Thunder logo ranked worst in the NBA

[Pete]

It really is unbelievably, horrifically bad. I mean that literally: It's hard to believe that anything so horrible was chosen by a group of adults, let alone ones that own a professional sports franchise.

I would imagine it would still rank last if you included all pro sports (down to single-A baseball), colleges and high schools. Maybe there are some little league teams that are worse, but on the other hand there are tons that are way better.




The Definitive NBA Logo Rankings «

30. OKLAHOMA CITY THUNDER

Like, what is this? Thunder higher-ups hoped fans would think of two things when they heard the name — storms and rampaging bison — but they didn’t want to commit visually in either direction. A stormy logo might marginalize the bison, a key symbol for local Native Americans, and the staid Thunder thought it would be silly to have mature adults wear jerseys with animals on them. “We didn’t feel like having professional players represented by [an] animal was where we wanted to be,” says Brian Byrnes, the team’s senior vice-president for sales and marketing. Besides, Byrnes says, “the bull was already taken.”

Straddling the fence resulted in this vanilla mishmash. “It might be the best D-League logo ever made,” says Tom O’Grady, who served as the NBA’s first creative director before leaving to found Gameplan Creative, a Chicago-based branding consultancy. Team officials say the shield hints at a leader charging into battle, and that the upward rising “bolts,” which don’t look like bolts at all, symbolize a young franchise growing up.

No team has worse art, top to bottom, and Nike will push for an overhaul once it replaces Adidas as the league’s apparel partner in 2017. Nike and the Thunder are already talking, and the Thunder “haven’t ruled out” a more explicit weather-related secondary mark, Byrnes says.

Bad news: Oklahoma City seems locked into the shield motif and likely won’t replace it with a bison — or anything else. “To some extent, we are committed to the idea we have,” Byrnes says. “But we would not dismiss good feedback, particularly from Nike. We’re open to modernizing the logo, but we don’t have an appetite to overhaul it.”

OKCBISONThey already have plenty of nice bison illustrations, courtesy of Dick Sakahara, a California designer who consulted with the Thunder during the team’s creation.

“I have a lot of bison that never got to be,” Sakahara says.

[Martin]

i'd say this would be the worst if it were still being used:



but yeah... the thunder logo is pretty bad. i've never really liked it.

[gopokes88]

Keep in mind half the grantland writers openly mock the thunder and the other half like them. It's not a traditional sports site. Their writers are pretty open about certain biases. You'll never convince me it's worse then the new clippers logo. That thing is just atrocious.

It's not amazing by any standards but it's not that bad. It's pretty vanilla, which is pretty much how the thunder are in every aspect minus the on court play where it matters.
You could be a fan of dramatic teams like the Knicks or lakers though.

[gopokes88]

Why change the Thunder logo? | NewsOK.com

[dankrutka]

Keep in mind half the grantland writers openly mock the thunder and the other half like them. It's not a traditional sports site. Their writers are pretty open about certain biases. You'll never convince me it's worse then the new clippers logo. That thing is just atrocious.

It's not amazing by any standards but it's not that bad. It's pretty vanilla, which is pretty much how the thunder are in every aspect minus the on court play where it matters.
You could be a fan of dramatic teams like the Knicks or lakers though.

I honestly can't think of a fairer journalist in any field than the author of the article, Zach Lowe. The reason the Thunder ranked last is because he analyzed it and came to that conclusion, not because of any anti-Thunder bias. Besides, Brian Phillips is a huge Thunder fan who writes for Grantland. Who exactly, besides former Grantlander Bill Simmons, is anti-Thunder?

[dankrutka]

Why change the Thunder logo? | NewsOK.com

I love Trammel, but his reasons and analysis are pretty weak by his standards.

[Pete]

I really liked the mix of humor but also real context for the opinions, including the input of several professional branding experts.

Zach wrote a similar article about team names, which was equally reasoned and entertaining.

Grantland is pretty great.

[OKCRT]

I really liked the mix of humor but also real context for the opinions, including the input of several professional branding experts.

Zach wrote a similar article about team names, which was equally reasoned and entertaining.

Grantland is pretty great.

I thought when I first saw the logo that it was an off shot of the superman shield. Pretty bad logo IMO and it should be changed. I didn't like the name Thunder either. Just too boring and conservative all the way around IMO.

[gopokes88]

I honestly can't think of a fairer journalist in any field than the author of the article, Zach Lowe. The reason the Thunder ranked last is because he analyzed it and came to that conclusion, not because of any anti-Thunder bias. Besides, Brian Phillips is a huge Thunder fan who writes for Grantland. Who exactly, besides former Grantlander Bill Simmons, is anti-Thunder?

Lowe is solid. I like him a lot. But look how much he unloads on the thunder versus anyone else. He even mentions teams like the celts logo is bad but because they have won a bunch that makes it good. By that logic if the thunder rattle a streak of titles the logo would be good.

Andrew sharpe is openly a wizards fan and writes a few pieces a year about how to get kd to the dmv.
I like grantland and frequent it daily, but it by no means is impartial, which is great, but sometimes you have to take some things with a grain of salt.

Tramel's article was spot on. Don't just change the logo for changes sake. Logos don't win titles. Culture does. The thunder culture is vanilla, steady as she goes, and low key. This logo pretty much wraps them up.

[Pete]

I always liked the name and really thought the colors were a great idea.

The logo and the the uniform design look like something from an elementary school kid.

[Jersey Boss]

The logo reminds me of an ABA team from the early 70's. BTW, does Berry still refer to the Thunder as the "Boomers"? Berry, nobody is wanting to change the logo for changes sake, they want to change it because it is an embarrassment.

[okatty]

Lowe is solid. I like him a lot. But look how much he unloads on the thunder versus anyone else. He even mentions teams like the celts logo is bad but because they have won a bunch that makes it good. By that logic if the thunder rattle a streak of titles the logo would be good.

Andrew sharpe is openly a wizards fan and writes a few pieces a year about how to get kd to the dmv.
I like grantland and frequent it daily, but it by no means is impartial, which is great, but sometimes you have to take some things with a grain of salt.

Tramel's article was spot on. Don't just change the logo for changes sake. Logos don't win titles. Culture does. The thunder culture is vanilla, steady as she goes, and low key. This logo pretty much wraps them up.

Agree completely. I couldn't give a flying flip about the logo.

[betts]

There are some ghastly NBA logos. Personally I think Portland's is the worst. It looks like a boring low budget corporate logo to me. I hated the Thunder logo when I first saw it, but it's grown on me. It's kind of a late mid century modern look and it feels familiar now. I don't really mind it at all, and I have no faith that they'll come up with a stunningly impressive new one. We have almost no tradition yet. I say let's stick with the current logo.

[Jim Kyle]

A logo is a logo is a logo -- just an icon to symbolize some concept. Most logos are pretty horrible when examined in isolation. Who would have ever considered the Nike "swoosh!" to be good or even have anything to do with their product?

But once a logo has become clearly recognizable and associated with the concept it's supposed to symbolize, then it must not be changed lightly -- and never for the simple sake of change. If changed at all, it has to retain enough of its former self to be easily recognizable. For example, in the past week Google changed its logo slightly -- but few folk even noticed any difference. They took the serifs (the little points at the corners) off of the letters, nothing more.

Most of Lowe's criticisms in this case are valid, but meaningless. The triangular shield and the bolts are now easily recognizable around the world -- they need to stay that way!

[bchris02]

The Thunder logo is terrible. It's extremely generic and says nothing about Oklahoma or Thunder, but I don't think at this point it should be changed. The current logo is very recognizable and once you have an established brand like that, changes should not be done lightly. I think having an additional secondary logo would be the way to go.

[boitoirich]

This is the original Yankees logo. Given a much better design, I'm certain no one misses it. I would feel the same way about the Thunder logo.

Besides, pretty much any brand that has stood the test of time has changed logos several times by now. Some have even overhauled them completely (Apple and Google's original logos were unrecognizable compared to today's). This early in franchise history would be the best time to make a change.

[Snowman]

Many sports logos and team colors are largely liked/loved/hated out of nostalgia, at least half the logos in the league would draw some well deserved ridicule if released today out of nowhere. Of the ones that were announced in the past ten years, only the Hornets seemed to have an overwhelmingly positive reaction at announcement by everyone (and you know it was bad when both opponents and team fans wholly support the change). Even that was helped by replacing a poor received logo & name, mostly associated with failure, with a modernized version of one with tradition and better days.

I find the bison the author presented in the article with his rant on the thunder ironic in that it looks more fitting on a high school team than an NBA franchise.

[White Peacock]

The Thunder logo (and even the name, really) reek of temporary expansion team. We won't be changing the name any time soon, but I do agree the team deserves a better logo.

That said, it's a big stretch to call it the worst in all of sports, professional and non-...have you seen minor league hockey logos? Odessa Jackalopes, Amarillo Gorillas; no grown man should be forced to wear those things on their sweaters.

[AP]

Apple and Google's original logos were unrecognizable compared to today's

The Evolution of Tech Companies' Logos - Neatorama

[SoonerDave]

To me, it is a testimony of how rapidly things have changed in Oklahoma when you realize we are in the early stages of the college football season, and a story about an NBA team logo is getting this much play. A logo. I mean, yeah, it's the local team's logo, but it's a logo. Of absolutely *zero* practical, real-world relevance in terms of the sport itself or how likely KD is to return next year or the Thunder are to compete for an NBA title. It's nothing but marketing, yet here we are, talking about it.

Like I said, times are changing.

[Urban Pioneer]

Which firm designed the Thunder logo?

[trousers]

It reminds me of a bad version of the Doritos logo. No matter how you feel about Cool Ranch that's not a good thing.

[Pete]

Which firm designed the Thunder logo?

I know Ackerman & McQueen were heavily involved.

[gopokes88]

The Thunder logo is terrible. It's extremely generic and says nothing about Oklahoma or Thunder, but I don't think at this point it should be changed. The current logo is very recognizable and once you have an established brand like that, changes should not be done lightly. I think having an additional secondary logo would be the way to go.

Neither do the ou or osu logo, and ou's isn't even in the correct order technically should be uo. Ou's has had slight tweaks over the years (which is what Nike will do with the thunders) but overall has remained the same. The reason the ou logo is loved and widely loved is the amount of winning they have done with it. Lowe even admitted this bias in his piece the more winning you do the better the logo. Heck Miami uses a U for their logo. Miami and U's have absolutely zero in common, but they won with it and had rap songs about it and made hand gestures with it.

It's bland and boring sure, but guys that's who the thunder is everywhere except the on the court. And to an extent that's a little bit who okc is. Just normal Midwestern American sports loving town that's bonded through lots of tragedies.

[SoonerDave]

Neither do the ou or osu logo, and ou's isn't even in the correct order technically should be uo. Ou's has had slight tweaks over the years (which is what Nike will do with the thunders) but overall has remained the same. The reason the ou logo is loved and widely loved is the amount of winning they have done with it. Lowe even admitted this bias in his piece the more winning you do the better the logo. Heck Miami uses a U for their logo. Miami and U's have absolutely zero in common, but they won with it and had rap songs about it and made hand gestures with it.

It's bland and boring sure, but guys that's who the thunder is everywhere except the on the court. And to an extent that's a little bit who okc is. Just normal Midwestern American sports loving town that's bonded through lots of tragedies.

Actually OU didn't start getting really protective of their logo and related intellectual property until the last few years (exact definition of 'few' I couldn't tell you). There was a mismash of unofficial, unauthorized versions of OU logos going back through the 80s; there was a stylized, squared-off logo that was popular; an older looking, rounded interlocking OU that was actually painted on the 50 for years, then the one that's on the helmet - they were all over the place and no control or oversight was in place. Just about anyone could (and did) make or sell anything with an "OU" logo on it, and OU back in that era just wasn't too aggressive in protecting the brand.

I think Joe C finally decided that OU needed to get that aspect of its house in order and get OU's brand protected more aggressively, especially realizing the revenue potential for licensing the brand. They came up with an "official" set of logos and branding, got all the licensing things cleaned up (not that they weren't there before, it was just that OU didn't pay a great deal of attention to them), and now has one of the better-branded set of school-related merchandise out there. Now, if you want to produce OU-branded merchandise, you have to buy a license, use only OU-specified logos, down to the size, lettering, coloring, and placement of the trademark. It's all meticulously covered now - a friend of mine makes leather stuff on the side and got a license to put OU logos on some of his stuff, and showed me some of the rules he has to follow

Sorry for the diversion onto the OU stuff, but that mention reminded me how handling it had changed for OU in the last decade-plus or so.