New Clippers logo/identity?

[Gothamite]

As horrible as the current Clippers logo is, this would have been even worse. With the upcoming ownership change, it would be a prime time to completely rename and rebrand the team.

We'll see what the new owner has in store, but I think that would send the absolute wrong message. Don't try to bury the past, just work to create a brighter future.

I didn't mean it to "bury the past". I for one quite frankly think the whole thing was blown well out of proportion, and such a move purely to escape ties to that would be absolutely wrong, but the team name and identity carries very little goodwill as far as pro sports are concerned.

In the market? Are you sure about that? Because I'm not.

[BBTV]

As horrible as the current Clippers logo is, this would have been even worse. With the upcoming ownership change, it would be a prime time to completely rename and rebrand the team.

We'll see what the new owner has in store, but I think that would send the absolute wrong message. Don't try to bury the past, just work to create a brighter future.

That's pretty much how I felt when people were saying that Penn St needed a full rebrand and to go with a radical modern look. In fact, you stated that they no longer deserved their look. What's the difference here?

The ugly is a part of the past, and history shouldn't be erased, even when it's ugly. If you start over, the lessons to be learned could be lost on future generations.

[tBBP]

I think some would do well to consider how the Tampa Bay Buccaneers went about "erasing their past". Outside of a five-year span when the 70s turned into the 80s, that franchise was the poster child for futility...owned by probably the most frugal owner the NFL had at the time in Hugh Culverhouse. But, like Sterling the man had money, and knew how to make his money make money (as well as the NFL's as well). Anyway, all that to the side, enter new owner Malcolm Glazer in 1995...one of the first things he had on his agenda was to completely erase all that bad juju from the past, made sweeping changes to the team's brand identity...seventeen years post-revamp (yes its been that long) and not only are they consistently relevant, more people associate the Buccaneers with the now-familiar pewter and red than they ever did with the old orange and red...and on top of having had arguably one of the league's best looks up until two months ago, their brand also rocketed up to the top of merchandise sales charts...completely changed the game around down there in Tampa.

Point is....they changed dang near everything about that team except the name.

Just throwing that out there.

[Gothamite]

As horrible as the current Clippers logo is, this would have been even worse. With the upcoming ownership change, it would be a prime time to completely rename and rebrand the team.

We'll see what the new owner has in store, but I think that would send the absolute wrong message. Don't try to bury the past, just work to create a brighter future.

That's pretty much how I felt when people were saying that Penn St needed a full rebrand and to go with a radical modern look. In fact, you stated that they no longer deserved their look. What's the difference here?

The ugly is a part of the past, and history shouldn't be erased, even when it's ugly. If you start over, the lessons to be learned could be lost on future generations.

The difference is while that the Clippers were run by a truly scummy owner, I'm not aware that the organization was itself involved in racist practices. Their owner did, but others in the organization? It's just one bad actor (no matter how important he was within the company).

Penn State itself was involved in aiding and protecting a known child molester. From the university overseers to the head coach, the organization had a corporate culture of corruption that hasn't been alleged with the Clippers.

The situations really aren't analogous for that reason.

[wonderbread]

As horrible as the current Clippers logo is, this would have been even worse. With the upcoming ownership change, it would be a prime time to completely rename and rebrand the team.

We'll see what the new owner has in store, but I think that would send the absolute wrong message. Don't try to bury the past, just work to create a brighter future.

That's pretty much how I felt when people were saying that Penn St needed a full rebrand and to go with a radical modern look. In fact, you stated that they no longer deserved their look. What's the difference here?

The ugly is a part of the past, and history shouldn't be erased, even when it's ugly. If you start over, the lessons to be learned could be lost on future generations.

The difference is while that the Clippers were run by a truly scummy owner, I'm not aware that the organization was itself involved in racist practices. Their owner did, but others in the organization? It's just one bad actor (no matter how important he was within the company).

Penn State itself was involved in aiding and protecting a known child molester. From the university overseers to the head coach, the organization had a corporate culture of corruption that hasn't been alleged with the Clippers.

The situations really aren't analogous for that reason.

no clippers was very much the same, everyone knew that Sterling was a racist douche and just denied it or said nothing about it until these tapes of proof came out.

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

They were due for a change 20 years ago. At this point, might as well just stick with it.

[Gothamite]

no clippers was very much the same, everyone knew that Sterling was a racist douche and just denied it or said nothing about it until these tapes of proof came out.

Find me another Clippers employee or administrator being a racist douche. Show me where the Clippers organizational structure colluded with a policy of racist douchebaggery, and then maybe then we can start to draw an analogy between the two. Until then, it's not even close.

[IceCap]

No one here (that I can recall) suggested that Penn State abandon the Nitty Lions name. At most you had people calling for various forms of rebrands, but not a name change. Which seems in line with what people want to see here. A rebrand that keeps the team name.

[Xist2inspire]

Sounds like the 1993 change that got nixed at the last second.

This has potential. I love that arch. If one were to keep the arch, place an updated version of the San Diego Clippers logo in the semicircle, and perhaps find a better wordmark for "Clippers"...that might look pretty good. The colors need to be changed though.

[BBTV]

As horrible as the current Clippers logo is, this would have been even worse. With the upcoming ownership change, it would be a prime time to completely rename and rebrand the team.

We'll see what the new owner has in store, but I think that would send the absolute wrong message. Don't try to bury the past, just work to create a brighter future.

That's pretty much how I felt when people were saying that Penn St needed a full rebrand and to go with a radical modern look. In fact, you stated that they no longer deserved their look. What's the difference here?

The ugly is a part of the past, and history shouldn't be erased, even when it's ugly. If you start over, the lessons to be learned could be lost on future generations.

The difference is while that the Clippers were run by a truly scummy owner, I'm not aware that the organization was itself involved in racist practices. Their owner did, but others in the organization? It's just one bad actor (no matter how important he was within the company).

Penn State itself was involved in aiding and protecting a known child molester. From the university overseers to the head coach, the organization had a corporate culture of corruption that hasn't been alleged with the Clippers.

The situations really aren't analogous for that reason.

I understand the distinction that you're making, I just don't agree that they're that much different, because while Sterling was only one person, the buck stops with him and he essentially is the institution, because he has the ability to hire people that share his values (or at least won't stand up to him) and is in the ultimate position of power, so while everyone knew of his beliefs, people were likely scared to challenge him for fear of losing their jobs. Wow that's a long sentence. When he's gone, the entire organization will be overhauled by the new owners, so he essentially represents the whole thing.

Disregarding my argument and just focusing on your statement, I just don't get the feeling that if multiple people are involved, then scrap the whole identity and start over but if it's only the head of the organization then keep everything the same.

Clearly, what Penn St did was much worse than some guy just being a racist (though we don't know how those beliefs affected others in the organization - the people you never see or hear from - words are one thing, but he had the power to affect people in other ways) but in terms of corporate / institutional identity, I think that the situations are similar enough to warrant the same response. Hide the past by scrapping your identity and moving forward (for Penn State, they obviously can't change their name, but scrapping their iconic uniforms would have essentially been the same thing), or simply move forward and recognize the ugly parts of your past as well as the great parts (though I'm not sure what the Clippers' great part is.)

[hugevolsfan]

Sounds like the 1993 change that got nixed at the last second.

This has potential. I love that arch. If one were to keep the arch, place an updated version of the San Diego Clippers logo in the semicircle, and perhaps find a better wordmark for "Clippers"...that might look pretty good. The colors need to be changed though.

I think for Los Angeles Breakers or San Diego Breakers it would work but I think this logo is a reach for Clippers.

[Rays]

 

Just because a unpopular player or owner leaves does not mean you should rebrand.......Like they did in Cleveland, it just makes whoever it is, feel that more important.

Cleveland's rebranding had nothing to do with Lebron leaving - it would have been in the works long before he left.

sounds right, but it's really big coincidence

[habsfan1]

The Clippers actually play in the same building as the Lakers. Same city, same arena, same everything unlike the 2 NY NHL Teams, and the 2 Chicago MLB teams. No wonder their logos are similar. Who do you cheer for?

[bosrs1]

If the Clippers change to anything it should be to something like their original San Diego Clippers logo/color scheme or damn close to it.

[The_Admiral]

I'd prefer that a major-market team, which the Clippers finally seem to be now, keep its identity simple. No reason to get conceptual.

[TheRicSlick]

The Clippers actually play in the same building as the Lakers. Same city, same arena, same everything unlike the 2 NY NHL Teams, and the 2 Chicago MLB teams. No wonder their logos are similar. Who do you cheer for?

Fans in L.A choose to be fans of the team that is winning.

[BShaw20]

This logo screams Gorton's Isles. I bet if introduced it would be treated just like that too.

[Gothamite]

Disregarding my argument and just focusing on your statement, I just don't get the feeling that if multiple people are involved, then scrap the whole identity and start over but if it's only the head of the organization then keep everything the same.

I think you might be reading a bit more into my frustration with Penn State than I meant.

But in any case, I think that was a singular situation in sports (fortunately). Sterling is a royal scumbag, and even sets the tone, but I've yet to see any evidence that the corporate structure of the Clippers colluded to actively put his racism into policy. Much less shield and project a known pedophile.

[Shadojoker]

Something like this or Quicksilver logo would be cool.

[TheRicSlick]

Something like this or Quicksilver logo would be cool.

Something similar to those would look horrible.