Chromatic

You can tell this guy is perfectly sane from the look in his eyes and the fact that he's wearing a hat with his own face on it.

I am among the minority that greatly prefers the ornithological bird to the cartoon. Though I think this one is better

One that does annoy me a lot is "CAL" for Calgary instead of "CGY". With "CAL" my mind immediately goes to California.

I agree with this. I love the colours, I love the compass rose motif. The one caveat I have is I think their script could use an update/tweak.

Right, but what the discussion seems to be around is whether or not the idea itself of a Roman theme is a good idea, not the execution. That's what I was commenting on. I'm not a Senators fan, and their identity has always seemed very "meh" to me, but that has nothing to do with the Roman imagery. If anything I think it adds a bit of sorely needed flavour. I'm open to the debate about the quality of the execution. But if the argument is that they should go with a Big 'O' or a peace tower or whatever instead of the Centurion theming simply because a "Senator" isn't explicitly a Roman soldier, that's where I disagree. Its not a situation where you're depicting something completely counterintuitive to the identity. Its just not as 1 for 1 as say the Broncos using a horse head or the Jets using a roundel with a Jet in it.

I have no issues with the Senators having a Roman military theme to their identity. Rising to high political office in Ancient Rome essentially required a decorated military service. The term "senator" today still invokes some level of Roman imagery. As far as I'm concerned when you have a somewhat vague name, its perfectly appropriate to lean your identity into a particular direction that may not be explicit in it, so long as whatever you're choosing to depict is not precluded from the term. For example, I think the 'Patriots' explicitly using minuteman branding, the 'Canucks' leaning into the lumberjack motif, 'Islanders' using a fisherman, 'Texans' having bull imagery' etc. 'Senators' having a Roman bent to it is fine. It gives the brand something else to latch onto beyond mere location signifiers. It would be different if it were a very explicit name that all the logos and branding depicted something wildly out of place, like the Pittsburgh Penguins using a wildebeest as their logo or something.

This is more of a broad, conceptual thing, but I hate when logos that depict the nickname of a team have a subliminal reference to the nickname again. If you’re going to do that, do it with the city name, or a geographic identifier, or some totem of the team’s past or something other than the thing you’re already depicting. I find that incredibly redundant and stupid. For an example of what I mean, look at the Atlanta Falcons logo. I don’t mean to pick on the Falcons because I think their logo is fine, but it’s the first example that popped into my mind for what I’m referring to. I understand it’s a classic logo at this point and yadda yadda but from a strictly conceptual standpoint I think the “hidden” F shape the falcon takes is dumb. “We’re the falcons, so our logo is a falcon”. Okay great. “But wait, if you look closely you’ll see the falcon is in the shape of an ‘F’. For ‘Falcons’. In case you forgot we’re the Falcons.” Why? An example of the inverse of this which I have no problem with is the Vegas Golden Knights, where the negative space in the helmet forms a ‘V’, or the Wizards who have the Washington Monument inside the basketball of their logo. If you’re going to make a subtle reference to something in your logo, it makes no sense to me to also reference the thing you’re explicitly depicting.

These fall into the Patriots, Falcons tier of not being great, but still being big upgrades over the previous set.

7-2 is a lot, but with both Tampa's top pair D out I'm not too shocked. They opened the series 5-0 last year. There's still plenty of time for the annual Leafs collapse. Unless they go for the tried-and-true strategy of eliminating all of their opponents blueliners.

That series is a perfect example of why brand differentiation is important, and why you can't just go solely off what looks good. Having a unique identity is as important as having an aesthetically pleasing uniform.

"so fresh so clean" so cringe

Overall I I think the Lions have upgraded. The black uniform gives me strong Cleveland Browns alternate vibes, and I wish they would have leaned into an orange primary, but they look better than they did before. I do wish they’d bring the helmet stripe back as well.

*teleports behind you* Nothin' personnel...kid.

Well the phenomenon of BFBS specifically refers to adding black in a way that is detrimental to the uniforms for the sake of having black because its trendy. Not to teams integrating black into their colour scheme because it makes for a more cohesive look. Is it overblown and are people inconsistent about it? Sure. Is BFBS a thing though? Yes. As for RFRS, that is a phenomenon that is complained about here plenty as well, and is even called "red for red sake". You don't see it as much because it was much more of a trendy phenomenon than BFBS. I don't see how its particularly worse than BFBS though.

You are correct, I forgot about the purple in the Coyotes logos, largely due to what a miniscule amount it is, which I think emphasizes my point. It would be like counting the Ravens as a team that wears red or the Blackhawks as a team that wears gold.

All of these sets are gorgeous and if I were a Wild fan I'd be happy with any of them. I actually like Minnesota in green and red, I think its a great colour scheme that fits the team perfectly. The "christmas" complaints are complete nonsense. At the same time, they look great in green and gold too, which is an amazing colour scheme and I wish somebody in the league would use it. Its like the Kings. Silver and black is a great colour scheme, but I also think its a shame that out of 32 teams in the NHL, not a single one wears an iota of purple.

That's why I said "I know there are exceptions to this". As a general rule though, the team's coloured uniform is its "main" uniform.

My thoughts on the white vs coloured at home thing was that coloured made sense because if you were at home, in your building, you should be wearing your colours. The coloured uniforms seem like the "main" identity for lack of a better term, and the whites are more of an alternative version of it for logistical reasons (I know there are exceptions to this, but generally speaking a team's white uniform is just their coloured uniform with the bulk of the colour removed so it doesn't clash). There was an argument for white at home when the tv had 3 channels and was in black and white and the only way to see a team's uniform was to go to the game. Now that everybody has a high definition coloured screen to watch on, I don't see the point.

I was under the impression that Lethbridge was called that because they were a manufacturing city for the Hawker "Hurricane", which is why they have used logos like this. To be fair, they haven't really leaned into the aircraft branding. But that doesn't mean the name is ill-fitting either.

I'm not sure if this is an unpopular opinion or not, but I don't think home and roads need to match/be an inverse of each other. Many teams that have looks that are considered "untouchable" don't match, like the Canadiens, Rangers, or Yankees. That's not to say the 'CANES' jersey is good, just that I don't think its an automatic strike against it for not matching the home. Hell the Stars rebrand was lauded and it doesn't match.

I know its not "serious", I'm not saying anniversary logos should be treated like a medical diagnosis. I just think its as the youths say "cringe". I put it on pair with a team theming everything they do around the fact that hockey is played on ice.

Also there's something incredibly bushleague about using the term "Fangtastic" in your anniversary logo.

And the city of Buffalo. Odd direction for New Era to go in but I'm open to it. I'm not really a fan of what they've done with the CFL but its hard to tell how much of that is them and how much of that is the CFL bungling another area of their operation.

This is one of those teams like the 49ers that always seems to be exempt from the BFBS criticism and I'll never understand why, they look so much better without it.

90s is the flavour of the month right now, it’s not just the obnoxiously oversized logos. Don’t worry. Soon we’ll roll into ‘00s nostalgia and teams will bring back obnoxious side panels and piping to nowhere.