Oso

Possible NHL Expansion: Logo and Name Ideas

Recommended Posts

I believe the entirety of the Ontario sprawl is the "Golden Horseshoe" whereas the GTA ends before Hamilton and after Oshawa. Or before Oshawa. One or the other. Hamilton seems to get Toronto's television and radio, though, with a few radio stations of their own.

The Golden Horseshoe can even include Buffalo and Rochester, if you've had a Labatt or two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hamilton

Ontario Tigers

Ontario Stags

Ontario Falcons

Hamilton Steelers

Ontario Bombers

Ontario Destroyers

Quebec City

Quebec Nordiques

Quebec Bulldogs

Seattle

Seattle Metropolitans

Seattle Thunder

Seattle Totems

Seattle Eagles

Houston

Houston Roughnecks

Houston Longhorns

Portland

Portland Grizzlies

Portland Beavers

Kansas City

Kansas City Railraiders

Kansas City Warriors

Kansas City Raiders

i see a few very big issues with this list.

firstly, no one in the city of kansas city would ever spend a dime to support a team called the raiders. that would be like expecting philadelphia to support a team called the cowboys, or boston to support a team called the yankees. you've got to be mindful of rivalries here.

also, as noted, if you're going to be the tigers in hamilton, why not piggyback off the real tigers' history instead of try the "ontario tigers" route?

houston wouldn't be likely to use the longhorns name... even in dallas, which isn't anywhere near the same geographic region as south texas, "longhorns" means UT football. even in an established hockey market like dallas, without any college football loyalties, longhorns means UT... imagine the confusion in houston if that happened, for the casual fan. also, all houston teams have a space theme, except the texans. i'd be shocked if houston's eventual NHL team was named anything but the Aeros. it'd be the only way they'd have a chance to survive. play up the aeros history and gordie howe.

at least you didn't bring up any kind of lumberjack theme for a pacific northwest team, like most people do. i feel like that would be a mistake given the proximity to the vancouver canucks and the johnny canuck concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totem, Metro, and St. Pat's are all terrible names. With Totem, the obvious logo is going to be a totem pole and that is not going to look good. Metro sounds like a city rec league team and why would you want to be have the original name of your competitors which they aren't going to give up anyways. And it's a horrible, horrible name. Leave history in the past and live in the now.

After giving it some more thought, I still say Aces would be tops for Las Vegas (whether a team in Vegas makes sense in the first place). Second could be Renegades. For Toronto, how about Blizzard since the last few winters have been horrible there. And if the team is going to be in Hamilton, it should be the Steelheads.

HamiltonSteelheads.jpg

I couldn't disagree more with leaving history in the past. Most team names and uniforms in hockey that were created in the 40's to the early 80's are so many times better than what's been created in the late 90's/2000's. Linking sports histories from at least two generations(50's-80's) and current(90's-current) creates a lasting bond between fan bases of those respective teams in those respected cities. "Totems" rolls off the tongue easily and it instantly identifies with Seattle.

Toronto Blizzard?? As the proper name for Toronto's "Liverpool wannabee" MLS franchise, absolutely yes. As the name of a second NHL franchise in Hogtown, no thank you.

I do agree with "Aces" being a name for a team in Las Vegas. Las Vegas Aces vs Seattle Totems. Sounds no different than Anaheim Ducks vs St.Louis Blues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Las Vegas:

Express

Steamers

Ironhorses

Gamblers

Vulcans

Avengers

Marshalls

Blackjax- have two cards, one offset- one with a capital "A" for an Ace, and the other with a capital "K" for a King, those two cards of course make up Black Jack.

Quebec City:

Nordiques

Bulldogs

Portland:

Cascades

Firebirds

Prowlers

Seattle:

Metropolitans

Breakers

Cascades

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Toronto Galaxy because Toronto is the centre of the universe.

Toronto Maple Trees

As an avid NYC-hating American, I love the Toronto jibes.

I think it's a no brainer for Seattle to be the Metropolitans. You don't just ignore a huge golden ticket opportunity of having won the Stanley Cup (1917) even if it was a completely different organization nearly a century ago. As we've seen from the Sounders, you can adopt past histories quite easily as long as you have the same town/mascot. A back door entrance to the blue bloods.

200px-Seattle_Metropolitans_Crest.gif

I really want to agree with this line of thinking, but I agree with some of the posts ITT that not only will this franchise most likely have nothing to do with that Stanley Cup winner (unfortunately), but the actual name is too old school in the generic way, even if you shorten Metropolitans to Metros, which makes me either think of that recently codified cultural phenomenon or New York's original MLS team (and really, of all the U.S. metropoles, NYC is the most iconic).

And how many of the new fans are even going to be bluebloods? Won't they already be clinging to the Canucks? I've never followed hockey that closely, except for when the LA Kings have been making those recent runs (just because I grew up in SoCal and only 2 kids I knew in my 13 years there had any interest in hockey), but these past few years I've been saying I'll get into it once I have a Seattle team to cheer for. Aren't the chances higher that fans of the Seattle expansion team will be the younger, Sounders FC type? I don't know; it just seems like the perfect opportunity to create an entirely new Seattle team name. If that LA team didn't exist I'd recommend we finally have a Kings, but instead I'll just throw out there that all our major championship-winning teams (besides those Metropolitans) have two-syllable names starting with an S.

(I agree with VancouverFan, though, that a Seattle Metropolitans uni would be a sweet Winter Classic idea.)

Seattle Timbers

146990960_crop_north.jpg146990960_crop_north.jpgTIFO-wm-580x386.jpg

uh, no

Seattle

Seattle Metropolitans

Seattle Thunder

Seattle Totems

Seattle Eagles

I don't know why "Evergreens" doesn't get more traction as a potential Seattle nickname. Washington is the Evergreen State, so there's your local flair without going to the PNW native imagery that the Canucks are currently half-assing. Calling a Seattle team the Thunder is astoundingly tone-deaf, but you were probably just making a joke. If you weren't, try claiming you were.

If we go with Seattle Evergreens, let's own the double green look and be forest and mint. Kidding, but you might as well name us the Apples. I agree, though, that we don't need any Native American-inspired brand. And you not only have it right that there will be no Thunder in any post-2008 Seattle team, but I think this extends even to the Thunderbirds suggestion. The WHL team gets a pass since they came up with it in the 70s, but "our" iconic Native American legendary creature sort of got ruined for us. And yeah, Thunderbirds and Totems would both just be crowding the all-we-know-about-Cascadia-is-it-has-indigenous-cultures market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we go with Seattle Evergreens, let's own the double green look and be forest and mint.

THIS IS A GREAT IDEA. Add a medium green in there, too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blackjax- have two cards, one offset- one with a capital "A" for an Ace, and the other with a capital "K" for a King, those two cards of course make up Black Jack.

NO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be willing to wager the Las Vegas team WON'T be called the Gamblers. Call it a hunch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totem, Metro, and St. Pat's are all terrible names. With Totem, the obvious logo is going to be a totem pole and that is not going to look good. Metro sounds like a city rec league team and why would you want to be have the original name of your competitors which they aren't going to give up anyways. And it's a horrible, horrible name. Leave history in the past and live in the now.

After giving it some more thought, I still say Aces would be tops for Las Vegas (whether a team in Vegas makes sense in the first place). Second could be Renegades. For Toronto, how about Blizzard since the last few winters have been horrible there. And if the team is going to be in Hamilton, it should be the Steelheads.

HamiltonSteelheads.jpg

I couldn't disagree more with leaving history in the past. Most team names and uniforms in hockey that were created in the 40's to the early 80's are so many times better than what's been created in the late 90's/2000's. Linking sports histories from at least two generations(50's-80's) and current(90's-current) creates a lasting bond between fan bases of those respective teams in those respected cities. "Totems" rolls off the tongue easily and it instantly identifies with Seattle.

Toronto Blizzard?? As the proper name for Toronto's "Liverpool wannabee" MLS franchise, absolutely yes. As the name of a second NHL franchise in Hogtown, no thank you.

I do agree with "Aces" being a name for a team in Las Vegas. Las Vegas Aces vs Seattle Totems. Sounds no different than Anaheim Ducks vs St.Louis Blues.

Considering how long its been since the Totems actually played a professional game, how many fans who actually watched a game back then is still around or even remembers. It's a whole lot different from the Jets or Nordiques. I just don't think it's necessary to use the name Totems to link the histories of two teams that played in entirely different leagues. There's nothing wrong with starting completely fresh. Sure, bring out the name/jersey for a throwback night or whatever, if you want.

At the end of the day, if the name works, it works regardless of its origins. I just don't think the name works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always liked this concept:

seattlesealions_2367-600x900.jpg

As much as I do like Metros or Totems, I think a fresh start would be the best route for a team. Pilots would be good too, but been there done that.

Seattle Steelheads? It's sort of an overused name now with Idaho and Mississauga, but it would work perfectly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we go with Seattle Evergreens, let's own the double green look and be forest and mint. Kidding, but you might as well name us the Apples. I agree, though, that we don't need any Native American-inspired brand. And you not only have it right that there will be no Thunder in any post-2008 Seattle team, but I think this extends even to the Thunderbirds suggestion. The WHL team gets a pass since they came up with it in the 70s, but "our" iconic Native American legendary creature sort of got ruined for us. And yeah, Thunderbirds and Totems would both just be crowding the all-we-know-about-Cascadia-is-it-has-indigenous-cultures market.

Your overall point is correct but that logo and name came to be in 1985.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quebec Nordiques (Only name needed)

Seattle Metros or Thunderbirds

Seattle, imho, couldn't be Metros---there's a Metropolitan division already.

Thunderbirds is a great name.

Quebec Nordiques would be AWESOME but would the Avs allow it?

I can't remember the exact source, but it was said few years ago that the Nordiques name's property has not been sold to the Avs franchise. The NHL kept the name...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh. I REALLY hate the idea that a Vegas team could have the name Aces. First off, it's snatching at such low-hanging fruit to pick a name so incredibly lazy and one dimensional. It also supports the ridiculous theory that the only thing that's ever been important in the state of Nevada is gambling. I get it. Card and dice games are huge out there, but it's not the only thing about the state that's noteworthy. That's the most annoying thing about Nevada. They actually have quite an important history when it comes to how the west was built, yet the only thing they ever care to promote is bright and noisy slot machines and colorful wheels with numbers on it. It's such an affront on the true culture of the state, that it makes me wonder why they they even bothered ever teaching us about the state's history when we were kids. Nobody cares. Not even the people in Nevada. And on top of that, even though they're just a AAA team, there is already a pro sports team up in Reno called the Aces.

I'm sure some will disagree, but as a history major and as someone who grew up in the state, it's really disappointing.

I don't know a ton about the history of Nevada but I agree.

Yeah, yeah, Las Vegas is known for its gambling, so highlight something else. Anything else. I like the Bighorns idea that someone came up with (I once saw a bunch of bighorn sheep sitting in a public park about 50 feet from a family reunion while on a Vegas bus tour to the Hoover dam, so it certainly rings with me). But just going with gambling is kinda lazy, in my opinion. "Gamblers" is flat out not happening. And hopefully, should Vegas get a team, the NHL will err on the side of being oversensitive to the whole gambling connection and steer it away from things like "Aces" and "Snake Eyes".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seattle Tropics

Seattle Mets

Seattle Grunge

Seattle ThunderBirds (with a team crest of the "old 2002 failed thunderbird"

Seattle

I like the last one the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quebec Nordiques

Seattle Pilots
or Seattle Totems, Seattle Metropolitans

Las Vegas Aces

Hamilton... you know what, I actually don't know. Yellow and gold would be the colours though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I do like Metros or Totems, I think a fresh start would be the best route for a team. Pilots would be good too, but been there done that.

I wouldn't be opposed to the team being named this, since it's a sweet name and only really encroaches on Philly's brand (who would be in the opposite conference anyways), but (1) the original Seattle Pilots don't have that great of a legacy and (2) the idea of Boeing representing Seattle seems a little old-fashioned, after the 1970s decline and then the HQ move to Chicago in 2001, especially in the face of Microsoft setting up in the Seattle metro in the 1980s and probably being more emblematic of that area nowadays. I'm not suggesting we name the team the Seattle Hackers or anything, but that would be more relevant in my (and I think the public) opinion.

Nice concept though, McCarthy. Could see that as a sort of mascot logo.

If we go with Seattle Evergreens, let's own the double green look and be forest and mint. Kidding, but you might as well name us the Apples. I agree, though, that we don't need any Native American-inspired brand. And you not only have it right that there will be no Thunder in any post-2008 Seattle team, but I think this extends even to the Thunderbirds suggestion. The WHL team gets a pass since they came up with it in the 70s, but "our" iconic Native American legendary creature sort of got ruined for us. And yeah, Thunderbirds and Totems would both just be crowding the all-we-know-about-Cascadia-is-it-has-indigenous-cultures market.

Your overall point is correct but that logo and name came to be in 1985.

That's what I get for going off the top of my head for an era in which I wasn't even born yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.