TheGrimReaper

2016-17 NHL Uniform and Logo Changes

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, Kaz said:

The Blue Jackets logo sucks, the Flames logo doesn't really resemble the other three and is an otherwise mid-tier logo, and the Stars logo is okay but would be much better without the bevels.

 

That brings me to another unpopular opinion... I like bevels. Are they needed? In most cases, probably not, but I think they'd appeal well with certain teams (like the Titans).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-03-04 at 5:22 PM, Gothamite said:

The skewed circle is bad, but it's really the hideous forced perspective that makes it cartoony.  And what dates it.


Sorry but I'm not seeing this forced perspective at all.  That logo looks flatter than a pancake.  I could do without the skewed circle but don't think it looks dated enough to sink the entire design.
 

On 2017-03-04 at 7:00 PM, Ice_Cap said:

As far as the Rockies-esque alternate that's replacing it? I just want to say that I called its inevitable rise to primary status when it debuted. Not because I liked it (though I do), but just because I've been following NHL uniform news for over ten years now, and you just start to notice patterns.


You certainly begin to notice patterns after time and I'm seeing an awful one.  It's not even a question of 'traditional' vs 'modern,' its a question of trying to force square pegs into round holes.  You have new teams with established, modern identities trying to copy original six aesthetics when they have no business doing so.  There's the Lightning playing Leafs-dressup, the Panthers using the Habs chest stripes, the Hurricanes ditching their unique striping and now the Avalanche flushing their entire 21 year history down the toilet.  I like the uniforms of the Original Six as much as anyone here, I just don't think every team needs to look like them.  Not only does it remove any opportunity for creativity it cheapens the original six aesthetic by watering it down.

What is honestly wrong about a team established in 1996 taking design cues from the 90's anyways?  I'm not saying they need to go Wild-Wing on us, but I hardly see anything wrong with being proud of their actual history instead of pretending they're from 1920...

 

Quote

Anyway, no, it doesn't depict the team's namesake. That being said...it gets close enough for me. The team is named the Colorado Avalanche. So you have the state flag, which gets the Colorado part down. And the mountain is more than enough to hint at the "Avalanche" name.


It's still a team named the "Colorado Avalanche" being represented by an avalanche-less mountain.  A good brand is not established by merely "hinting" at it's subject matter in my opinion.
 

Quote

And the use of a C over an A follows my preference of logos representing the locale name over the team nickname.

 

The current logo contains a 'C' as well and they didn't need to trace it from a flag.  As others have said, the current logo says everything it needs to about the team.  There's a 'C,' an 'A,' a puck to represent the sport and most importantly, an avalanche.  The updated Rockies logo, on the other hand, could represent any Colorado based establishment.

 

20 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

The visuals also matter, and the Rockies-inspired mark is a more versatile, timeless piece than the A logo.


I know the word timeless gets thrown around a lot here but the logo has been around two seasons.  Lets not jump the gun here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know if it's just me but the Avs logo always seemed kind of generic. In the way that it's got ice and snow and a puck because ice hockey. May as well stick "Ice" in front of the name and you've got a minor league identity ready to go.

 

I don't hate the design but I don't find it particularly interesting either. I'm kind of neutral on it because of its generic feel. It's not exactly a timeless icon and it could use an update. I don't know if the Rockalanche alternate mark is really the best way to update the brand, but between the two I actually kinda prefer it. Something about it just... works. It conveys the name and locale in a very simple and effective way and it looks fine on a hockey uniform.

 

27 minutes ago, Morgo said:

... and now the Avalanche flushing their entire 21 year history down the toilet.

 

That's a bit of a stretch. Swapping out a logo doesn't mean anything. Let's not forget that the Stars and Lightning have rebranded since winning their Cups, arguably for the better. And like those two examples there's enough thematic similarity between the current Avs logo and and Rockalanche for there to be consistent continuity, if you will. At least they're not going with a dull black uniform and replacing their logo with a wordmark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Morgo said:

Sorry but I'm not seeing this forced perspective at all.  That logo looks flatter than a pancake.  I could do without the skewed circle but don't think it looks dated enough to sink the entire design.

 

You really see many hockey pucks that are 1/4 the size of a mountain? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dolphins Dynasty said:

 

That brings me to another unpopular opinion... I like bevels. Are they needed? In most cases, probably not, but I think they'd appeal well with certain teams (like the Titans).

 

I think a somewhat subtle bevel effect on the jersey numbers would be a great Nike-fied element for the 2018 Titans set, would be a great way to strengthen the Greek motif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Morgo said:


Sorry but I'm not seeing this forced perspective at all.  That logo looks flatter than a pancake.  I could do without the skewed circle but don't think it looks dated enough to sink the entire design.
 


You certainly begin to notice patterns after time and I'm seeing a awful one.  It's not even a question of 'traditional' vs 'modern,' its a question of trying to force square pegs into round holes.  You have new teams with established, modern identities trying to copy original six aesthetics when they have no business doing so.  There's the Lightning playing Leafs-dressup, the Panthers using the Habs chest stripes, the Hurricanes ditching their unique striping and now the Avalanche flushing their entire 21 year history down the toilet.  I like the uniforms of the Original Six as much as anyone here, I just don't think every team needs to look like them.  Not only does it remove any opportunity for creativity it actually cheapens the original six aesthetic by watering it down.

What is honestly wrong about a team established in 1996 taking design cues from the 90's anyways?  I'm not saying they need to go Wild-Wing on us, but I hardly see anything wrong with being proud of their actual history instead of pretending they're from 1920...

 


It's still a team named the "Colorado Avalanche" being represented by an avalanche-less mountain.  A good brand is not established by merely "hinting" at it's subject matter in my opinion.
 

 

The current logo contains as 'C' as well and they didn't need to trace it from a flag.  As others have said, the current logo says everything it needs to about the team.  There's a 'C,' an 'A,' a puck to represent the sport and most importantly, an avalanche.  The updated Rockies logo, on the other hand, could represent any Colorado based establishment.

 


I know the word timeless gets thrown around a lot here but the logo has been around two seasons.  Lets not jump the gun here.

 

The actual style of the mark is undeniably more timeless. That’s all I’m getting at. I’m not implying that it would or even should last decades (if it were to theoretically become the primary mark, that is). Objectively, the third jersey mark is simple enough that it could have been designed at any point in the last several decades, whereas it’s very easy to identify the time period in which the current logo was designed, meaning it’s not timeless in the least.

 

I don’t think they’re pretending to be original six or older than they are, either. Their third jersey is a crisper, clearer look than their primary jersey. More conservative or restrained? Sure, but not old.

 

The logo itself certainly says “Colorado” more than it says “Avalanche,” but there’s nothing inherently wrong with that approach. Personally, I think it’s preferable (for reasons already mentioned). In fact, I think the strength of the mark is in the way it *does* say Avalanche, which is very smart, engaging, and unexpected. It’s analogous to the Hurricanes using the hurricane warning flag as a graphic device; definitely a more successful approach than a logo featuring a puck being rained on and washed out to sea would have been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The alternate logo, the more I think about it, is far better than their 90's mark. Here's why:

 

It's classic. The Rockies might not have ever been good, nor are they connected to the Avalanche, but their logo is a classic. It's iconic.

 

It sells better. Living in Colorado, I've been seeing tons of merch being worn with the alternate logo rather than the 90's one.

 

It's just well designed. The 90's logo seems awkward, with the shape of the 'A', the oval, the forced avalanche, and the puck at the bottom. The alternate mark plays off the past and simplifies it. It's just a good logo.

 

It may not have a winning history behind it like the other one, but the Avs have been hovering around the bottom of the league ever since Sakic left. They had a good year a while ago, but that's all. You can talk about the iconic mountain uniforms from the 90's and early 2000's, but that's where they belong. The current Avs need a fresh start, and their identity does too.

 

That's all I got. This topic has turned into a :censored:storm since this whole Avalanche debate broke out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

theres nothing classic and iconic about it. no winning history, just flat and very simple which most people associate with other actual classic logos like the leafs and habs. It's static, boring, flat and lifeless and the only reason they're going for it is a cash in, nothing more. Let's stop acting like a yield sign with a C in it ripped off from a flag is anything close to classic and iconic. Pathetic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the Avs logo quite a bit. I'd put it somewhere in the top 10 in the league. It's got some personality to it. It's not as dated as say the Panthers logo was or the Sharks logo was. It's got a slightly cartoony element to it, but so does about half the league. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Bayne said:

I like the Avs logo quite a bit. I'd put it somewhere in the top 10 in the league. It's got some personality to it. It's not as dated as say the Panthers logo was or the Sharks logo was. It's got a slightly cartoony element to it, but so does about half the league. 

exactly. These are the same people who ant the canucks to switch over to a box with a stick for a logo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rollins Man said:

exactly. These are the same people who ant the canucks to switch over to a box with a stick for a logo.

Sign me up; that would be one of their best looks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rollins Man said:

exactly. These are the same people who ant the canucks to switch over to a box with a stick for a logo.

Those people are right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's pivot away from the logo in and of itself and concentrate on what, to me, is the real problem, which is a navy/burgundy color scheme. Yeah, the distribution of burgundy, slate blue, grey, and black was always a mess for the Avs, but at least it was still a good color palette. The direction they're going in now with the thirds seems very dull and grim to me. There's not enough contrast between the two colors, and they're holding over old design elements but stripping features from them -- the numbers are more or less the old style but single-layer and without the little psuedo-serifs, and the NOB lettering is still arched Trade Gothic. As I've said before about other teams, this is a very bad thing to do. It symbolizes dormancy and resignation: colors fading, details forgone. At a time when most teams seem to be seeing the folly of darkening and fading classic color schemes, here are the Avs doing that. (Not entirely coincidentally, another team moving against the flow of traffic is their sister franchise, the Los Angeles Rams.) Not only is navy and burgundy a bad color scheme, it calls to mind their other sister franchise, the old 1993-2003 Denver Nuggets, another moribund and neglected Denver-based sports team.

 

I'm of the belief that team colors ought to be sacrosanct: you can change up your designs, but fans should always know what your colors are. That, far more than any bad logos they've had, is what makes the Canucks, Astros, and Padres the disasters they've been. I can deal with this lousy rehash of the Hockey Rockies logo, but head-to-toe navy blue with minimal burgundy, which doesn't even contrast with the navy blue, is very ugly and doesn't even stand for the winning history the Avs lean on so heavily as to let Joe Sakic run them into the ground because he's Joe Sakic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, the admiral said:

Let's pivot away from the logo in and of itself and concentrate on what, to me, is the real problem, which is a navy/burgundy color scheme. Yeah, the distribution of burgundy, slate blue, grey, and black was always a mess for the Avs, but at least it was still a good color palette. The direction they're going in now with the thirds seems very dull and grim to me. There's not enough contrast between the two colors

 

Yeah, that's my only issue with them going this direction. It's a nice enough uniform design, but in action it all blurs together into a dull dark mess. It sucks for the same reason the Coyotes throwback sucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Rollins Man said:

exactly. These are the same people who ant the canucks to switch over to a box with a stick for a logo.

 

Nah. Johnny Canuck or bust.

 

Quite frankly, I don't like the current Avs primary or the faux-Rockies look. The former is a messy logo, and the latter is really bland (no matter how much brand-speak you put behind it). Going in an entirely new direction would be the best course for them. IMHO, said new direction should be a burgundy/powder blue color scheme (kind of like the Colorado Rapids) without black/silver/navy. It's brighter, simpler, and more pleasing to the eyes than any look the team has had in the past (while also sticking with the traditional colors of the team, avoiding a Canucks/Padres/Bucks type of mess).

 

As for "throwing 21 years of history down the drain?" Maybe it's for the best. Given the ways in which the franchise has propped up its "storied past" in the face of prolonged abject failure (even when they're trying to win), severing the direct visual link between the current Avs and the modern Avs might just be a good idea. However, they shouldn't link it up to the maligned Rockies, a poorly-defined color scheme, and a lame attempt to cash in on weed tourism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

If there’s no hierarchy in that logo, then what’s the hierarchy of the current logo? The giant A? The wraparound ice trail following the puck? The variable weight oval everything is stacked upon?

 

Easy. It's an avalanche moving down a mountain (the A). Your eye starts at the top and flows downward with the ice trail that is being led by the puck. There's directional movement. It's not static like the triangle. I see it and I know exactly what it is.

 

If I'd never been provided context for the triangle logo I wouldn't have known it was for the Avalanche. It's this same reason the Canucks stick in rink is a bad logo.

 

23 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

And being dated certainly does carry with it a negative connotation. The only reason you concluded that “being dated isn’t a bad thing” is because you happen to like this particular logo. Subjectivity.

 

 

That's not fair. 1. if we're holding "dated" against the A logo then we have to hold "dated" against the triangle because it's basically the Rockies logo and that's not subjective. 2. I don't buy that as a bad word. I think a lot of really successful logos could be described as "dated". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now