Should a team's identity be "intimidating"?

[Mingjai]

I've always liked how this is the mascot of one of the traditional powers in NCAA hockey:

[Chicageaux]

A team name should have regional significance.

While I agree that a team name doesn't have to be intimidating I don't think it *has* to have regional significance. There's nothing regional about the names "Chicago Bears" and "Pittsburgh Pirates" but they work.

Yeah but in the case with the Pirates and many other teams with a long history, they're names grew organically, they didn't just pick a generic name. They were called pirates for supposedly stealing players from another team, and so they adopted it as the team nickname. The Detroit Tigers were the Wolverines, but were nicknamed tigers because of their striped socks and eventually made the change. A lot of the "generic", non-regional names in sports are these old teams whose names were chosen for specific reasons. So it's not really all that dissimilar from regional names.

I found the Bears name to be slapped on, tbh

From my understanding, since the Bears played in Wrigley, the name derived from the Cubs.

[slapshot]

Celtics. A team with a Leprechaun as a mascot. Green and white colors.

Lakers. A team originally named for inhabitants of a lake. Purple and yellow/gold.

Neither nickname or color scheme instills any fear in an opponent.

But their abundance of championship banners might state differently.

[M4One]

Intimidation comes from the players, not the colours or logo of the team. Only fools would believe that a team scares other teams because they wear black or have a streamlined look (edged Edmonton Oilers).

[Gothamite]

There's nothing intimidating about a dolphin nor the colors orange or aqua, but I'd say some of the guys who used to wear those colors and a dolphin sticker on the sides of their helmets were...

Well just think how much more intimidating they would be if they wore all black uniforms! I bet they'd be more perfect in '72. They simply didn't realize their potential because their colors and mascot scored a -8 on the Swagger Scale.

It's not 1972 anymore. Here in 2014 the way a uniform looks means more to fans and athletes. It's also worth noting the Raiders--with a far more intimidating look--ended the Dolphins' winning streak and eventually appeared in and won more Super Bowls.

Oh, yeah. This is such a terrifying logo...

That Raider looks like he should be teaching Pirate Studies at an Ivy League school. I don't think he exactly helps your argument.

[spartacat_12]

I agree with the consensus here. If a team can come up with an intimidating name that also sounds good, and has a regional connection then more power to them (the Florida Panthers come to mind), but the most important thing is to make sure that your identity is distinctive and is adopted by the fanbase. Opposing players will never be nervous about a team simply because they have a scary mascot. If that were true the Toronto Raptors would've destroyed the Brooklyn Nets (much in the same way that a real raptor would destroy a net). The best examples would be the Boston Bruins and Philadelphia Flyers, historically two of the most physically intimidating teams in hockey. The Big Bad Bruins have an aggressive name, but have avoided using a snarling bear head on the front of their jerseys. And the Flyers' use a winged puck on a bright orange jersey, not exactly the most intimidating imagery. Both of these teams developed intimidating identities through their play on the ice. Bobby Clarke didn't need an angry pilot biting a stick in half to scare people, how he played was scary enough.

[chcarlson23]

Interestingly enough, you didn't quote the last paragraph. Maybe there's a reason for that.

Yeah, there is. It would have been redundant. I made my point.

I was taught by my parents and some of my teachers that how you look and what you do will reflect upon you, so you'd better make sure the image you're projecting is the one you want to be known by. Also, being self-aware of your image could also affect your attitude and your demeanor.

Ok champ. Thanks for the life lesson.

Look. No one is saying appearance isn't important. Here's the thing though. Aggression does not equal success on the field, court, or ice. The greatest football team of all time, playing the most agressive sport in North America, wore teal and had a cartoon dolphin as their logo.

"Swagger" as a term has become overused by people who think black makes every uniform better. Real swagger comes from winning. The Minnesota Timberwolves have a fierce, agressive identity. The Los Angeles Lakers don't. Which team has more swagger?

Yeah, yeah. Wearing a suit makes you confident. The key thing to remember, however, is that the Seattle Seahawks aren't the team wearing the sports equivalent of a suit. It's the Green Bay Packers. Not the Nashville Predators, but the Montreal Canadiens.

Hockey is the toughest sport in North America

[ohryan]

We're talking about professional athletes here. The chosen few who possess the talent and determination to devote their entire lives to their craft. These people aren't intimidated by anything...except hangar effects.

True story: On February 2, 2014, the Denver Broncos were favorites heading into Super Bowl XLVIII. Everything pointed towards a Broncos victory until moments before the game, when word spread throughout the Broncos locker room of the number "12" sewn inside the back collars of their opponent's uniforms, signifying the idea - borrowed from several college teams - that the support of the Seattle fans was equivalent to an extra player on the field. The Broncos suffered the misfortune of being unprepared for this twist, and went on to lose the game in embarrassing fashion. Never before has a uniform element played such an important role in modern sports history.

Intimidation? Yeah, that's putting it softly.

[tubby34]

A team name should have regional significance.

While I agree that a team name doesn't have to be intimidating I don't think it *has* to have regional significance. There's nothing regional about the names "Chicago Bears" and "Pittsburgh Pirates" but they work.

Yeah but in the case with the Pirates and many other teams with a long history, they're names grew organically, they didn't just pick a generic name. They were called pirates for supposedly stealing players from another team, and so they adopted it as the team nickname. The Detroit Tigers were the Wolverines, but were nicknamed tigers because of their striped socks and eventually made the change. A lot of the "generic", non-regional names in sports are these old teams whose names were chosen for specific reasons. So it's not really all that dissimilar from regional names.

Or highlanders for being on a hill- or yankees for having too much patriotism.

[pianoknight]

All you need to do is look at European soccer leagues to understand that team identities need not be "intimidating."

There's nothing particularly scary about the words "Manchester" and/or "United." Same for Chelsea or even Liverpool. As was stated above, it's just a candy bar wrapper.

[mafiaman]

There's nothing intimidating about a dolphin nor the colors orange or aqua, but I'd say some of the guys who used to wear those colors and a dolphin sticker on the sides of their helmets were...

Well just think how much more intimidating they would be if they wore all black uniforms! I bet they'd be more perfect in '72. They simply didn't realize their potential because their colors and mascot scored a -8 on the Swagger Scale.

It's not 1972 anymore. Here in 2014 the way a uniform looks means more to fans and athletes. It's also worth noting the Raiders--with a far more intimidating look--ended the Dolphins' winning streak and eventually appeared in and won more Super Bowls.

Oh, yeah. This is such a terrifying logo...

That Raider looks like he should be teaching Pirate Studies at an Ivy League school. I don't think he exactly helps your argument.

Speaking of logos in need of an update...

[guest23]

There's nothing intimidating about a dolphin nor the colors orange or aqua, but I'd say some of the guys who used to wear those colors and a dolphin sticker on the sides of their helmets were...

Well just think how much more intimidating they would be if they wore all black uniforms! I bet they'd be more perfect in '72. They simply didn't realize their potential because their colors and mascot scored a -8 on the Swagger Scale.

It's not 1972 anymore. Here in 2014 the way a uniform looks means more to fans and athletes. It's also worth noting the Raiders--with a far more intimidating look--ended the Dolphins' winning streak and eventually appeared in and won more Super Bowls.

Oh, yeah. This is such a terrifying logo...

That Raider looks like he should be teaching Pirate Studies at an Ivy League school. I don't think he exactly helps your argument.

Speaking of logos in need of an update...

Never. Otherwise you end up with a sci-fi motif like the new bucs jolly roger or worse; a version of the demonic ghost-rider unofficial raiders logo that so many wanna be tough guys plaster on the back window of their pickups.

The best part of the raiders logo is that it's classic and austere not some over the top caricature of what some faux hardass thinks looks tough.

[Gothamite]

True enough. That logo is pretty much the point of this thread.

[Sanic]

Let's count the most overused college names!

Cats: 18

Hawks: 14

Bears: 12

Eagles: 12

Bulldogs: 13

Was it that hard to create an original identity 100 years ago?

[OnWis97]

Let's count the most overused college names!

Cats: 18

Hawks: 14

Bears: 12

Eagles: 12

Bulldogs: 13

Was it that hard to create an original identity 100 years ago?

It was not considered that necessary to do it then. Now, of course, it's a must. And my hockey team is called the "Wild". I'd rather they be the Eagles.

[Rays]

 

I've always liked how this is the mascot of one of the traditional powers in NCAA hockey:

a nice one......... also "Beavers" maybe not intimidating, but there are people who fear and loathe them

[tBBP]

I've seen people use the Yankees, Packers, Maple Leafs and Red Sox (among other "classic" teams) to substantiate their arguments that a team nickname needn't be "intimidating" in order to scare people. Here's the thing though: as someone already mentioned, those teams were named long before many of our parents were even thought of, let alone born. Here's the other thing: all of those teams have a long historically entrenched track record of championship success...and that builds a certain reputation. In my opinion THAT, more so than any nickname, becomes more intimidating. It's how "the Pinstripes" became "The Pinstripes" in the first place...teams knew when they stepped out onto the field to face off against the Yankees, they were also going up against xx amount of championships, all the aura and mystique of past greats and legends, rabid fan support, and a perennially tough team against which to compete and defeat.

I bring that up to illustrate this point: all of what I just mentioned are attributes that come to mind when one thinks of the Yankees...to a man, if a "brand" invokes emotional and sensory connotations of a certain entity, then the Yankees' "brand" could be summarized in two words: "championship pedigree". They have the titles, retired numbers, plaques, banners, and all the rest of those accolades to show for it. They even put on a professional appearance (no long hair, clean shaven), all in keeping with their "brand" of professionalism. Now, here's the crux: all that was established over time. Names and players changed, but the one thing that (for the most part) didn't was the NY over the left breast, or those pinstriped uniforms...the visual interpretation of their brand, which in essence is what an "identity" really is. The thing is, though, in a vacuum nothing about the Yankees' visual identity scares anyone...it's the intangible mental and emotional connotations that are associated with that look (covered above) that'll do it.

I'll provide another example: the North Carolina Tar Heels basketball program. What's the common name for their primary color? "Baby blue". How in the world would a color used for babies scare anyone? Yet, here again we have a team (or in this case program) that over time has built a reputation of championship pedigree on the hardwood, to the point that a/ their color is now widely referred to as "Carolina" blue (though to be fair that probably also had just as much to do with its uniquness--at least back before half the team's in this country found some way to shove it up into their colorways) and b/ just the name "North Carolina" alone can invoke fear into an opponent. But again, it isn't the visual identity that's scaring anyone, but rather that championship pedigree they're going up against.

Now, take that a juxtapose it with a team that doesn't have nearly that history or pedigree, or say an expansion team somewhere. Especially in this current age of heightened media and brand awareness, not to mention instant gratification (no one wants to "develop" anything anymore--everything's gotta be RIGHT NOW, it seems), everything is scrutinized (especially up in here), right down to the last detail. So if you want a formidable identity, you either resort to using cheap or quick gimmicks (take one good look at the current state of college football), or you pretty much need to build it from scratch. The simple truth is that certain colors and images will evoke more of a sensory "intimidation" response than others (chief example: the Buccaneers' blood red and pewter couple versus it's former creamsicle orange and white as well as the skull and cross-swords versus a winking pirate with a knife clenched in its teeth). I think its pretty well-known that darker colors come off as more "fierce and intimidating" whereas lighter, brighter colors may come off as, well, "happy", and at any rate definitely not as intimidating. (I don't doubt that's what led to the widespread "darkening" of pro-sport colorways back in the latter '90s on up through now. As others have said, it does produce a reaction in the players, as well, if the identity looks "tough" versus, well, "not tough"--unless that "not tough" identity has the championship pedigree to back it up.

TL; DR: Teams that have championship pedigree don't need an intimidating visual look to scare anyone...those without that pedigree, probably do.

[guest23]

I've seen people use the Yankees, Packers, Maple Leafs and Red Sox (among other "classic" teams) to substantiate their arguments that a team nickname needn't be "intimidating" in order to scare people. Here's the thing though: as someone already mentioned, those teams were named long before many of our parents were even thought of, let alone born. Here's the other thing: all of those teams have a long historically entrenched track record of championship success...and that builds a certain reputation. In my opinion THAT, more so than any nickname, becomes more intimidating. It's how "the Pinstripes" became "The Pinstripes" in the first place...teams knew when they stepped out onto the field to face off against the Yankees, they were also going up against xx amount of championships, all the aura and mystique of past greats and legends, rabid fan support, and a perennially tough team against which to compete and defeat.

I bring that up to illustrate this point: all of what I just mentioned are attributes that come to mind when one thinks of the Yankees...to a man, if a "brand" invokes emotional and sensory connotations of a certain entity, then the Yankees' "brand" could be summarized in two words: "championship pedigree". They have the titles, retired numbers, plaques, banners, and all the rest of those accolades to show for it. They even put on a professional appearance (no long hair, clean shaven), all in keeping with their "brand" of professionalism. Now, here's the crux: all that was established over time. Names and players changed, but the one thing that (for the most part) didn't was the NY over the left breast, or those pinstriped uniforms...the visual interpretation of their brand, which in essence is what an "identity" really is. The thing is, though, in a vacuum nothing about the Yankees' visual identity scares anyone...it's the intangible mental and emotional connotations that are associated with that look (covered above) that'll do it.

I'll provide another example: the North Carolina Tar Heels basketball program. What's the common name for their primary color? "Baby blue". How in the world would a color used for babies scare anyone? Yet, here again we have a team (or in this case program) that over time has built a reputation of championship pedigree on the hardwood, to the point that a/ their color is now widely referred to as "Carolina" blue (though to be fair that probably also had just as much to do with its uniquness--at least back before half the team's in this country found some way to shove it up into their colorways) and b/ just the name "North Carolina" alone can invoke fear into an opponent. But again, it isn't the visual identity that's scaring anyone, but rather that championship pedigree they're going up against.

Now, take that a juxtapose it with a team that doesn't have nearly that history or pedigree, or say an expansion team somewhere. Especially in this current age of heightened media and brand awareness, not to mention instant gratification (no one wants to "develop" anything anymore--everything's gotta be RIGHT NOW, it seems), everything is scrutinized (especially up in here), right down to the last detail. So if you want a formidable identity, you either resort to using cheap or quick gimmicks (take one good look at the current state of college football), or you pretty much need to build it from scratch. The simple truth is that certain colors and images will evoke more of a sensory "intimidation" response than others (chief example: the Buccaneers' blood red and pewter couple versus it's former creamsicle orange and white as well as the skull and cross-swords versus a winking pirate with a knife clenched in its teeth). I think its pretty well-known that darker colors come off as more "fierce and intimidating" whereas lighter, brighter colors may come off as, well, "happy", and at any rate definitely not as intimidating. (I don't doubt that's what led to the widespread "darkening" of pro-sport colorways back in the latter '90s on up through now. As others have said, it does produce a reaction in the players, as well, if the identity looks "tough" versus, well, "not tough"--unless that "not tough" identity has the championship pedigree to back it up.

TL; DR: Teams that have championship pedigree don't need an intimidating visual look to scare anyone...those without that pedigree, probably do.

Rubbish. No player worth a damn cares about nicknames or uniforms. You also have zero data to support such a claim that a nickname or uniform influences on field success.

[GFB]

Rubbish. No player worth a damn cares about nicknames or uniforms. You also have zero data to support such a claim that a nickname or uniform influences on field success.

The Denver Broncos going to the ghost-horse and win their first Super Bowl.

The Tampa Buccaneers ditch Bucco Bruce and win the Super Bowl.

The Detroit Pistons win championships in red/white/blue, change to teal and lose a lot, go back to red/white/blue and win another championship.

Three off the top of my head.

[wonderbread]

Rubbish. No player worth a damn cares about nicknames or uniforms. You also have zero data to support such a claim that a nickname or uniform influences on field success.

The Denver Broncos going to the ghost-horse and win their first Super Bowl.

The Tampa Buccaneers ditch Bucco Bruce and win the Super Bowl.

The Detroit Pistons win championships in red/white/blue, change to teal and lose a lot, go back to red/white/blue and win another championship.

Three off the top of my head.

Correlation is not the same thing as causation, there was a multitude of other factors that went into making those teams successful than just the uniforms.