Ridleylash

I'd say Option 4 looks the best and most nicely marries their current logo with the throwback look. Having just one outline on the outside looks a bit weird on Option 2 given the heavy use of black on the spokes, and with Option 3 you'd end up with the only yellow on the logo being the B itself whenever you put it on a yellow backing, which just makes it functionally identical to the original. 4 only needs you to swap the outermost black outline for white when you put it on a black base.

If we're being truly technical, then they kind of did; Disney owned the team as Mighty Ducks Hockey Club Inc, but the club since the Samuellis bought it is now Anaheim Ducks Hockey Club LLC. LLCs (or Limited liability companies) are legally distinct from corporations.

In-person image from the Ducks subreddit: The :censored:'s the point of having the Webbed D there at all if it's going to be so small you'd need a microscope to see it on TV? Why'd they hop on the roundel train so late? How do you not at least fill the cuffs to match the hem? Why do you not even have the Mighty Ducks logo on the jersey as a shoulder patch?

How did they manage to :censored: up an easy money-maker lmao

I know this is probably sacrilege to some people, but honestly I kinda want Boston to switch to brown full-time, specifically the shade they used for the 2019 Winter Classic. They can pull the look off well, and nobody else in the league uses brown anyways. Honestly, I'm kinda surprised their first RR wasn't a brown-and-gold 80's jersey, seems like that would've been incredibly obvious and an easy seller.

The NHL will never go back to white at home unless they completely drop alternate jerseys, because teams wanting to wear dark alts at home literally caused the switch back to begin with. Plus it just makes things easier on equipment managers to only need to track one set of equipment on road games and road trips. And historically, color at home is the norm for the NHL, not white. They only switched to white at home in 1970, after having worn color at home since 1955.

The 25th anniversary jersey had a black base, so I doubt it means the alt unless they're just recycling the exact jersey they used last anniversary. Most likely, it's just referring to the home jersey. And if said anniversary alternate is an eggplant purple throwback like they did for the 20th, then specifying the color of the home jersey might make more sense.

I like the uniforms well enough, but I feel like they could have improved it in areas that they didn't. Like, why not keep the hem they had to mix both eras together into a single cohesive uniform? The tiny hem stripe was like the one gripe I had with the 80's-90's Flyers jersey, and I feel the larger stripe would've balanced the top and bottom of the uniforms out better. That, and why have single-color numbers when you have three colors? Black with orange outlines would have looked fine on the road and white with black would've looked fine on the home. It's overall an improvement since they got away from the Dayglo color, but it still could've been better.

I mean, I was in that same age range when they came out and I still hate them deeply. The Caps need a change pretty desperately, their entire identity is stuck in 2008 when everybody else but the Kings have moved past that era altogether. The pit stripes are dumb, the forearm striping is hideous and the wordmark for a primary logo just flat-out sucks; literally the only good things about the entire brand are the colors and the Weagle, and even then I'd say a brighter blue looks better for the Caps than navy; after all, the US flag isn't navy, it's a dark cyan. They're clearly the worst uniforms in Capitals history, and it's not even a close contest. Honestly, if not for Reebok's apocalypse on NHL uniform designs with the initial lineup of Edge jerseys, I wonder if the Caps would've just done what they eventually did with the first Reverse Retro and just recolor the Screagle uniforms to be in red/white/blue instead, because it looks pretty nice; There's a reason this jersey sold like crazy when it was released, after all.

There's kind of a difference considering that I imagine very few people alive today remember the A's being anywhere but Oakland outside of the historical angle. For all intents and purposes, the A's brand is tied to Oakland at this point, especially since both Philly and KC have their own clubs with plenty of history in their own right. And like...if someone else has your car for 50+ years, it's not really your car anymore, now is it?

Those aren't bad at all, what? If you wanted a real example of a terrible uniform coinciding with terrible teams, you had multiple far better options than that;

The Bolts were like $18 million over in 2021, and nobody said that was rigged then. Well, okay, maybe a few people, but playoff teams going over the cap will always happen as long as the cap doesn't apply to the postseason, and it'll be a cold day in hell before either side lets the cap apply to the playoffs.

My problem is that the entire argument for Johnny is "They're the Canucks, they have to have Johnny as the logo!" and the argument for the Skate is literally just "They wore it in '94!". They're incredibly simplistic arguments that just appeal to literal interpretation or nostalgia instead of, you know, proving that they would actually be better branding than the logo they've stuck with since 1997. The name "Canucks" is so incredibly generic that I literally cannot see why "lumberjack with a hockey stick" or "flying bowl of spaghetti in a skate shape" are apparently "more sensibly Canuck" than an orca. It literally just means "Canadian", there's nothing more Canadian about a lumberjack than there is about an orca; hell, by that logic their logo should be a beaver or moose, the two most quintessentially "Canadian" things of all. But team logos don't always match team names, anyways; the Bruins' main logo isn't a bear, the Canadiens don't have a shred of a maple leaf or fleur-de-lis anywhere in their current brand, the Tigers just have a D as their primary logo, the Bears and Bengals have a C and B for their logos, the Clippers just have their initials as their logo, etc. They're using Johnny as Abbotsford's identity already, they don't need it in the NHL as well just because a vocal minority won't be satisfied with literally anything but him as the Canucks' identity. And I guarantee you that the Skate nostalgia will begin wearing off soon as we transition more and more into 2000's-2010's nostalgia and see a boost of West Coast Express-era Orca nostalgia begin to take hold. That, and people keep crying about how the Canucks have an identity crisis and keep trying to add more identities to this already-challenged franchise. Seems remarkably counter-intuitive to try and "fix" the franchise's infamous identity issue by just stacking another onto the pile in the vague hope of "maybe this one'll work" when the one they have is working perfectly for the vast majority of fans.

Can we not start another damned Canucks branding tangent, please? We've run that discussion so far into the ground I think it's looped around a few times. What they have is good, they don't need to change the most consistent branding in their 50+ year history just to appease a recent wave of nostalgia for a look that was reviled when it first came out.

Exactly. If anything, the teams are the ones to blame for terrible branding decisions since, y'know...they're the ones who tell the manufacturers what to produce; Nike is just an easy scapegoat since it's their name attached to the jerseys themselves. Like, I don't think Nike sets out to design with the mindset of "How can we completely mangle this team's jerseys so much that it forces another redesign a bit later?". Every league has had and will continue to have eras with design fads that uniform nuts like us will find gaudy, appalling or other such words; it's just the nature of how sports branding works that if one team does something that proves incredibly successful, other teams will copy it to mimic that success. The 90's was full of fads, the 2000's had fads, the 2010's had fads, and future eras will have fads of their own.

And that Florida has already come back from the brink of death in these playoffs before to win a series it looked like they were basically primed to lose. The combination of those two factors could be pretty ominous for the Knights.

The Cardiac Cats strike again as Florida wins their first Finals game in franchise history to cut the series to a one-game deficit. Could we see a repeat of the Boston series where they go down big early and run it all the way back?

The main reason it doesn't bother me much is because ultimately, while not aesthetically perfect, it doesn't really hamper my enjoyment of the sport since little jersey patches don't really change the way hockey is played. Nobody misses a block or check, :censored:s up a pass or scores a goal because "the jersey ad was too distracting", y'know? Would my ideal NHL not have jersey ads? Oh, absolutely, I'd love that classic look back...but I'm also just a fan watching at home; I don't have to answer to a board of ownership groups that, by and large, don't give a flying about hockey aesthetics and just want the business to see exponential revenue growth by any means that they can to find more ways to make money off of fans. Plenty of sports are dealing with ad overload right now as owners keep pushing the boundaries to see just how many ads they can stuff in before people stop watching, which is only being exacerbated by the rapidly-onsetting death of the RSN killing a huge revenue source for many leagues. Frankly, I think it might only get worse before it gets better across sports.

There's also plenty of sites where you can mindlessly repeat the same "ads bad" points ad nauseum if you don't like people who don't exactly care about a small jersey patch in the wider economic picture, so that can go both ways. Having different opinions coexisting in a forum is good, that's how you avoid it turning into a massive echo chamber. Besides, economics absolutely play just as much a role in sports branding as aesthetics do; no team rebrands purely out of the goodness of their heart, they all do it because they've determined it makes them more dough to do so.

Have every team wear a team-color version of one of these bad boys in hat form, ez;

I hope whoever that quote came from realizes the NBA also has multiple types of court ads, jersey ads and TV ads as well, so they're just as ad-riddled as the NHL is lmao

Man, at that point you're basically just begging to get your ass booted out lmfao

If the A's think Oakland sucks, why the are they considering spending time in Sacramento, a place commonly agreed to be even worse lmfao I feel like MLB will just force Fisher and co. to sell to local interests in Oakland long before letting the A's go to Sacramento.

It's primarily an issue of other fanbases seeing them as having not really taken their lumps yet; even if they've missed the playoffs once now, they're still considered Cup favorites basically every season and teams that constantly stick at the top inevitably become more hated than the lovable loser franchise. Even the franchise newer than Vegas has taken their lumps already, Vegas still hasn't. There's a reason nobody was crying over Florida slowly eviscerating the Bruins' hopes and dreams, but on Vegas for choking to the Sharks and cheered loudly when they missed the playoffs.

Where would the Brewers even go for potential relocation with the league still looking into expansion?