Seattle NHL Brand Discussion

[chcarlson23]

Wasn't all of the FCs or ACs started because many of the teams were a part of an actual sports/athletic club, rather than just a team that played a single sport? 

 

In today's world of sports, there's nothing like that professionally in North America. And the since the franchise model is in place, then it seems to make sense that the Seattle NHL team should be named by the traditional methods of the franchise model. 

[Fresno St. Alum]

4 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

 

That’s moving the goalposts from your original assertion. Whether a team will do it and whether fans will accept it are two totally different things. The first is much less likely to happen than the second because the team is the one assuming all the risk.

I don't care if you think I'm moving the goal posts, you just twisted what I said. I'm saying I don't see it happening in the big 4 here. That's the main point I'm making, plus I didn't say accept I said to whoever said they can just be Seattle Hockey club and let a nickname come naturally over time.  The "I want it now and not wait for something to form over time" generation would still be true, but secondary to the main point, that it's not happening in the big 4. 

[Fresno St. Alum]

3 hours ago, CRichardson said:

The league has used European-style naming conventions since its inauguration.

were they the only team that did that, also United is a name though, no? It's not DCFC. It just doesn't sound cool like Syracuse Orange doesn't.  Attack, Fury, Expos, all strange nicknames. I don't watch soccer except for the world cup. I just remember when it was on and I'd flip through the channels, they had names. I must never flipped through a DC match. LA, SJ seemed to be on a lot back then. 

[Fresno St. Alum]

1 hour ago, chcarlson23 said:

Wasn't all of the FCs or ACs started because many of the teams were a part of an actual sports/athletic club, rather than just a team that played a single sport? 

 

In today's world of sports, there's nothing like that professionally in North America. And the since the franchise model is in place, then it seems to make sense that the Seattle NHL team should be named by the traditional methods of the franchise model. 

AFL has FC but they don't use it Like Carlton's logo has a CFC shield as the logo but they are Carlton Blues in the standings. St.Kilda Saints too. 

[IceCap]

5 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

 

That’s moving the goalposts from your original assertion. Whether a team will do it and whether fans will accept it are two totally different things. The first is much less likely to happen than the second because the team is the one assuming all the risk.

Fans accept it in MLS because "City FC" or "City United" are considered the "standard" for soccer team naming conventions. That, combined with MLS' horrid North American-style names at launch, help people accept Toronto FC and DC United and even Atlanta United FC as suitable names.

 

NHL fans, however, will not accept such a name. Yes, "City HC" or similar names exist in Europe, but North American style names have long been the standard for the sport in North America for over a century, where the game is played at its highest level.

 

So people accepting it in MLS doesn't mean they'll accept it in the NHL. Each sport as their own aesthetic traditions and their own naming conventions that are not necessarily transferable to another sport.

[UnclearInitial]

7 hours ago, the admiral said:

 

Not really, because doesn't Spanish basketball have BC Barcelona and Real Madrid? Swedish hockey has the delightful HV71. It is more about local conventions than sport conventions. 

In addition to this, even in soccer itself naming conventions vary from nation to nation. Lots of the "FC" teams were founded by Englishmen or people who wanted to copy English naming conventions.  Spanish and Belgian teams often have 'royal' honorary titles added. Many German teams add the foundation year  (Hannover 96, Schalke 04) and some have region-specific names (Bayern, Borussia M-gladbach). Demonyms are widely used in Italy (Udinese, Fiorentina).  Teams from the Eastern bloc are named after the Departments that owned the teams (Steaua and CSKA from the army, Dynamo from the police, Lokomotiv from the railway). South American teams vary from inspiration from English teams (Corinthians, Arsenal de Sarandi) inspiration from the immigrants country of origin or just do their own thing. Then all over the world there's company teams, teams named after mythical figures, teams named after people. It's fair to say that local conventions have more of an impact on team names than sport conventions, which while it has an impact it's limited. English basketball is basically an afterthought in Europe, the succesful teams don't follow North American naming conventions

[Pharos04]

It would be interesting if they were to go completely "Seattle Hockey Club" but there's too much money to be made on merchandise with the nickname on it right from the start. There's no way they would pass up on that.  Even if they did, they'd have to come up with a crest for the sweater.  So unless they just go with an S like the Metros did, they would already have decided on a nickname at that point and try to play up the "HC" aspect, or they'd become the Metros or Totems by default in that regard.

 

Regarding this whole naming convention debacle, a reminder that even in the history of hockey in North America, the coveted Stanley Cup was won by teams with great nicknames such as:

Montreal Hockey Club (1893, 1894, 1902, 1903)

Ottawa Hockey Club (the original Senators) (1903, 1904, 1905, 1906,1909, 1910, 1911, 1920, 1921, 1923, 1927)

Toronto Hockey Club (Blueshirts, not the Maple Leafs) (1914)

the other Toronto Hockey Club (Arenas, which DID become the Maple Leafs) (1918)

 

okay maybe it's a Canada thing...there was also Winnipeg HC, Galt HC, Edmonton HC (which consisted of two teams, the Thistles and the Stars)

 

Personally? I think it would be a unique take harkening back and would certainly help the team stand out.  But with the amount of cash in marketing and nicknames and shortening of nicknames and everything, I don't see it happening.

[sparkychewbarky]

If you were going with a soccer-ish name, you could also consider "Emerald City" rather than "Seattle H.C."...It's a phrase that already exists, and "(Anything) City" has a soccer or rugby-ish vibe to it, IMO.

[andrewharrington]

5 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

Fans accept it in MLS because "City FC" or "City United" are considered the "standard" for soccer team naming conventions. That, combined with MLS' horrid North American-style names at launch, help people accept Toronto FC and DC United and even Atlanta United FC as suitable names.

 

NHL fans, however, will not accept such a name. Yes, "City HC" or similar names exist in Europe, but North American style names have long been the standard for the sport in North America for over a century, where the game is played at its highest level.

 

So people accepting it in MLS doesn't mean they'll accept it in the NHL. Each sport as their own aesthetic traditions and their own naming conventions that are not necessarily transferable to another sport.

 

Sure, there are a lot of sports and hockey fans that are set in their tastes, but people also tire of the same ol’ conventions, especially young people. We’re past the age where design and marketing just follows a formula “because that’s how it’s done.” People want to stand out, too. The fact that this would be a new team with new fans in one of the most progressive cities in the country is why I think it would be successful. It probably wouldn’t work in the Midwest or the South.

[ColeJ]

I feel like we've come full circle now... teams used to have no name and then developed organic nicknames. Then they adopted names that fit the image they wanted to portray, inorganically... 

 

Then we ran out of original and appropriate names for new teams, so we are okay with just mailing it in and being "Seattle Hockey Club," because everything else is either boring, silly, or derivative. 

[NYYNYR]

43 minutes ago, sparky chewbarky said:

If you were going with a soccer-ish name, you could also consider "Emerald City" rather than "Seattle H.C."...It's a phrase that already exists, and "(Anything) City" has a soccer or rugby-ish vibe to it, IMO.

That's actually a brilliant suggestion. I love it!

[SFGiants58]

I just want anything that isn’t Totems. It’s just a Native American mascot debacle waiting to happen and the logo that Totems fans love so much is an absolute mess of a design that would look both outdated and out-of-place next to NHL-level designs.

[andrewharrington]

8 hours ago, Fresno St. Alum said:

I don't care if you think I'm moving the goal posts, you just twisted what I said. I'm saying I don't see it happening in the big 4 here. That's the main point I'm making, plus I didn't say accept I said to whoever said they can just be Seattle Hockey club and let a nickname come naturally over time.  The "I want it now and not wait for something to form over time" generation would still be true, but secondary to the main point, that it's not happening in the big 4. 

 

No, no. *You* twisted what you said, which was this:

 

On 3/20/2018 at 11:19 PM, Fresno St. Alum said:

...No way this generation will wait until a name evolves and come up w/ it after they start playing. 

 

[TaylorMade]

1 hour ago, SFGiants58 said:

I just want anything that isn’t Totems. It’s just a Native American mascot debacle waiting to happen and the logo that Totems fans love so much is an absolute mess of a design that would look both outdated and out-of-place next to NHL-level designs.

 

There is a current Seattle Totems junior hockey team that works with the Muckleshoot tribe. There are ways to do it respectfully. Plus there is a totem at Seattle Center so it's not like it's not without purpose or reason. Seattle itself is a native name.

[B-Rich]

16 hours ago, CRichardson said:

The league has used European-style naming conventions since its inauguration.

 

One team did, out of ten, for the first nine seasons of the league (1996-2004).

 

And at the time, it obviously was not about appropriating the European naming history/tradition for "United" (originally used as a combination of one or more clubs), but more like a nod to the European naming style while being a clever play on words, with DC being the capital of the United States.

[Thaumatrope]

3 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

 

Sure, there are a lot of sports and hockey fans that are set in their tastes, but people also tire of the same ol’ conventions, especially young people. We’re past the age where design and marketing just follows a formula “because that’s how it’s done.” People want to stand out, too. The fact that this would be a new team with new fans in one of the most progressive cities in the country is why I think it would be successful. It probably wouldn’t work in the Midwest or the South.

 

I think you may be overstating the willingness of a generation/mindset to buck convention...at least when it comes to professional sports naming conventions. While I would not consider myself young, I am a millennial (barely), live in the PNW (kinda), and am about as progressive as they get. However the prospect of a non-mascot brand (ie Seattle HC or similar) feels like both lazy branding and an attempt to cash in on the popularity of another sport...neither of which is a good impression.

 

This isn't to say that Seattle couldn't attempt something unconventional. The inclusion of names like Emeralds, Evergreens, Rainiers, and Totems speaks to the organization's apparent willingness to deviate from the trend of overtly aggressive, fast, violent, etc. names. Honestly I think this represents a more significant (and likely) challenge to convention that would be in line with Seattle's reputation as a young, progressive market...and I am 100% on board. 

[Fresno St. Alum]

3 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

 

No, no. *You* twisted what you said, which was this:

 

 

yeah, you further prove the point I made that this generation won't wait to pick a name over time especially not in the Big 4. Move a long, no NHL team is going the soccer route.

[IceCap]

5 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

 

Sure, there are a lot of sports and hockey fans that are set in their tastes, but people also tire of the same ol’ conventions, especially young people. We’re past the age where design and marketing just follows a formula “because that’s how it’s done.” People want to stand out, too. The fact that this would be a new team with new fans in one of the most progressive cities in the country is why I think it would be successful. It probably wouldn’t work in the Midwest or the South.

The first MLS team to adopt a “City FC” name (outside of DC United) was FC Dallas. In the heart of conservative Texas. 

 

Regardless? You’re forgetting that European naming conventions only work in MLS because soccer fans are, by and large, set in their tastes.

“FC Dallas,” “Toronto FC,” and “DC United” fly because those names are in line with “that’s how it’s done” according to soccer. 

“City FC” isn’t the revolution you’re making it out to be. In fact that style of name’s prominence in MLS reflects the failure of the league’s attempt to revolutionise soccer naming conventions. 

“City FC” names and their prominence in MLS represent the victory of the status quo over “progressive” naming conventions as far as soccer goes. 

 

Where does this leave hockey? Well again, you’re talking about the NHL. Which, unlike MLS, represents the highest level the sport is played at in the world. Unlike MLS? The NHL “sets the standards” of the sport. I can only think of two non-NA style names in NHL history; the franchise that would become the Maple Leafs and the franchise that would become the Maroons. 

Both were officially known as only “Toronto” and “Montreal” at first, but it’s worth noting that we remember them as the “Toronto Arenas” and “Montreal Maroons.” Why? Well it’s because the prodomiennce of North American naming conventions dictates that we do. It just seems off to refer to the pre-St. Pats Leafs as “the Toronto hockey club owned by the Toronto Arena Company.” No, they’re the Toronto Arenas for all intents and purposes. 

 

Now Seattle’s progressivism...forgive me, but I’m finding it hard to see how that matters. Seattle’s just as much a haven for venture capitalism and the upper middle class as it is a hotbed of progressive politics, but that’s neither here nor there. 

I’m just saying. The Bay Area has just as much, if not more, of a history when it comes to progressive politics and no one seems put out by a “how it’s always done” name like the San Jose Sharks. 

New York is solidly liberal but neither “New York Islanders” or “New York Rangers” seems to be putting off younger crowds there. 

 

So why exactly is “Seattle HC” perfect for “progrsssive” Seattle? Is it because they like soccer? Well Seattle’s MLS team name is a weird hodgepodge of European and NA naming conventions, so I’m not sure what that proves.

 

Is it because the young, urban fan base likes kitchy things that buck convention? That’s the only real answer I can seem to wrap my head around to be honest.

Even then...I’m not sure how well that would work. I’m not sure how confident the NHL would be at marketing that name outside of a niche group of Seattle fans. 

 

Not to mention the very good point BBTV brought up. Team names used to develop organically among fans or the press.

That’s impossible this day and age. Every colour commentator, journalist, hack blogger, and fan group knows the game from the get-go with a name like “Seattle HC.” Broadcasts, blogs, “official” fangroup sites, and Twitter are going to be flooded by people attempting to make their idea the “organic” fan choice. 

 

If the brass behind the Seattle NHL team wants a fan-coined nickname? They can run a name the team contest. 

[monkeypower]

This is kind of absurd to me that the thought of the team being "Seattle HC" is warranting this much attention. There is no way any of the big-4 teams would do that and there's no way the ownership group is entertaining the idea.

 

It's not a "generational" thing and naming them "Seattle HC" isn't the reason today's hip, modern kids are going to like the team. It's just quite frankly kind of dumb and not how sports branding on this side of the pond works.

[M4One]

8 hours ago, Pharos04 said:

It would be interesting if they were to go completely "Seattle Hockey Club" but there's too much money to be made on merchandise with the nickname on it right from the start. There's no way they would pass up on that.  Even if they did, they'd have to come up with a crest for the sweater.  So unless they just go with an S like the Metros did, they would already have decided on a nickname at that point and try to play up the "HC" aspect, or they'd become the Metros or Totems by default in that regard.

 

Regarding this whole naming convention debacle, a reminder that even in the history of hockey in North America, the coveted Stanley Cup was won by teams with great nicknames such as:

Montreal Hockey Club (1893, 1894, 1902, 1903)

Ottawa Hockey Club (the original Senators) (1903, 1904, 1905, 1906,1909, 1910, 1911, 1920, 1921, 1923, 1927)

Toronto Hockey Club (Blueshirts, not the Maple Leafs) (1914)

the other Toronto Hockey Club (Arenas, which DID become the Maple Leafs) (1918)

 

okay maybe it's a Canada thing...there was also Winnipeg HC, Galt HC, Edmonton HC (which consisted of two teams, the Thistles and the Stars)

 

Personally? I think it would be a unique take harkening back and would certainly help the team stand out.  But with the amount of cash in marketing and nicknames and shortening of nicknames and everything, I don't see it happening.

 

Done in a different era where they probably never even considered branding and merchandise sales.  I also don't see the fans accepting a Seattle HC.  Hockey fans aren't necessarily the same as soccer fans.