monkeypower

I went through and by my count, 10 didn't count the lockout, 12 did, 3 unsure (Chicago and Detroit haven't had anniversary celebrations post-lockout and Montreal did two seasons for the 100th) and 4 have appear to have both counted and not counted the lockout because the post-lockout anniversaries don't line up (New Jersey, Islanders, Ottawa and Vancouver).

I did not check if the teams did "anniversary", "years" and "seasons", just how the logos matched up with the seasons. I also obviously did not include Seattle, Winnipeg and Vegas.

I believe the confusion stems from teams and fans using "years" and "seasons" interchangeably for an anniversary when they shouldn't because they don't mean the same thing in a league where seasons span two years and one season didn't happen.

4 hours ago, BBTV said:

so it's a seasons vs anniversary thing?  Also does the lockout count or do we just ignore it since it's easier to count the years?

3 hours ago, pepis21 said:

99th season if we didn't count 04/05 which was cancelled.

Hockey is (and I guess basketball too) always weird with anniversaries because a single season takes place in two years. The NHL is even more weird because of the lockout where now the "anniversary", "years" and "seasons" might not match up depending on how a team counts (despite all three terms being sometimes used interchangeably when they really shouldn't be). 

The Bruins did count the lockout and if you scroll down on the Bruins mothership page to the anniversary logos, the 100th anniversary lines up with the previous anniversaries.

I think it really just ends up being what the team wants because neither the Ducks nor the Panthers have counted the lockout. Both teams celebrated their 10th anniversary in 02-03 but have since done the 20th, 25th and now the 30th on the 13-14. 18-19 and 23-24 seasons respectively. So their anniversaries shifted a year because of the lockout and now do line up with the calendar years.

3 hours ago, BBTV said:

Regardless, aren't they celebrating prematurely?  Shouldn't next year be the celebration since Dec 1 2024 falls in the '24-'25 season?

If the Bruins were a human child, where we don't count as one year-old (at least in the western world) until after the first year has been completed, they would be 100 on December 1, 2024 in the 2024-25 season.

However for sports franchises, we start the count of at one at the beginning of the first season and not after the first season has been completed. So the Bruins were officially one season old at puck drop in their first season on December 1, 2024.

The 2023-24 season is the Bruins 100th season in existence while the 2024-25 season would be their 100th calendar year in existence. 

(Hope that makes sense)

(I also counted the seasons on Wikipedia and this upcoming season is 100 seasons)

Nice highlight notwithstanding, it's going to take some time to get used to seeing the logo at midfield.

It's such an improvement but it just looks weird to me right now.

31 minutes ago, hormone said:

How many times did the jets wear green last year? They are probably last years cause they are in pristine shape still and will get worn the same amount this year. Plus isn’t the color green Nikes kryptonite?

Three times in the preseason and once in the regular season.

3 hours ago, aawagner011 said:

Apparently the Jets are wearing the new template for their white jerseys, but the old template for their green jerseys (I included a photo where you can see the Panthers in the new template so you know it’s from this season).

 

 

Yeah, looking through the other photos from the game, they are the old template. The throwbacks are also in the new template, so maybe it's as simple as the new green ones haven't shown up yet? We'll have to see.

6 hours ago, DCarp1231 said:

Next thing you know we’ll have “Frost Giants” or “Snow Panthers” or “Blizzard Bucs” or “Tundra Titans” or “Frozen Food Packers” 

"Flight Delay Jets"

23 hours ago, fortunat1 said:

Watching the Pirates game tonight and it looks like they changed the pirate's bandana color on their black script jerseys. It was yellow from 2020-2022 but switched to red this season (starting on opening day and continuing to tonight). I don't remember an official announcement or anything, or seen anyone else mention this, so let me know if anyone knows why they switched. I liked the yellow bandana for the yellow heavy jersey more than the current red. (2022 vs 2023 for reference)

I don't believe there was an announcement but I assume the reason was because they thought it was unnecessary to have a different version of that logo just for one jersey.

2 hours ago, Sodboy13 said:

I always thought that was a lock of hair falling over the mask, not a chip in it.

2 hours ago, spartacat_12 said:

 

I've always thought that too. Bret Hart was known for his hair, so I assumed they did it as a tribute.

 

That was something I always thought as well and I do think you are both right.

So, if you look at the original illustrated version of the logo (side note: as part one of the oddest pictures in hockey history), it's clearly a lock hair.

But I don't know how much that logo was ever really used outside of that banner. Even on those original jerseys, better picture below, the head had the current hair.

By the time the Hitmen actually used that logo on a in-game jersey, it was more like the current one with the only major differences being the colours, the font and not having as much of an outline (keyline? keystroke?) disaster as the current logo.

Regardless, it still should be a black section on the black mask, right?

Also, the CHL redid their website design within the last week or so, changing all the leagues and teams too. With the website changes, it appears the Hitmen have promoted the black mask logo to primary and demoted the full body logo to secondary. I assumed the Hitmen were going to make this change at some point because the mask has been used more than the full body logo in recent years.

The Hitmen do have some inconsistent applications of the mask logo with some physical (read: non-digital) applications, including the jerseys, having copper and black outline around the white chip at the top of the logo.

Also, shouldn't that chip be black for the black mask?

Also also, the mothership webpage for the Hitmen is... pretty wrong. I don't know how that goes about getting done, but I am willing to offer my services in at least telling someone what logos should be there.

Moose Jaw Warriors 40th anniversary logo and jersey.

58 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

I don’t intend to ruffle any feathers in this thread but I thought Edmonton changed their name and brand to get away from anything to do with Aboriginal branding, yet now they are wearing an indigenous logo.

There's a difference between what they were before and this logo created by an Indigenous artist for Indigenous Celebration night.

One of the Sideline Cap offerings for 2023. Why people thought this was a good idea? Don't know.

3 hours ago, BBTV said:

1. They're remarkably restrained in that they haven't made a single noticeable change in 20 years, and have had the same uniform in spirit for 27.

What?  I did not know that the current Eagles set is as old as me. I just kind of assumed it was an early-mid 00s thing.

Though my first real concrete memory of the Eagles was Donovan McNabb on the cover of Madden 06, so it's not like I was taking notice of the Eagles all that much back them.

18 minutes ago, MCM0313 said:

I didn’t know there *was* a white version. 

5 minutes ago, BadSeed84 said:

Same here, only saw the green version.

It was on the green jerseys.

17 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said:

When nothing is happening, we make stuff happen. It's how Clevejacking and Jaxjacking got to be things 

The Angels should really go back to using Anaheim.

1 hour ago, fouhy12 said:

Obviously, the Black Friday game is new. If I got to pick, I'd wear the black uniform then. It just makes too much sense. 

 

I'm curious if they'd use the black logo if/when they go white over black at home. 

39 minutes ago, Pigskin12 said:

I agree it will almost certainly be one of those two games, and then white over black could be worn Week 3 vs. New England or Week 6 vs. Philly, depending on how much white they wear at home this year. I think it would work okay against Philly in green over white.

 

I would much rather see the black uniform on Black Friday against the Fins than for a rare matchup against the Chargers. I don't want to see the Chargers in all-white vs. the Jets in all-black.

They said in the throwback release write-up that the black jerseys will be worn for the Black Friday game.

The black endzones were used last season for the second of two games they wore white over black at home, so I wouldn't be surprised if the black field designs show up if they do go with that uniform combo again.

They also used the black endzones last season during the single game they wore the green jerseys. I assume that was because that game was the Sunday preceding their TNF game where they wore black and it was less work for the stadium crew in a short turnaround.

Per the Jets jersey schedule, I think there are five games set in stone. There are the two throwback games, the Black Friday black jerseys, they'll have to wear green @Cleveland because Cleveland is going to wear their new all-white look and I would have to assume they'll be in green @Dallas.

1 hour ago, ltjets21 said:

I dont understand the oval with the throwback word mark. It should just be the old school helmet at the 50.

The helmet would have been a neat touch to complete the throwback look but I think the oval is probably convenience. They bought the oval shape stencil for the primary logo and I could see it being the case where they decided to reuse it to separate the logo from the yard markers.

35 minutes ago, CaliforniaGlowin said:

New team for 2024 

 

I came here to post this because I had been posting about them earlier in this thread and I follow the league they'll play in.

I like the name but I don't really like the logo. I think it looks too much like an emoji or an icon rather than a logo, if that makes sense. It's very computer graphic-y.

3 hours ago, VikWings said:

On the new one, the nike logos are stitched that's it. It's like Nike just sends blank ones to Fanatics for cheap name/number application. I believe the Limited only used to be 150 as well, so now you're paying an extra $25 for lower quality.

I wasn't sure if it was a Nike thing or if it was a Fanatics thing, which is partially why I asked.

3 hours ago, HOOVER said:

This certainly sounds like a solution cooked up between Nike & Fanatics to cut costs and maximize profit while delivering an inferior product to fans.  It’s freaking sad, but that’s what Fanatics does.

 

When I first started seeing this, I thought maybe they just switched to heat-applied twill as a way to produce jerseys faster.  But what you said makes sense:  Nike probably is just stocking a crap ton of blank replicas at Fanatics, and Fanatics just knocks them out with heat applied names & numbers on demand when an order comes in.  
 

I get it from a production standpoint - as a business, that would make the most sense, as you’re not trying to forecast how many jerseys to manufacture per player, and you’re not stuck with inventory if the jerseys don’t sell or if the player is cut or traded.  Having blank stock on hand to fulfill as ordered means all you have to do replenish blank inventory.  It cuts down on SKUs exponentially.  It’s the way to do it.

I was going to question if that were to be the case, then how come not all players are available on both templates. When the Jets throwbacks were released, Quinnen Williams' jersey was available in the Game version but not in the Limited. However, his jersey has since been taken off the site.

They also have former players available in the Game version and not the Limited as well but I would guess that might have something to do with trying to keep Limited as "on-field".

3 hours ago, HOOVER said:

But it sucks for fans who expect stitched twill.  I wouldn’t spend $175 on one of these for that  reason alone.

On the Canadian shop site, the jerseys are $272, which is $40 CAD higher than the current exchange rate of $175 USD to CAD. $272 CAD is about $201 USD.

I already wasn't planning on buying one of these Jets throwbacks to begin with and it's definitely not making me feel anymore likely seeing $272 for heat-sealed twill name and numbers,

The Stampeders and Redblacks went colour on colour yesterday.

My two cents as a Jets fan,

I think the throwbacks are just okay. They are not bad jerseys by any means but they are pretty basic, kind of like how I feel about the Vikings throwbacks. I also don't have any personal connection to these throwbacks and I don't completely hate the Jets current set as much as others, which definitely plays a part, but other Jets fans seem to be really excited about about it which is good for them.

For as much questioning I made above asking about the jersey templates, I don't plan on getting one of these jerseys. Partially because I don't feel anything special about them, partially because I don't want to deal with a white jersey and partially because I want to see what happens next season with the jerseys as we're starting season five with the Jets current set.

I do like the logo though and it seems to fit in better with the current set anyways because of the pointiness of the logo fits in with the pointiness of the jerseys. The logo also actually has a jet in it, which is great. I've posted before that I think the Jets should pivot away from fighter jets but a plane is better than no plane.