Morgan33

Anything would be better than "Utah HC"

I would argue that we have more than enough classic looking teams. With Arizona having one of the most distinct designs in league history (talking about their Kachina look) I would like to see something similarly unique. Unique but not overtly cartoony. Seattle nailed this balance with their logo... Not so much with their striping.

Too similar to Calgary. They need something more unique than that.

I'm one of those people who thinks the Yotes got it perfect the first time... That being said, I could definitely get behind this. The sleeve striping looks fantastic.

Without the (non-sublimated) storm flag striping and silver accents, they look just like any other Red, Black and White team... The inaugural set is miles better than the red Adidas version and its conceptual white counterpart.

The Edge uniforms were originally supposed to be tucked in as this early prototype suggests. I remember hearing that Karmanos fought RBK on this so they could keep their distinctive hem stripes intact.

Modern classic. This should have never been changed.

Of course it's offensive it's the current year... Everything's offensive so lets all act offended on the behalf of the people we've decided are offended by a logo they've likely never seen.

These are laughably bad but fitting considering the trajectory their identity has been on these past 10 years.

Another boneheaded decision they made was getting rid of the Glacier Twill... Them and Pittsburgh.

Bought 8 Reverse Retro 2.0's and not a single one belongs to the Canucks... Don't regret a single purchase, especially now that the league is switching to Fanatics. RR 2.0 was the final gasp for collectors.

It looks like it has a straight hem-line. That would be a welcome return for the first time since 2007...

What an absolutely bone-headed decision it was to get rid of the Yeti Footprint... While the logo's nothing special in a flat application, embroidered it looks nothing short of beautiful. The way the silver sparkled always reminded me of snow and ice. It was so much more creative and fitting than the recoloured state-flag insignia.

The difference in these two blues is likely attributed to a change in the jerseys material. Their original authentics were done by Starter and featured a significantly looser knit mesh. To my knowledge the shade of blue didn't change when the Burgundy was darkened. I wholeheartedly agree that it looked much better when it was more "blue-green." Much warmer look.

Their recent cup happened in the most mismatched uniform in team history. Blue equipment, blue numbers, blue nowhere to be found on the striping or shoulder patches and multiple instances of the two colours bleeding into each-other and competing for prominence. There's nothing mismatched about the uniform they won the cup in 1996 in. You just personally don't like it.

Or they could just go back to something that was unique, worked in spite of its unconventional construction, saw immediate success, clothed some of the greatest players to ever partake in the sport and spawned one of the greatest rivalries of all time...

Sums up the last 10 years of this place to a tee.

You mean like this? I see blue on the numbers but not on the striping. I've explained ad-nauseam on this thread why they went with black equipment and why it was necessary. To eliminate any instances of burgundy and blue touching on the uniform. Look at how awful these colours look side by side. No contrast or definition what so ever.

It's not Black for Black's sake if Black is a part of their scheme and has been for all 28 years of the franchise's existence. This comment perfectly illustrates why this cringe term has lost all meaning in 2024. It doesn't need to be anywhere else. It's on the primary logo, numbers and equipment. It can be seen no matter what angle you're looking at the uniform from. Why must it arbitrarily be shoehorned onto the striping? You know you've got a cohesive and well thought out uniform set when it requires two sets of breezers to not look like a dogs dinner...

Both Avalanche original home and roads contain black so this point holds no water. Primary logo does too. Who's advocating the Red Wings or Canadiens start wearing black pants? Neither of them use it on their uniforms or logos so of course it would clash. Notice how this alternate doesn't have a single instance of burgundy and blue touching directly? There was a very good reason for the use of black equipment with their original uniforms. Which is something the team has forgotten since 2007...

You are right that black and white can stick out on a uniform. I don't think I ever made the argument that they didn't. But from a technical standpoint, they are still not colours. They are shades that augment colours. Black and White are nowhere visible on a colour spectrum and are therefore neutral. That doesn't mean they don't effect the visual weight of the uniform. The Avalanche made the creative decision, from day one, to use 3 neutral shades. There's black on the numbers and black on the front crest so I don't see the issue with black breezers. The jersey striping is Burgundy > Silver > Blue and that's repeated on the sock striping. I see no issue with balance on that road jersey. The only balance issue I see on the entire set is the discrepancy between the home striping and home socks. If the Ducks could get Eggplant gear in 1994, there is no reason to think the Avalanche couldn't get Burgundy gear in 1996. It was a creative decision on the part of the team, likely because they didn't want any instance of Burgundy and Blue to touch directly (because it looks terrible). Burgundy breezers would have broken this rule at home and blue breezers would have broken it on both uniforms. Why would they go out of their way to wear black helmets on the road, their first year, if this wasn't a intentional decision? It wasn't until the completely closed-minded and cringe inducing term; "Black for Black's Sake" was coined that anybody started taking issue with it.

The Flames logo is a symbol to represent the team, not a literal illustration of a C on fire. And this comment isn't directed at people who prefer either version, just that argument itself. "The white C represents white-hot fire" "The Black C looks burned out like the state of the franchise, lulz" It's a sports logo. Either version is perfectly acceptable to represent a fire based team.

It should be a debate. Some colour schemes look better with black.

God I miss this uniform. What an absolute travesty it is that this modern classic lasted only 3 seasons. This should be their alternate, not Blasty.