2015-16 NHL Uniform and Logo Changes

[WSU151]

The Yeti logo is not a footprint in the snow. There is hair on the foot...which usually doesn't show up in snow. I love the silver Yeti foot logo, but never thought of it as a snow print.

[Gothamite]

Yeah, that's not a snow print. I'd like it much better if it was a snow print.

[-kj]

I don't know what's wrong with y'all that you can't enjoy that as a shoulder logo. It's not the best-rendered logo ever, but I still love it. All the complaints that sports identities are too mean and/or serious, but we can't have anything that's a little whimsical, either.

[daniel75]

Yeah, that's not a snow print. I'd like it much better if it was a snow print.

That is one strange logo.

[IceCap]

You need to stop assuming there's one rule that covers every team. The Sabres' logo spells out the team name without the use of a single letter. The Maple Leafs' logo spells out the team name with all of the letters. Neither approach is wrong. Both work within the context of their respective teams' aesthetic traditions. Same with the Canucks. People want Johnny Canuck partially because he exists. We've seen what the Canucks COULD be wearing and want it over the non-representative orca they're currently using. It's a reason specific to the context of the Vancouver Canucks. It shouldn't be used to claim that ALL teams need literal logos. If the Canucks' aesthetic history started with the stick in rink and Jonny was never created? I think more people would be willing to settle for the orca. The team never would have had a literal logo in that hypothetical context. I sometimes think we can, collectively, get up our own behinds here. We like to say "oh this works great because of reasons X, Y, and Z" all the time. In fairness? It can mostly be logical. There's nothing wrong with trying to articulate a set of "rules." It's just that this is a VERY subjective field. All rules have exceptions, more so with this sort of thing than in almost any other field.

General consensus as of late seems to indicate that every team should look the same, regardless of when they were established.

Is it? A lot of people are (rightfully) disappointed in the Lightning and Hurricanes for playing Original Six Dress-Up. "We got rid of the alternate logos to create a timeless look." What the hell does that even mean?

My frustration lies in this trend of 90's and 00's teams forgoing solid and unique visual identities to look like older teams. Happened to Lightning, happened to the Hurricanes, and if what you're advocating comes to pass, it will happen to the Avalanche.

I disagree. The Lightning and 'Canes adopted actual striping patterns and colour schemes from Original Six teams, abandoning their past identities. That won't be the case with the Avs, assuming the new alternate serves as the basis for a new identity in a few years. Nothing about that sweater design, logo, or colour scheme encroaches on the look of any other team. Original Six or otherwise.

I like a simple, classic looking hockey uniform as much as anybody but there is absolutely no reason for a 1990's team, with two championships to throw away a solid, and wholly original look to jump on the pervasive 'retro bandwagon.' If there isn't "one rule that covers every team," why do the Avalanche have to throw away something attractive and wholly unique, on account of it being "too 90's?" Why can't we have a few teams embracing 90's aesthetics so we can have a well rounded league with visual variety instead of everyone trying to look like the O6? I'm tried of "90's" being used a pejorative term. The Avalanche, Hurricanes, Sharks, Ducks, and Panthers all got their uniforms right the first time, in the 90's.

I don't think being "90s" has to be pejorative. Every era of design has its gems and its clunkers. The Hurricanes, Panthers, Sharks, and Stars all got things more or less right in the 1990s. Other teams? Less so. I don't dislike the Avs' original look because it's a 90s design. I dislike it because I think it's a bad design from the 90s.

Aside from the liberal use of white, the palette for the new alternate is pretty subdued itself.

Navy, in my opinion, is a stronger base colour then slate blue. Not that I have anything against lighter blues. Powder blue is one of my all-time favourite colours in sports. My problem with the slate blue is that it's just...weak. I don't know how else to explain it. It's not powder blue. Or royal. Or navy. It looks like a sickly shade of blue to me.

It's close enough to the Rockies old logo, that the connection can be made and that's a problem. The Rockies are the New Jersey Devils, a team they beat to win their second championship while wearing their current logo.

I don't have a problem with the Avs using a logo that homages the Rockies, just like I don't have a problem with the Mets using a logo that homages the Giants. They aren't pretending to be the Rockies, just acknowledging the connection of NHL hockey in Denver.

Nothing really pops out when you're using maroon and slate blue.

I think you're selling the slate blue short here. Set off from the burgundy with black and white, it looks quite vibrant:

I know it's the kind of dark and fussy color palette that epitomizes the '90s, but burgundy is such a strong base color for sports uniforms ('80s Phillies, Redskins, Chicago Wolves, Loyola Chicago, Virginia Tech) that transcends the old dark-and-fussy trend. Powder blue would work well with it, as we all know, and slate can go on working fine if done right, but navy blue doesn't work.

Burgundy (or maroon ) is awesome. I just think it's hard to find a secondary colour that works well with it. Gold seems to work, but I've never liked the way blue looks next to it. I hate the way powder blue worked with the Phillies' maroon. The team's road look was greatly improved when they switched to grey. I think that's because burgundy involves adding blue to red, so placing it next to blue sort of creates a bleeding in effect. Even when the blue is as light as powder.

Pairing it with navy isn't ideal for similar reasons, but I think it's the best choice of the two blue options the Avs seem to have. The two colours never touching on the alternate helps.

[Morgan33]

Who says the burgundy area of the logo is hair? They had to outline the logo in something, they couldn't just leave it silver or else there would be no contrast... If you look that photo 'WSU151' posted and compare the sparkling snow to the silver material used on the patch, it's a near perfect match. It's a footprint.

Well Cap, I respect your opinions and the lengths you've gone to express them. We're obviously never going to see eye to eye on this issue and that's okay. This would be a hell of a boring place if everyone agreed on everything all of the time.

[The_Admiral]

Should the Avs be honoring the Hockey-Rockies in the first place? They made the playoffs one out of six years and spent the other five in the cellar, one of which was the year Don Cherry coached the team and had them playing like something out of the Federal League. They tried to move to the Meadowlands, failed, then they moved to the Meadowlands anyway. On top of all that, their uniforms were very garish. It's a legacy that makes the Whalers look like the Habs. If anything, they were a setback to NHL hockey in Denver, not a catalyst, and should be forgotten while the glory days of the Avs are celebrated.

[WSU151]

Who says the burgundy area of the logo is hair? They had to outline the logo in something, they couldn't just leave it silver or else there would be no contrast... If you look that photo 'WSU151' posted and compare the sparkling snow to the silver material used on the patch, it's a near perfect match. It's a footprint.

Well Cap, I respect your opinions and the lengths you've gone to express them. We're obviously never going to see eye to eye on this issue and that's okay. This would be a hell of a boring place if everyone agreed on everything all of the time.

What else would the burgandy flair strokes be? It's clearly hair. They could have outlined it with a simple constant-width burgandy keystroke.

The bottome of a foot is a foot...of course it's going to look the same.

Seriously...it's not even close...it's not a footprint in the snow.

[Morgan33]

Who says the burgundy area of the logo is hair? They had to outline the logo in something, they couldn't just leave it silver or else there would be no contrast... If you look that photo 'WSU151' posted and compare the sparkling snow to the silver material used on the patch, it's a near perfect match. It's a footprint.

Well Cap, I respect your opinions and the lengths you've gone to express them. We're obviously never going to see eye to eye on this issue and that's okay. This would be a hell of a boring place if everyone agreed on everything all of the time.

What else would the burgandy flair strokes be? It's clearly hair. They could have outlined it with a simple constant-width burgandy keystroke.

The bottome of a foot is a foot...of course it's going to look the same.

Seriously...it's not even close...it's not a footprint in the snow.

If they did that, it would just be any footprint... By using the outline they did, it's clear the logo represents a Yeti. As for what else it could be? It could be the imprint left by the hair... it's burgundy after all. I haven't seen any depictions of Yeti with burgundy hair...

[daniel75]

Dallas, Carolina, Tampa, Atlanta, Columbus, NY (fisherman) - These teams 90's logos were/are pretty bad, and not in an Islanders "so bad it's good" kind of way. IMO

[monkeypower]

There's no way it's not a foot. What are you looking at?

[Sodboy13]

Should the Avs be honoring the Hockey-Rockies in the first place? They made the playoffs one out of six years and spent the other five in the cellar, one of which was the year Don Cherry coached the team and had them playing like something out of the Federal League. They tried to move to the Meadowlands, failed, then they moved to the Meadowlands anyway. On top of all that, their uniforms were very garish. It's a legacy that makes the Whalers look like the Habs. If anything, they were a setback to NHL hockey in Denver, not a catalyst, and should be forgotten while the glory days of the Avs are celebrated.

I had to look at HockeyDB after this. Not only did Cherry coach the Rockies into the division cellar, but the team had the worst record in the whole league (51 points, tied with WInnipeg, but one fewer win than the Jets). And this was in 1979-80, the season four teams came in from the WHA as shells of their former selves, having been forced to leave the vast majority of their talent up for grabs in order to gain admission. It takes a special touch to be that horrible.

[TheOldRoman]

Should the Avs be honoring the Hockey-Rockies in the first place? They made the playoffs one out of six years and spent the other five in the cellar, one of which was the year Don Cherry coached the team and had them playing like something out of the Federal League. They tried to move to the Meadowlands, failed, then they moved to the Meadowlands anyway. On top of all that, their uniforms were very garish. It's a legacy that makes the Whalers look like the Habs. If anything, they were a setback to NHL hockey in Denver, not a catalyst, and should be forgotten while the glory days of the Avs are celebrated.

The Avalanche honoring the Rockies is like the Seattle Mariners wearing the blue and yellow fauxbacks, except worse. At least the Mariners are throwing back to a horrible, irrelevant era in their own history and not throwing back to a horrible, irrelevant franchise that has nothing to do with them.

[The_Admiral]

Tyson Barrie having the time of his life looking like a young Joel Quenneville!

[chcarlson23]

Should the Avs be honoring the Hockey-Rockies in the first place?

No, not even close. The Rockies had almost no effect on Colorado hockey. They're just a team that people remember when talk about the New Jersey Devils franchise comes up. They were not meaningful to the people of Colorado. Sure they may have had some fans, but they didn't really leave a legacy. The Avs honoring them is stupid, because they franchise should have no connection to such a bad hockey team. Especially the way the Avs used to be a dominant franchise winning the cup twice, and the Rockies made the playoffs once. It's a little different for teams like the Wild or the Jets. The teams before them meant everything to their city. Even though the teams before never did that well on the ice, they left a legacy and people still love those teams. The rockies made the playoffs once. The Avs won more games than the Rockies in one round of the playoffs. The Rockies were swept in 2 games. The Rockies should stay a forgotten team buried deep in the NJ Devils franchise history vaults.

[WSU151]

Who says the burgundy area of the logo is hair? They had to outline the logo in something, they couldn't just leave it silver or else there would be no contrast... If you look that photo 'WSU151' posted and compare the sparkling snow to the silver material used on the patch, it's a near perfect match. It's a footprint.

Well Cap, I respect your opinions and the lengths you've gone to express them. We're obviously never going to see eye to eye on this issue and that's okay. This would be a hell of a boring place if everyone agreed on everything all of the time.

What else would the burgandy flair strokes be? It's clearly hair. They could have outlined it with a simple constant-width burgandy keystroke.

The bottome of a foot is a foot...of course it's going to look the same.

Seriously...it's not even close...it's not a footprint in the snow.

If they did that, it would just be any footprint... By using the outline they did, it's clear the logo represents a Yeti. As for what else it could be? It could be the imprint left by the hair... it's burgundy after all. I haven't seen any depictions of Yeti with burgundy hair...

I've never seen a blue lion either.

The imprint left by the hair is burgandy??? Wtf?? Why would an imprint be burgandy? And second...Hair doesn't make a distinct impact on snow. Put your arm in snow this winter and see if you can make out the hair or the bones better.

The logo is clearly the bottom of the foot, not a snow print. Not sure why you're trying to argue this.

[Morgan33]

Who says the burgundy area of the logo is hair? They had to outline the logo in something, they couldn't just leave it silver or else there would be no contrast... If you look that photo 'WSU151' posted and compare the sparkling snow to the silver material used on the patch, it's a near perfect match. It's a footprint.

Well Cap, I respect your opinions and the lengths you've gone to express them. We're obviously never going to see eye to eye on this issue and that's okay. This would be a hell of a boring place if everyone agreed on everything all of the time.

What else would the burgandy flair strokes be? It's clearly hair. They could have outlined it with a simple constant-width burgandy keystroke.

The bottome of a foot is a foot...of course it's going to look the same.

Seriously...it's not even close...it's not a footprint in the snow.

If they did that, it would just be any footprint... By using the outline they did, it's clear the logo represents a Yeti. As for what else it could be? It could be the imprint left by the hair... it's burgundy after all. I haven't seen any depictions of Yeti with burgundy hair...

I've never seen a blue lion either.

The imprint left by the hair is burgandy??? Wtf?? Why would an imprint be burgandy? And second...Hair doesn't make a distinct impact on snow. Put your arm in snow this winter and see if you can make out the hair or the bones better.

The logo is clearly the bottom of the foot, not a snow print. Not sure why you're trying to argue this.

Hair isn't burgundy either... It's a logo, not an anatomical illustration.

[Chewbacca]

Should the Avs be honoring the Hockey-Rockies in the first place?

No, not even close. The Rockies had almost no effect on Colorado hockey. They're just a team that people remember when talk about the New Jersey Devils franchise comes up. They were not meaningful to the people of Colorado. Sure they may have had some fans, but they didn't really leave a legacy. The Avs honoring them is stupid, because they franchise should have no connection to such a bad hockey team. Especially the way the Avs used to be a dominant franchise winning the cup twice, and the Rockies made the playoffs once. It's a little different for teams like the Wild or the Jets. The teams before them meant everything to their city. Even though the teams before never did that well on the ice, they left a legacy and people still love those teams. The rockies made the playoffs once. The Avs won more games than the Rockies in one round of the playoffs. The Rockies were swept in 2 games. The Rockies should stay a forgotten team buried deep in the NJ Devils franchise history vaults.

The Rockies may have been a disaster of a franchise but they did have a couple memorable things. For one, their jerseys were decent, and they had a great logo. As someone who has never liked any of the Avs' main jerseys, I think their new third is a step in the right direction. I'm a fan of the new Rockies-inspired logo. It's simple, and the new alternate is much cleaner than their main jerseys. With some hem stripes, and a few tweaks, that would make a great home jersey. Also, the more I see it, the more I like the new 'C' logo on the shoulders of the main jerseys.

[WSU151]

Who says the burgundy area of the logo is hair? They had to outline the logo in something, they couldn't just leave it silver or else there would be no contrast... If you look that photo 'WSU151' posted and compare the sparkling snow to the silver material used on the patch, it's a near perfect match. It's a footprint.

Well Cap, I respect your opinions and the lengths you've gone to express them. We're obviously never going to see eye to eye on this issue and that's okay. This would be a hell of a boring place if everyone agreed on everything all of the time.

What else would the burgandy flair strokes be? It's clearly hair. They could have outlined it with a simple constant-width burgandy keystroke.

The bottome of a foot is a foot...of course it's going to look the same.

Seriously...it's not even close...it's not a footprint in the snow.

If they did that, it would just be any footprint... By using the outline they did, it's clear the logo represents a Yeti. As for what else it could be? It could be the imprint left by the hair... it's burgundy after all. I haven't seen any depictions of Yeti with burgundy hair...

I've never seen a blue lion either.

The imprint left by the hair is burgandy??? Wtf?? Why would an imprint be burgandy? And second...Hair doesn't make a distinct impact on snow. Put your arm in snow this winter and see if you can make out the hair or the bones better.

The logo is clearly the bottom of the foot, not a snow print. Not sure why you're trying to argue this.

Hair isn't burgundy either... It's a logo, not an anatomical illustration.

You're pretty much contradicting yourself. If it's not an anatomical illustration, then it's perfectly fine to have burgandy hair. After all, when's the last time you saw a real Yeti?

And again, wild lions (or any kind of lions) aren't Honolulu Blue.

It's pretty funny that you want it to be a snow print so bad, no matter what anyone else thinks...

[The Giant Pacific Octopus]

Should the Avs be honoring the Hockey-Rockies in the first place? They made the playoffs one out of six years and spent the other five in the cellar, one of which was the year Don Cherry coached the team and had them playing like something out of the Federal League. They tried to move to the Meadowlands, failed, then they moved to the Meadowlands anyway. On top of all that, their uniforms were very garish. It's a legacy that makes the Whalers look like the Habs. If anything, they were a setback to NHL hockey in Denver, not a catalyst, and should be forgotten while the glory days of the Avs are celebrated.

Maybe so but they had a kick-ass name and logo.