The Giant Pacific Octopus Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 So, why change it?Because it sucks. The Catch of the Day! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sport Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 The Wild have one of the best logos in sports and it's the only thing salvaging their ridiculous nickname. So what do they do? They reduce it 75% and force it into a roundel on the home jerseys. The home fans don't need to read what team they're watching. Then on the road they use just the logo. If anything the two should be flipped. And the logo doesn't even appear on the green alternates. The green alternates and white jerseys sort of match, except the striping proportions are slightly different for no good reason and the shape of the phantom yoke doesn't match the shape of the yoke on the white jersey template. Plus you have the logo discrepancies. It's 3 separate uniforms designed at 3 different times and it looks bush.It'd be like if the Blue Jackets decided to wear their 3rd jerseys for every home game, but then continued to wear the regular whites on the road so they'd look like two different franchises home and road. The Montreal Canadiens can get away with having different looks home and road because they've been doing it forever and both jerseys were established in a historical sense before brands demanded consistency. The Wild are not the Montreal Canadiens. They need to take a step back, hit the reset button, and come out with a home and road uniform that look consistent across the board (Ideally with a green home uniform instead of red). Then in 3 or 4 years when that brand is firmly established they can introduce a red alternate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeypower Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 Roughriders and Rough Riders.Bad example. That was an organic occurrence from a time when branding was less important and oh look at that it's not even true anymore. I wasn't meaning to say that was a precedence for the go ahead with North Stars and Stars.I was just posting that because North Stars and Stars reminded me of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sport Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 Roughriders and Rough Riders.Bad example. That was an organic occurrence from a time when branding was less important and oh look at that it's not even true anymore. I wasn't meaning to say that was a precedence for the go ahead with North Stars and Stars.I was just posting that because North Stars and Stars reminded me of it.Oh gotcha. Sorry if I came off dickish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceCap Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 The Wild name is unusual, but Northern Lights isn't any better. Yes, I laughed when they came out with the name. It still might seem weird, but, without a shadow of a doubt, the Wild logo is one of the best in sports. Is the name offensive to a certain group? Nope. So, why change it? I just don't get why people want them to abandon not only a name, but a brand that they have spent the past 15 years building up. It makes no sense whatsoever. At least, you didn't suggest Dallas should change their name so Minnesota could become the North Stars 2.0.The thing about Minnesota's uniform history is that I can say that you really can't say a whole lot bad about them. Sure, it would be nice if the home/away matched. Yes, I can nitpick about how I rather have the logo on the green jersey or how the red needs the hem stripe back and probably should be back to being an alternate. But, overall, all 3 jerseys are pretty nice.It seems that you and I are going to have to agree to disagree. The only thing that we can agree on is that Minnesota DOES have a very creative logo. However, I do have bad news for you. Having Dallas change their name so Minnesota could be the North Stars 2.0 would be the right thing to do, though I do love the Stars' D-Star logo. Exactly like the New Orleans Hornets/Pelicans-Charlotte Bobcats/Hornets situation. Even the SuperSonics name and history is being reserved for the NBA's future return to Seattle. A North Stars 2.0 brand would be the hottest selling thing in hockey, maybe in sports, right now.No. The SuperSonics' history was put on hold for five years, and would have been returned to Seattle if they had gotten an expansion team in that time. That didn't happen. As far as the NBA is concerned the Seattle SuperSonics name and history belongs to the Oklahoma City Thunder. Even if Seattle got an expansion or relocated team now? The Thunder would have no obligation to relinquish the Sonics' name or history. Nor should they. Like it or not? The Sonics are the Thunder. It's the same team. And that Pelicans/Bobcats/Hornets fiasco? It's downright childish. We all know the Pelicans are the real Hornets, and the team dressing up as the Hornets are the same sorry Bobcats team we've known for years. Wearing teal and purple doesn't change that.As for the Stars/North Stars deal? The Dallas Stars actively celebrate their pre-Dallas North Stars history. They recognize that their history didn't start in Dallas in 1993. The Dallas Stars ARE the North Stars. They've also been the Dallas Stars for over twenty years now (a run that includes a Stanley Cup Championship). There's absolutely nothing right about forcing Dallas to abandon all of that history so a 2000 expansion team can pretend to be a team founded in 1967.Yes, Wild sucks as a name, but the great identity really softens the blow. If they have to change? I'd like to see them go to Minnesota Grizzlies. They wouldn't even need to change the logo. PotD 26/2/12 1/7/15 2020 BASS Spin the Wheel, Make the Deal Regular Season Champion 2021 BASS NFL Pick'em Regular Season Champion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceCap Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 Not quite the same thing. "Blue" was simply a descriptor for the "Jackets" name. Having the Stars and North Stars would create brand confusion. PotD 26/2/12 1/7/15 2020 BASS Spin the Wheel, Make the Deal Regular Season Champion 2021 BASS NFL Pick'em Regular Season Champion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDGP Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 Not quite the same thing. "Blue" was simply a descriptor for the "Jackets" name. Having the Stars and North Stars would create brand confusion. This exactly. It doesn't cause the same problem because the "Blue" part of the names describe completely different things. It's WHAT is being described being too similar that is the problem. For instance, there's no way in hell that the White Sox and Red Sox would be allowed if one was an expansion team (the Reds/Redlegs should be included too). This was only allowed to happen because of the significant history of each club using the names. Both teams are the Sox.In your example, it's the Blues and the Jackets (which just happen to be blue). I've got a dribbble, check it out if you like my stuff; alternatively, if you hate my stuff, send it to your enemies to punish their insolence! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBubba Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 Yeah, "Blues" and "Blue Jackets" is more similar to "North Stars" and "Nordiques". It's the noun that matters, not the adjective, because the former is what your branding will focus on. Nobody cares about your humungous-big signature. PotD: 29/1/12   Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M4One Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 I don't know, but if you change the name, I think you have to change the logo. Has that ever happened were the name changes, but everything else remained the same? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDGP Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 I don't think either would be acceptable, especially in the 21st century. Especially since the Blue Jackets name pretty much forces them to be another RWB team, but that's another issueRed is the descriptor of Sox, but if they were an expansion team with the Reds already existing, would the Red Sox be a smart choice for a team name?I mean, the Blue Jackets expansion is about as 21st century as it gets without being 21st century.Also, to me, the big problem with the Reds and Red Sox isn't the Red part. It would be that the Reds name is derived from Red Stockings, and the team also used Redlegs during the 50s. The Reds name resonates with the same idea as the Red Sox. I've got a dribbble, check it out if you like my stuff; alternatively, if you hate my stuff, send it to your enemies to punish their insolence! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceCap Posted April 24, 2015 Share Posted April 24, 2015 I don't think either would be acceptable, especially in the 21st century. Especially since the Blue Jackets name pretty much forces them to be another RWB team, but that's another issueRed is the descriptor of Sox, but if they were an expansion team with the Reds already existing, would the Red Sox be a smart choice for a team name?If Boston were getting an expansion team? "Red Sox" wouldn't fly because of the White Sox. Not the Reds. PotD 26/2/12 1/7/15 2020 BASS Spin the Wheel, Make the Deal Regular Season Champion 2021 BASS NFL Pick'em Regular Season Champion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morgan33 Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 As for the Stars/North Stars deal? The Dallas Stars actively celebrate their pre-Dallas North Stars history. They recognize that their history didn't start in Dallas in 1993. The Dallas Stars ARE the North Stars. They've also been the Dallas Stars for over twenty years now (a run that includes a Stanley Cup Championship). There's absolutely nothing right about forcing Dallas to abandon all of that history so a 2000 expansion team can pretend to be a team founded in 1967.Couldn't have said it better myself. Why do you think they reverted back Kelly Green. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollTribe19 Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 The Wild do not have a great logo. The only good thing about that logo is the North Star, which is obviously a nod to NHL's previous Minnesota team. It took me a couple years (I was young) to realize it was even a head. So if you have to look at a logo and say, "what is it?", then I don't believe that makes a great logo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 Every time this comes up, I keep having to say the only real solution would have been to move mountains to keep a hockey league in Minnesota. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeypower Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 Well it is the (self-proclaimed) "State Of Hockey." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habsfan1 Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 Roughriders and Rough Riders.Admirals and Admirals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rollins Man Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 The Wild do not have a great logo. The only good thing about that logo is the North Star, which is obviously a nod to NHL's previous Minnesota team. It took me a couple years (I was young) to realize it was even a head. So if you have to look at a logo and say, "what is it?", then I don't believe that makes a great logo.I think that's what makes it such a great logo. Growing up I to never noticed the bear head either but loved the logo, then a few years ago i finally saw it and made me appreciate the logo that much more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter Sobchak Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 Just imagine if the Wild had gone with Blue Ox as the name. Blues, Blue Jackets, and Blue Ox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollTribe19 Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 The Wild do not have a great logo. The only good thing about that logo is the North Star, which is obviously a nod to NHL's previous Minnesota team. It took me a couple years (I was young) to realize it was even a head. So if you have to look at a logo and say, "what is it?", then I don't believe that makes a great logo.I think that's what makes it such a great logo. Growing up I to never noticed the bear head either but loved the logo, then a few years ago i finally saw it and made me appreciate the logo that much more.Something like the Capitals sneaking the nations capital into their logo is cool. It's a nice touch to the team and the city. The Wild bear head is just another abstract outline, outlining an abstract logo representing....Wild. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midway Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 The Wild logo isn't even that abstract. I can't speak for anyone I suppose, but I saw the bear head right away upon first seeing the logo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.