NaBloPoMo: Missouri Mavericks Name/Mascot Change?

As I’ve written about before, the Kansas City area has a new professional hockey team called the Missouri Mavericks. They play in the Central Hockey League, and are based in the KC suburb of Independence, MO.

I came across this blog today, written by Alex Parker, saying that the Mavericks need to change their name and mascot.

I disagree. Let’s take a point-by-point look at the argument.

1. Sure, the logo has a resemblance to others teams. As for the resemblance to the Kentucky Thoroughblades… who cares. Different league all together. Non-issue. But when they first unveiled the Mavericks logo, a lot of people (myself included) noticed the similarities to a certain professional football team that isn’t much liked ’round these parts. A horse logo with blue and orange colors is a little too close to the Denver Broncos.

“Maverick” is defined as (n.) “An unbranded range animal, especially a calf that has become separated from its mother, traditionally considered the property of the first person who brands it.” While I think it mostly applies to cattle, the horse mascot fits in really well with that. Although they could have also gone the “Cowboy” route, like the Dallas Mavericks of the NBA. But over-all, I’m fine with the horse mascot. Verdict: Keep it.

As for the colors, I don’t have a HUGE objection to blue and orange. I think if the team is winning, and after enough time passes, I don’t think it will bother people too much. But, I think they missed an opportunity to show some respect to the other professional teams in KC and at the same time an homage to KC’s short-lived NHL history. In 1974, the expansion Kansas City Scouts entered the NHL and stayed 2-seasons in KC, then becoming the Colorado Rockies for 6 season and are now the New Jersey Devils. When they were the Scouts, their colors were red, blue, yellow and white. As you (probably) know, red and yellow are the colors of the Kansas City Chiefs, and blue and white are the colors of the Kansas City Royals. So by choosing those 4 colors, they could have honored the city’s NHL heritage AND their current pro teams at the same time! I took the liberty of roughly re-coloring the Maverick’s logo in those colors:

Verdict: current colors are fine, but could have been better.

2. The name and it’s connection to the city. Mr. Parker says that “Mavericks” doesn’t have any connection to the city and that Chiefs and Royals don’t either (although he has since edited his post). I just want to point out that the Chiefs were named in honor of former KC Mayor Roe Bartle, whose nickname was “Chief”, and the Royals were named in honor of the American Royal livestock show, horse show and rodeo that’s held annually in Kansas City. I think “Mavericks” works well with Kansas City’s heritage as a frontier town and the fact that the American Royal includes a horse show. Verdict: Keep it.

3. Mr. Parker’s suggestions for alternate names are just terrible.

Missouri/Independence 33’s- Sure, you have the Philadelphia 76ers and the San Francisco 49ers, but those are references to 1776 (the birth year of our nation) and 1849 (the California Gold Rush that brought many settlers to the San Francisco area). I think the fact that Independence, MO is the birthplace of our 33rd President is a MUCH weaker argument for the name. And it just doesn’t sound good, in my opinion.

Independence Independents- Just… no. It doesn’t roll off the tongue well at all and, unless you say it very carefully, sounds like you’re just saying the same word twice. It’s redundant. And the shortened version, “Indies”, that he suggests just doesn’t sound very inspiring. Not nearly as cool as “Mavs”.

Overall, I’d say that the “Mavericks” identity is, while not perfect, pretty strong. If you’re going to change anything, change the color scheme, but even that, with time and success, will be fine. I HATE the Denver Broncos, but I would proudly wear a Missouri Mavericks jersey (size XXL if anyone wants to send me one).

~ by jeffdeboer on December 1, 2009.