New name for the Minnesota Wild?

[Morgan33]

Just no. The Stars already won a cup in green, gold and black... There was zero reason for them to go with a tired, overused red white and blue scheme. Thank god it didn't happen.

[hawk36]

Understood but for a place that has a name tied to the most iconic state flag in the US, it just seems wrong to not have uniforms that match that iconic flag. But then again I'm always looking for the complete package design wise and get hung up on design flaws that are easily solved (Padres in blue drive me nuts).

[tnagraffix]

Minnesota Wilds (wouldn't be first time an adjective was pluralized for a sports team)

Who's the first?

[Morgan33]

Understood but for a place that has a name tied to the most iconic state flag in the US, it just seems wrong to not have uniforms that match that iconic flag. But then again I'm always looking for the complete package design wise and get hung up on design flaws that are easily solved (Padres in blue drive me nuts).

I can understand wanting a 'Texas Flag' connection but those colours are just so tired and overused. When you have colours that are wholly unique to the league, with championship history behind them, they shouldn't be ditched for ones worn by 4 other teams... Success wasn't limited to the 1999 Stanley Cup team either; were talking multiple 100 point seasons, the greatest American player to play the game, Finals and Conference Finals appearances... The list goes on and on...

Besides the new Minnesota franchise had 12-plus years to claim those classic Northstars colours while the Stars were stuck in 'darken-everything-to-black purgatory.' Unfortunately for the Wild, the Stars beat them to the punch in 2013 and improved their identity significantly. At this point it's probably best the Wild just embrace Forest Green, Red, Gold and Wheat. Not only is it unique but really attractive in its own right.

As for the Stars, props to them for resurrecting a great identity. Even without athletic gold, it's still one of the best looks in the league.

[ARTnSocal]

Understood but for a place that has a name tied to the most iconic state flag in the US, it just seems wrong to not have uniforms that match that iconic flag. But then again I'm always looking for the complete package design wise and get hung up on design flaws that are easily solved (Padres in blue drive me nuts).

I can understand wanting a 'Texas Flag' connection but those colours are just so tired and overused. When you have colours that are wholly unique to the league, with championship history behind them, they shouldn't be ditched for ones worn by 4 other teams... Success wasn't limited to the 1999 Stanley Cup team either; were talking multiple 100 point seasons, the greatest American player to play the game, Finals and Conference Finals appearances... The list goes on and on...

Besides the new Minnesota franchise had 12-plus years to claim those classic Northstars colours while the Stars were stuck in 'darken-everything-to-black purgatory.' Unfortunately for the Wild, the Stars beat them to the punch in 2013 and improved their identity significantly. At this point it's probably best the Wild just embrace Forest Green, Red, Gold and Wheat. Not only is it unique but really attractive in its own right.

As for the Stars, props to them for resurrecting a great identity. Even without athletic gold, it's still one of the best looks in the league.

.I went to many Sabres games at the old Aud in Buffalo as a kid more times than I can count, and I saw the North Stars many times and their sweaters, and their overall uniform set looked nothing like the Dallas Stars new look. Forget the yellow or gold, that is a totally different shade of green that the North Stars wore while still based in Bloomington, MN.

I would hardly call Dallas' new uniform set a 'resurrection'. I also wasn't aware that Dallas has the monopoly of wearing uniforms in the 'green' color scheme. It's that logo I always liked when they were the North Stars along with the nickname. If they brought back the North Stars name, colors, and uniforms similar to the late 60s, and 70s to the Minnesota Wild, they would look nothing like Dallas' new look, which by the way, I really do like that new shade of green on the newer set.

Try looking at how close Tampa Bay looks to the Maple Leafs, or in baseball how identical the LA Dodgers and KC Royals look. Those are the ones that are on total collision courses.

I still view it that if they can have the Red Sox and Reds in MLB, and the Red Sox and White Sox who both play in the AL, there should be no issue with having Stars and North Stars in the NHL.

[fillmont]

Understood but for a place that has a name tied to the most iconic state flag in the US, it just seems wrong to not have uniforms that match that iconic flag. But then again I'm always looking for the complete package design wise and get hung up on design flaws that are easily solved (Padres in blue drive me nuts).

I can understand wanting a 'Texas Flag' connection but those colours are just so tired and overused. When you have colours that are wholly unique to the league, with championship history behind them, they shouldn't be ditched for ones worn by 4 other teams... Success wasn't limited to the 1999 Stanley Cup team either; were talking multiple 100 point seasons, the greatest American player to play the game, Finals and Conference Finals appearances... The list goes on and on...

Besides the new Minnesota franchise had 12-plus years to claim those classic Northstars colours while the Stars were stuck in 'darken-everything-to-black purgatory.' Unfortunately for the Wild, the Stars beat them to the punch in 2013 and improved their identity significantly. At this point it's probably best the Wild just embrace Forest Green, Red, Gold and Wheat. Not only is it unique but really attractive in its own right.

As for the Stars, props to them for resurrecting a great identity. Even without athletic gold, it's still one of the best looks in the league.

.I went to many Sabres games at the old Aud in Buffalo as a kid more times than I can count, and I saw the North Stars many times and their sweaters, and their overall uniform set looked nothing like the Dallas Stars new look. Forget the yellow or gold, that is a totally different shade of green that the North Stars wore while still based in Bloomington, MN.

I would hardly call Dallas' new uniform set a 'resurrection'. I also wasn't aware that Dallas has the monopoly of wearing uniforms in the 'green' color scheme. It's that logo I always liked when they were the North Stars along with the nickname. If they brought back the North Stars name, colors, and uniforms similar to the late 60s, and 70s to the Minnesota Wild, they would look nothing like Dallas' new look, which by the way, I really do like that new shade of green on the newer set.

Try looking at how close Tampa Bay looks to the Maple Leafs, or in baseball how identical the LA Dodgers and KC Royals look. Those are the ones that are on total collision courses.

I still view it that if they can have the Red Sox and Reds in MLB, and the Red Sox and White Sox who both play in the AL, there should be no issue with having Stars and North Stars in the NHL.

Here is why it wouldn't make any sense for the Wild to become the North Stars, with the same color, logos, and uniform scheme:

Dallas isn't giving up their history. And it is undoubtedly the history of the franchise. As is their right, as they are same entity. It wouldn't make any sense for Minnesota to look like a team that used to play there when that team still actively exists and is in the same conference and division as them.

[Patchez]

The Minnesota Big Gulps

[SCL]

The Minnesota Big Gulps

Makes no sense, there are zero 7 -Elevens in Minnesota.

[wildwing64]

If they brought back the North Stars name, colors, and uniforms similar to the late 60s, and 70s to the Minnesota Wild, they would look nothing like Dallas' new look

So a team with a bright green uniform with traditional stripes and a star themed logo would look nothing like another team with a bright green uniform with traditional stripes and a star themed logo. OK.

I still view it that if they can have the Red Sox and Reds in MLB, and the Red Sox and White Sox who both play in the AL, there should be no issue with having Stars and North Stars in the NHL.

Those teams were founded more than a century ago when there were different sensibilities in place. In this day and age, having the Stars and the North Stars with not only similar names but with similar uniforms, logos and colours would create brand confusion.

It's bad enough that we already have the Blues and Blue Jackets in the NHL. We don't need more similarly named teams in the same league.

[LAWeaver]

Not sure if this has been posted, but I found this while looking for some personal concept ideas. It includes mockups of some of the rejected names.

http://wild.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=552722

Minnesota Blue Ox:

Minnesota Voyageurs:

Minnesota Freeze:

Minnesota.... White Bears?

And the "Oh good gravy, it's so 90's Minnesota Northern Lights, paying homage to the North Stars days:

[OnWis97]

As bad as "Wild" is, the name I thought they were going to go with (Freeze) is not much better. The other four names are all significantly better. None are great, but none are "Wild" bad.

The best is probably Voyageurs. It's not particularly meaningful, but it ends in "s", is unique, and it's probably the hardest one to declare "bad." The other three all have two words but we have Red Wings, Maple Leafs, and Blue Jackets so what the hell. I suppose my number 2 is Blue Ox because, while a little odd, has regional significance and really is not to goofy (depending on the logo). I guess with the Blues and the Blue Jackets, that may look a bit odd. #3 is Northern Lights, which probably would a been seen as too obvious of a nod to the North Stars. #4 is White Bears. We have a lake (and suburb) here called White Bear Lake. But having a color before an animal seems collegiate (Maine Black Bears, Golden Eagles, etc.). Tacking on the "white" just seems like a way to call themselves the bears but still be "unique." I think it was kinda a stretch.

We got used to "Wild" so we definitely could gotten used to any of the others. Wild is the worst name in the NHL. White Bears may have been too. But the others, while they would not be the best, would not be the worst.

EDIT: I just realized you got these off of the Website. It's funny that the team has these there given the elephant in the room (that they made a terrible name choice). I wish that "story" had a comment section.

[MNTwins]

The best is probably Voyageurs. It's not particularly meaningful

Sure it is. Refers to the French fur traders that frequented Minnesota in the early 1800's. Minnesota's lone national park is Voyaguers National Park.

[hawk36]

When the Wild name was selected was there any thought to tie the name in to the old name? ie.

- North

- North Sky

- North Skies

- Northern Skies

Just wondering if anyone went down that path.

[MNTwins]

"Northern Lights" was on the final list of possible names.

[LAWeaver]

As bad as "Wild" is, the name I thought they were going to go with (Freeze) is not much better. The other four names are all significantly better. None are great, but none are "Wild" bad.

The best is probably Voyageurs. It's not particularly meaningful, but it ends in "s", is unique, and it's probably the hardest one to declare "bad." The other three all have two words but we have Red Wings, Maple Leafs, and Blue Jackets so what the hell. I suppose my number 2 is Blue Ox because, while a little odd, has regional significance and really is not to goofy (depending on the logo). I guess with the Blues and the Blue Jackets, that may look a bit odd. #3 is Northern Lights, which probably would a been seen as too obvious of a nod to the North Stars. #4 is White Bears. We have a lake (and suburb) here called White Bear Lake. But having a color before an animal seems collegiate (Maine Black Bears, Golden Eagles, etc.). Tacking on the "white" just seems like a way to call themselves the bears but still be "unique." I think it was kinda a stretch.

We got used to "Wild" so we definitely could gotten used to any of the others. Wild is the worst name in the NHL. White Bears may have been too. But the others, while they would not be the best, would not be the worst.

EDIT: I just realized you got these off of the Website. It's funny that the team has these there given the elephant in the room (that they made a terrible name choice). I wish that "story" had a comment section.

#1 - I agree that Voyageurs was the best out of all of the options given. Heck, take the logos I posted above, put them in the Wild colors, and batta-bing, batta-boom there's your logo. The full body, nature-scene logo isn't that great, but both that and the Voyageur's head would look so much better in the Green-Red-Wheat colors.

#2 - Blue Ox would've been a great choice given its significance, as you stated, but since we have the Blues and Blue Jackets already, it would've been a little overkill in a league where Blue is found in literally half the league in some way, shape, or form.

#3 - If you follow the Northern Lights logo from where it begins to where it ends, it goes from "meh" to "nope nope nope nope". The uniform doesn't look good at all either.

#4 - I did not know that about White Bear Lake. I've never been west of the Mississippi, so that kinda explains it I guess. I know the Timberwolves were considering Polars as a name when they first entered the league, so that would've been a better name. However, the logo looks like a rejected Klondike Bar logo. Not a fan of it at all.

[OnWis97]

^^

Keep in mind though that for any of those names, the actual logos/uniforms would have been different from those concepts. So I tried not to look at the concepts too much when considering the names.

The best is probably Voyageurs. It's not particularly meaningful

Sure it is. Refers to the French fur traders that frequented Minnesota in the early 1800's. Minnesota's lone national park is Voyaguers National Park.

Egg on my face. Even better, then.

Yeah, this would have been a solid name.

[Morgan33]

I went to many Sabres games at the old Aud in Buffalo as a kid more times than I can count, and I saw the North Stars many times and their sweaters, and their overall uniform set looked nothing like the Dallas Stars new look. Forget the yellow or gold, that is a totally different shade of green that the North Stars wore while still based in Bloomington, MN. I would hardly call Dallas' new uniform set a 'resurrection'. I also wasn't aware that Dallas has the monopoly of wearing uniforms in the 'green' color scheme. It's that logo I always liked when they were the North Stars along with the nickname. If they brought back the North Stars name, colors, and uniforms similar to the late 60s, and 70s to the Minnesota Wild, they would look nothing like Dallas' new look, which by the way, I really do like that new shade of green on the newer set.

It's the first instance of Kelly Green being used as a primary colour since the 1991/92 season... I never said it was the exact shade but its close enough to warrant association with that identity. Obviously the Dallas franchise doesn't have a monopoly over green. If they did, the Wild wouldn't have been able to use their exact shade of Forest Green from their inception. My point was that if the Wild wanted to bring back the Northstars colours, they had their chance. Instead they ripped off the Star's scheme, eliminated black and added red... and wheat. Best they embrace those colours now.

[Nyk33]

This one looks like he has radioactive armpit sweat.

[Mingjai]

Understood but for a place that has a name tied to the most iconic state flag in the US, it just seems wrong to not have uniforms that match that iconic flag. But then again I'm always looking for the complete package design wise and get hung up on design flaws that are easily solved (Padres in blue drive me nuts).

I can understand wanting a 'Texas Flag' connection but those colours are just so tired and overused. When you have colours that are wholly unique to the league, with championship history behind them, they shouldn't be ditched for ones worn by 4 other teams... Success wasn't limited to the 1999 Stanley Cup team either; were talking multiple 100 point seasons, the greatest American player to play the game, Finals and Conference Finals appearances... The list goes on and on...

Besides the new Minnesota franchise had 12-plus years to claim those classic Northstars colours while the Stars were stuck in 'darken-everything-to-black purgatory.' Unfortunately for the Wild, the Stars beat them to the punch in 2013 and improved their identity significantly. At this point it's probably best the Wild just embrace Forest Green, Red, Gold and Wheat. Not only is it unique but really attractive in its own right.

As for the Stars, props to them for resurrecting a great identity. Even without athletic gold, it's still one of the best looks in the league.

It's like they consciously decided, "Those Blackhawks jerseys that fans wear around town on St. Patrick's Day look really nice--let's look like that." I guess Sharp and Oduya won't feel too out of place.

[wildwing64]

Either that or "Those North Stars jerseys we used to wear are popular and look pretty nice, let's look a bit like that!"