What isn't a good thing? The name and logo, of course.

First of all, the whole "Software" naming convention is so 1990s. (We're far enough from the decade that I feel I can legitimately say that, and I'm ignoring the irony in the fact that the expression "That's so ______" is itself so 1990s.) When the tech industry was driving the economy to new heights, this sort of naming convention arguably implied the team was an up-and-coming thing. Today, it implies that you're throwing your money into a tarpit of a business that will never turn a profit. Now, I freely admit that this is an accurate depiction of many minor league hockey teams, but it still isn't the sort of thing you want to advertise.

As for the logo...look, haven't we already been around the block half a dozen times on this issue already? Quit making logos that look like rejected model sheets for Warner Brothers cartoons! For one thing, the art in the 1940s Tom & Jerry cartoons was better. For another, it's been done to death. They do get a small amount of credit for the fact that the blue streak at the bottom looks sort of like ripples. It's not enough to balance out the rest of the logo. And while I was wishing for red and blue logos five years ago, lately the whole red/white/grey/blue color scheme has become so common that I'd almost consider teal and magenta to be a viable alternative. But fear not, loyal readers: the key word in that sentence is "almost".

By the way, I'm not giving the team any credit for the "River" in "RiverDogs". Yes, there is a river in Richmond. There's also a river in something like half the cities with minor league hockey teams, so this isn't a very specific geographic reference.

Final Score: 87 points.
Penalties: Compound, 13 pts; Software, 8 pts; Alliteration, 2 pts; Cartoon, 17 pts; Anthropomorphization, 10 pts; Name-logo, 2 pts; Equip-logo (quadruply-egregious), 25 pts; Yucky-logo (5 pts), Yucky-name (5 pts).
Bonuses: None.