Miami Dolphins' Logo Change Is No Big Deal
It has been confirmed by Armando Salguero of the Miami Herald that the Miami Dolphins are changing their logo, and with the bulk of free agency out of the way and the draft not quite yet upon us, there’s been a bit of interest in the proposed logo and uniform changes.
I know there will be some fans that don’t care about the logo change at all, and I’m largely indifferent myself, but most will have at least some minute level of interest in the logo they wear on their merchandise.
A new logo will always divide opinion. Some fans will like it, others will tolerate it, and, in all likelihood, this will make up the vast majority of fans. But there will always be vocal detractors.
I have no doubt some will find the new logo so horrific that they’d argue the only way it could possibly be worse was if it featured a Dolphin with a Hulk Hogan moustache, or something like that. The angriest of these fans would probably go as far as to claim that owner Steve Ross was destroying the Dolphins and everything they stood for; think the Dolphins’ equivalent of the National Rifle Association’s reaction to the proposed ban on assault rifles.
However, whether they like it or not, the Dolphins’ logo change is here to stay, and, despite those who argue it detracts from Miami’s history, it really isn’t that big of a deal.
I’ll accept it might take some getting used to; after all, Miami fans have been represented by a Dolphin wearing a football helmet for their entire lives. But the most likely result of the change is that, for a couple of days, people give their opinion on the rebranding. Then, they’ll remember the NFL isn’t really about logos after all, and it’ll all be forgotten.
Do you like the new logo?
If Ross had made the decision to rebrand and the changes were Marlin-esque, then I’d understand a bit of anger. If the dolphin ended up resembling another species, like the “buffaslug,” then make some noise. But it’s hardly a crime to take a helmet off a Dolphin.
Hell, it seems sensible to me. Taking the decision at face value, you could ask yourself who decided to put a helmet on a dolphin in the first place.
Faux outrage might be popular in today’s society, but it’s worth remembering that tradition isn’t dictated by logos or uniforms; it’s dictated by divisional titles, Super Bowls and, very occasionally, a fake spike (or butt fumble if you're a Jet).
It’s what happens on the field that's important.
Of course, fans have every right to rise up in gladiatorial fury should an owner ever wants to relocate the Dolphins; by all means, burn effigies and make voodoo dolls to your heart’s delight. But the changes in Miami don’t need to be over-scrutinised. At the end of the day, fans will get used to the new
logo and accept it, even if they are initially reluctant.
If Steve Ross wants a new uniform, a new logo and a new product on the field, considering he’s spent the best part of $85 million in this free agency alone, I’d say he earned that much.
The on-field product is what matters in Miami, and whether you like or dislike the new logo, it won’t stop you from supporting the Dolphins. You will continue to buy Dolphins’ merchandise because you want your team to win, and I’m fairly certain that if Miami won a Super Bowl, it wouldn’t matter if the logo featured Steve Ross himself swimming with dolphins.
Fans will soon get used to the new logo and grow to accept it, even if they don’t like it, and a winning team would help most forget there was even a change.
So, if you are just preparing to vent your anger at the new logo on whichever social networking site seems most appropriate, just consider if a dolphin wearing protective headgear or not will affect a Super Bowl run.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?