IceCap

Unlike Seattle, though, Quebec City has a place for the team to play in until they get the new rink built. Plus you don't have worry about likely competition with the NBA in Quebec City. Any NHL team in Seattle would have a hard time competing against the nu-Sonics, given how the NBA left in the first place.

And yet, a year ago, they let a team from the 8th largest media market in the US leave for a small prairie city in Canada. A move that proved to be very profitable. Not only does it prove that the NHL doesn't need to try to fit round pegs into square holes in southern American markets to increase revenue, but it also proves that regardless of what the NHL wants they're still bound by the realities of the situation. Trading Atlanta for Winnipeg may not have been something the NHL wanted to do, but it's what they did because they didn't have a choice. Given that the move back to Winnipeg worked out, I'm sure the NHL will be less resistant to returning to Quebec City once it becomes clear that it's the only viable option for the Coyotes.

I like the wolf actually. Though the abstract nature of the igloo screams "Quebec hockey" so I'm good either way. If they weren't going to go with something else other then Nordiques than Aces or Bulldogs might work.

SportsNet East with the Senators wouldn't be a bad idea. Having only Francophone coverage could work long term, but not right away. Canadian fans all over were excited about the Jets' return. I could see the first season or two of the new Nordiques drawing in Anglophone Canadian fans, if for nothing else then to watch the new Canadian team.

The Jets get a lot of exposure on TSN, but keep in mind that TSN/CTV and Jets both belong to Lord Thomson. The Canadiens already have a subchannel on TSN for eastern Quebec and the Maritimes. Getting the new Nordiques in on that type of exposure would depend on how much the Molsons are willing to concede to Quebecor.

It'll be interesting to see what happens if the reports that the owners want out of Glendale are true. For all the talk about who exactly holds the power within the NHL, this will be quite telling.

Kinda-sorta. There's always been talk of Quebec being distinct in some way. Political language all the way back to Confederation in 1867 talks about Canada's two "founding peoples." In fact provinces, as we know them now, wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the French Canadian element. Sir John A. Macdonald, our first PM and one of the leading Fathers of Confederation, wanted the new Dominion of Canada to be a unitary state. Given the influence Macdonald had, he likely would have gotten his way if the French Canadians didn't protest. In a unitary Canadian state they'd be at the whim of the combined Anglophone majority. So provinces, as we know them, were created. It was understood that though all the provinces were legally administrative sub-divisions of a greater whole (as a concession to Macdonald), Quebec existed as an entity within which French Canadians could have religious (French Canadian society at the time was VERY Catholic, whereas the rest of Canada was of Anglican stock), social, linguistic, and political independence (all within the confines of the larger Dominion, of course). So the notion that Quebec's been "a nation within a nation" is nothing new. It's always been there. It was just "confirmed" by the government in 2006. As far as I know, outside of the official declaration, nothing's changed. It's still one province among ten. Culturally, symbolically, and traditionally it's seen as something unique, but legally it's just another province.

It was kind of the thing of the past generation, really. Most young Quebecois, from my own experiences and from the polls I've seen, don't give it much of a thought. The only reason the Parti Quebecois is still a force in the province is because it's the de facto left wing/progressive choice. I wouldn't be surprised to see them drop the separatist part of their platform in the next ten or fifteen years. Even with the fall of the separatist movement, though, Quebec still does consider itself a nation within a nation. The government confirmed that sentiment a few years ago. Not only is Quebec City called the "Capitale-Nationale," but the provincial legislator is called the "Assemblee nationale." Their logo's pretty French-Bourbon-esque and everything! http://www.assnat.qc.ca/fr/index.html

If the Chargers are going to be a navy team I would rather they go back to the previous set.

Generally speaking I prefer powder blue to navy or royal for the Chargers, but I love this look.

Closing public libraries to subsidize sports teams is so damn American it makes me crap eagles.

Well I suppose I should say that I'm never a fan of the "blow it up and start over" approach. Just that the Kings are, in my (unpopular) opinion, one of the teams that it applies most to. I'd still prefer that they not, and run with the black and silver (with a better logo though), but if any team had to "blow it up and start over" it would be them. What would I go with if they did? Purple and white, a simple two colour scheme like admiral suggested would be unique. Red, purple, and white would also work. Purely hypothetical, but black, white, and old gold would have been perfect had the Penguins and Ducks not jumped on it.

All of Pittsburgh's teams going with the same scheme seems more "natural" to me. All the teams eventually came around to using civic colours, and all of the teams found degrees of success in them that allowed them to claim those colours as "theirs" without seeming like one team was copying another. With the Kings and purple and gold/black and silver? It just seemed like they were riding the coattails of more successful operations in the same city. It doesn't seem as "natural" or sincere. Especially since neither gold and purple or black and silver are Los Angeles' civic colours. As for the purple, black and silver from 1998 to 2011? That abandoned all pretense of civil unity and just copied what a basketball team in Sacramento did. It would be like the Florida Panthers dumping red, navy, and gold and adopting the Carolina Panthers' colours because Cam Newton's popular right now.

So wannabe-Lakers sweaters are better? The Kings have never had a look that they truly "owned." The purple and gold looked like the Lakers. The black and silver looked like the Raiders. The purple, black, and silver, while a nice attempt to combine both past eras, looked like a hockey version of the Sacramento Kings' look. If any team should "scrap it all and start over" it's the Los Angeles Kings. They have no championships that immortalize any of their past looks, looks which always echoed those of other teams. Truly taking time to devise a scheme that doesn't belong to another team would be to their advantage in the long run. Seeing as they probably won't do that, though, they might as well go with one of their past schemes. Seeing as the team was its most relevant with Gretzky they might as well try to own black and silver in the NHL.

So much for that.

The funny part? The team described those uniforms as "Baltimore Ravens-like." In what way do those emulate the Baltimore Ravens' look?

I agree that navy and copper look better than their blue and orange, but the red really threw it off. I don't know why a lot of teams in the 90s felt the need to add red. Not to mention that the Edge redesign royally FUBAR'd this entire design. Yeah. Reebok really :censored:ed the Oilers. They made a decent, cool uniform look like complete trash. The worst thing is that the Red Deer Rebels currently wear the exact same template. Yes, that is Ryan Nugent-Hopkins. Thats a Blackhawks template, not an Oilers one. The Oilers reebok template had the half-sleeve pyjama striping. He knows. What he's saying is that the template the Red Deer Rebels used could have also been used to successfully Edge-ify the Oilers' pre-Edge sweaters. That they could do a similar design with Red Deer (complete with the outlines on the middle stripe) but not with Edmonton is a shame.

The Angels' current scheme is easily their best look. On a related note the halo caps were terrible.

Well NBC had to learn the folly of spending millions on a business venture with the NHL one way or another

Devin Dark? Nah Devin Dark's Jim Balsillie. Whatever happened to that NHL Guardians nonsense anyway? FAKE EDIT- Nothing's happened since the 2011 All-Star game. Heck, they still have "The Thrasher." All that hype and nothing came of it. So much for the "hey if they market it well and it gets kids interested then it's ok" argument.

Larry Jettman?

Not if you've seen how horrendous NHL fashion sweaters can get. I've seen plenty of examples, thanks. Neither of the two Oilers knockoffs posted here come close to being "on par" with any NHL fashion sweater I've ever seen.

Disagreeing is one thing. That's fine. Saying that Oilers knock-off is "on par" with NHL fashion sweaters is just flat out wrong.

So a potential ownership group that's committed to keeping the team in Glendale doesn't actually have the money to buy the team. This seems familiar.

I know, and it's right on par with most authentic fashion jerseys. No, not really.