, and connect with the city/state they call home.

NHL - New York Rangers

AHL - Hartford Wolf Pack - Named after the USS Seawolf (SSN-21) built in Groton CT.

ECHL - Charlotte Checkers - Named after the checked flag in racing.

I know, I'm being a homer with the last example, but you get my point.

Great comment. Sums up what I wanted to say, but in less words. Here are some examples of things that could work down here in the Florida State League:

Palm Beach Cardinals --> Palm Beach Parrots (still a bird, could potentially be red, ties into Florida better)

Tampa Yankees --> Tampa Legends, Tampa Bombers, etc. (use a nickname of the Yanks and keep the connection there)

Sarasota Reds --> Sarasota Ringmasters (The Ringling Bros. have ties to the area)

Dunedin Blue Jays --> Dunedin Scots or Scotties (Dunedin has a prevalent Scottish heritage)

St. Lucie Mets --> St. Lucie Oranges (Florida citrus industry, plus a Tropicana plant is near the stadium)

[JQK]

I have been and always will be fine with minor league affiliates sharing the big club's indentity, unless it makes no sense (Reading Phillies, for example)

I'm also fine with minor leage teams getting their own identity. This subject really doesn't get a big reaction from me one way or another.

[Maz]

I dont like it. Unoriginal.

However it isn't so bad. Just as long as they don't just go ahead and cop jerseys from pretty much every era of the big team's history.

I'm looking at you, Wilkes-Barre/Scranton Penguins.

[oakland ehs]

In my perfect world, minor league teams would have their own names and logos, but would adopt the colors and some uniform elements of their parent clubs.

At least something that connects affiliate to parent.

For example, all A's affiliates wear white shoes. Or in the LA Kings organization, all of the teams have similar themes.