NHL 2017-18

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

25 minutes ago, panthers_2012 said:

30 minutes ago, M4One said:

 

Or maybe my level of obsession over jerseys/logos hasn't reached that point where I missed the actual point of watching a game, live in person or on TV.  Even on this forum, that's a little over the top, no?

It'll reach there soon the longer you stay on the boards. We're not over the top, we just get excited about new uniforms. 

 

I admit that I generally care more about the uniforms than about the results of the games -- except insofar as the results of the games affect a team's likelihood to retain or drop a uniform.

So, yeah, I am over the top.

[BeerGuyJordan]

20 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

I admit that I generally care more about the uniforms than about the results of the games -- except insofar as the results of the games affect a team's likelihood to retain or drop a uniform.

So, yeah, I am over the top.

Which is totally cool, but that places you in a category that probably makes up less than 1% of the viewing base. Maybe another 1% cares about aesthetics as much as results (probably being a little generous, here) That means you aren't really being taken into consideration, because teams and the league are more concerned about the buying power of larger demographics.

[IceCap]

43 minutes ago, M4One said:

I get excited about uniforms and logos as much as the next guy, especially when it comes to hockey.  But, if I were to watch every single Canucks game, live or on TV, I would never get bored because of what the teams are wearing.  I'm not going to get overly excited if there's a sudden switch and for whatever reason the Canucks might end up wearing white at home for one game.  I'll get bored because the game is boring or the Canucks are losing. 

I can see how some people would have gotten bored like thirty years ago or so, when going to the games or watching a local channel cover home games was the only way to see the team play.

Me though? I've never been bored. For the longest time? I could only see the Leafs live if they played in Buffalo or Detroit. So I never saw their home blues in person. That never bothered me though, because I grew up in the era of mass media. By the time I finally did get to go to a Leafs game in Toronto? Well seeing the home blues wasn't this great experience because I already knew what they looked like, and had seen them on tv more times than I could count.

[OnWis97]

32 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

I admit that I generally care more about the uniforms than about the results of the games -- except insofar as the results of the games affect a team's likelihood to retain or drop a uniform.

So, yeah, I am over the top.

You are in the most uniform-oriented 1% of this board, which is the most uniform-oriented .1% of sports fandom.

 

(though I admit, I am frustrated that both the Orioles and Maple Leafs started doing well with their "Happy Bird" and "new leaf" when I like "standing bird" and "Ballard Leaf" so much better...I was cheering against them in hopes they'd someday go back)

[OnWis97]

1 hour ago, M4One said:

 

Or maybe my level of obsession over jerseys/logos hasn't reached that point where I missed the actual point of watching a game, live in person or on TV.  Even on this forum, that's a little over the top, no?

 

Perhaps there's a bit more nuance in the original statement..."gets boring to see red vs. white" is not an indictment on hockey or Devils games.  It's simply "hey, I'd like to see more variety."

[IceCap]

Just now, OnWis97 said:

 

Perhaps there's a bit more nuance in the original statement..."gets boring to see red vs. white" is not an indictment on hockey or Devils games.  It's simply "hey, I'd like to see more variety."

In which case I would recommend someone sign up for NHL Centre Ice.

[Fresno St. Alum]

1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

In which case I would recommend someone sign up for NHL Centre Ice.

It's free this week on directv. I swear there's subliminal messages that were sent my way on this site. All of a sudden after the Packers lost to the Cardinals in the playoffs last year I started watching hockey, more than just the olympics and the frozen 4. I watch every day and nhl network every day. I play in 2 fantasy hockey leagues(1st in both). I bought shirts and hats and a couple of jerseys of teams that my fantasy players are on. Like oh the Leafs are on tonight I'm gonna wear my Leafs shirt. Oh the Sharks are on later I'll switch over to that after the Leafs games is done. I bought my daughters the stiga rod hockey game for xmas(they asked for it). I had it when I was a kid, I played roller hockey from 90-96 but never got into it until now. The cool logos and unis really add to me wanting to watch over say mls unis and logos, also 100x more action in hockey. NHL went from off my radar to #2 behind the NFL in less than a year. I like it more than college football, college basketball, college lax, college hockey. I barely watch mlb. 

 

I alternate 80s nfl and current season nfl jerseys in my den every year I have all the current and 80s mini helmets too. I'm considering getting all the nhl jerseys and putting those up from feb-june. Yes unis and logos are kind of a big deal to me. 

[Chromatic]

I just think as a matter of principal you should be wearing your colours at home. Its your home. 

[ColeJ]

I care way too much about sports aesthetics than the average person and I don't think I really care either way if home teams wear white or not. I used to be firmly in the "white at home" crowd, but now I don't even care the slightest bit.

 

As much as I obsess over sports aesthetics, I'm absolutely floored that a conversation about what color is the preferred home sweater has gone on for this many posts, with people actually having passionate opinions.

 

Yeah, if I had season tickets I might prefer to see more colors against white stars sweaters... but as long as both the home and road look good, I don't care which is which when it comes down to it.

[Thomas]

12 hours ago, M4One said:

 

Or maybe my level of obsession over jerseys/logos hasn't reached that point where I missed the actual point of watching a game, live in person or on TV.  Even on this forum, that's a little over the top, no?

Nope, if my favorite team is wearing a ugly alternate/special jersey, i refuse to watch em´ and will wait for the next game. 

Just kidding.....or am I ?

 

[Sport]

17 hours ago, CreamSoda said:

Just because third jerseys have primarily been dark in the past, doesn't mean they have to be...  

 

Yes it does. There is a very real reason thirds have primarily been dark - color shirts sell better than the white ones. It's that simple. 

 

 

[Sport]

8 hours ago, ColeJ said:

I care way too much about sports aesthetics than the average person and I don't think I really care either way if home teams wear white or not. I used to be firmly in the "white at home" crowd, but now I don't even care the slightest bit.

 

As much as I obsess over sports aesthetics, I'm absolutely floored that a conversation about what color is the preferred home sweater has gone on for this many posts, with people actually having passionate opinions.

 

Yeah, if I had season tickets I might prefer to see more colors against white stars sweaters... but as long as both the home and road look good, I don't care which is which when it comes down to it.

 

I could go either way so I side with the practical side. I've been a hockey fan since the 93 finals so dark sweaters at home have been the norm for me for longer than white at home was. I understand the logistical reasons behind the switch and now that I'm used to it I don't really see a reason to go back to white at home. I like when the crowd matches the home team on the ice. Some of you may remember when the Raptors had a "red out" for the playoffs and the New Jersey Nets wore their red alternates to goof with them. Wouldn't happen in the NHL (except for white outs). 

 

I actually wouldn't mind if the league went to a clash kit system, provided the league didn't allow All-Star game purple vs black matchups to happen. The fewer games the BLUE Jackets spend in white the better. 

[CreamSoda]

1 hour ago, McCarthy said:

 

Yes it does. There is a very real reason thirds have primarily been dark - color shirts sell better than the white ones. It's that simple. 

 

 

 

You know this because of a controlled data group right?

 

You know this because there have been hundreds of white third jerseys to base this off??

 

Maybe, if the third jersey was white, and the designers came up with a better design they would out sell the normal white jersey.  

 

 

[Sport]

3 minutes ago, CreamSoda said:

 

You know this because of a controlled data group right?

 

You know this because there have been hundreds of white third jerseys to base this off??

 

Maybe, if the third jersey was white, and the designers came up with a better design they would out sell the normal white jersey.  

 

 

 

I know this because even during a period where white was the jersey color worn at home alternates were still overwhelmingly color sweaters. I know this because you look at crowd shots and the crowd is mostly in the dark jersey. I know this because the league overwhelmingly promotes its color sweaters over its whites (http://shop.nhl.com/Jerseys). 

 

Think about it this way: Every team already has a white jersey, but not every team has a [insert specific color here] jersey.  Why would you choose instead to wear just another white jersey to sell in a sea of white jerseys? So they choose to wear a color sweater because it stands out of the crowd better and you wear the color sweater at home in front of your home crowd because that's your target market, those are the people most likely to buy them and showing them up close (rather than just over TV) increases the likelihood that the home fans buy them.

 

Teams wearing dark at home in the third jersey/white at home era became so frequent that it became difficult to recognize who the home team was so the league needed to intervene for brand purposes and it was a practical inconvenience for the teams when traveling. As long as there are third jerseys they will choose color 9 times out of 10 and they will always be worn at home. I'm telling you real world reasons why things are the way they are. You're arguing for an old system that no longer makes any practical sense in today's merchandising world. 

 

[hockey week]

Basic wear and tear doesn't help the white jerseys. They stain more easily, they show wear, they stuff more easily, and I think until very recently, the trend has been to wear more muted, darker colors - white doesn't fit that.

 

I don't wear many white jerseys, because they don't last as long. It's that simple.

[BeerGuyJordan]

On 2/14/2017 at 1:36 PM, CreamSoda said:

 

 

Ha, where are you getting that blanket generalization?  I know I prefer white at home, and know many people who feel the same way.

My argument is that general fans favor the dark jerseys, overall, more than the populace of these boards.

 

Here are three polls. One is from the boards, here. It dates back to 2006, so it's hard to gauge how the sentiment sits, now. Still, it is relevant data. 93 votes for white and 83 for dark. 

 

The second poll is from an AHL group, on Facebook. Since the AHL has had both at home, this season, and been white at home for awhile, I figured this is as close as we can get to an "all things being equal" demographic. The voters favored dark at a rate double (32) of those who prefer white (16).

 

Finally, a poll from a general hockey group. These members are fans of various leagues, different ages, in several countries. 66 prefer dark, 19 prefer white.

 

Now, is this 100% conclusive? No, but I wanted to show you that my "blanket generalization" wasn't just pulled out of my five-hole. There are topics where you can't judge the general sports fan by the opinions of this community.

[T-ROY]

11 hours ago, CreamSoda said:

 

You know this because of a controlled data group right?

 

You know this because there have been hundreds of white third jerseys to base this off??

 

Maybe, if the third jersey was white, and the designers came up with a better design they would out sell the normal white jersey.  

 

 

 

We know this because I'd rather have two different colored shirts or two white shirts? Exactly. And what Hockey Week said.

[spartacat_12]

15 hours ago, McCarthy said:

 

Yes it does. There is a very real reason thirds have primarily been dark - color shirts sell better than the white ones. It's that simple. 

 

It's not just that coloured jerseys outsell whites (I don't think it's a huge discrepancy, and depends on the team), but that thirds are usually a team's 3rd colour. 

 

It makes more sense for the Oilers to have a blue, a white, and an orange jersey, than a blue and two white jerseys. White alts can sometimes come off as redundant (i.e. Philly's anniversary jersey). 

[chcarlson23]

Here's my tweet at Michael Russo about the Wild sweaters, (This doesn't mean much, but Russo was the first to tweet out that the NHL will be going with only two sweaters next year) 

https://twitter.com/chcarlson23/status/831954340529262592

And this is something I saw while in the Hockey Lodge today... All products with the Roundel logo are 25% off, not just red things for Valentine's Day...

 

At least to me, it's all but officially confirmed that Minnesota is going with the green jersey next year... 

[Point1]

26 minutes ago, spartacat_12 said:

It's not just that coloured jerseys outsell whites (I don't think it's a huge discrepancy, and depends on the team)...

 

Speaking as someone who works at a place that moves a LOT of jerseys, (and also somewhere where I see people wear their jerseys all the time) that is 100% not true. People buy 90% dark jerseys, maybe 10% white (and that's including teams that have white special event jerseys, like the Wings CC).