Jump to content

2016-17 NHL Uniform and Logo Changes


TheGrimReaper

Recommended Posts

If I bought a hockey team, I'd make it look however I wanted as soon as the league would let me.

I think everyone on the concepts board would do the same, or else we wouldn't be making these concepts.

I'm a uniform guy but I still wouldn't buy any team and make any change just because I feel like it, it still has to make sense. The Chargers sticking with navy, the Padres always messing around avoiding brown and Mario Lemieux hating Pittsburgh gold are perfect examples of owners "personnal touch" gone bad...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Next season will be the NHL's 100th year of existence, but only its 99th season (Thanks Betman). The NHL could wear anniversary patches again. Done this a few times before.

75th.jpg - 75th anniversary

stanleycup100_patch.jpg -100th anniversary of the Stanley Cup

10694.jpg - and the year 2000 (for some reason)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Next season will be the NHL's 100th year of existence, but only its 99th season (Thanks Betman). The NHL could wear anniversary patches again. Done this a few times before.

75th.jpg - 75th anniversary

stanleycup100_patch.jpg -100th anniversary of the Stanley Cup

10694.jpg - and the year 2000 (for some reason)

Cause it's the turn of the Millennium

 

zyyMk1d.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Next season will be the NHL's 100th year of existence, but only its 99th season (Thanks Betman). The NHL could wear anniversary patches again. Done this a few times before.

75th.jpg - 75th anniversary

stanleycup100_patch.jpg -100th anniversary of the Stanley Cup

10694.jpg - and the year 2000 (for some reason)

Cause it's the turn of the Millennium

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fofcLXshq_8

Seinfeld addressed this
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given what we know, I have a feeling the numbers will be rather illegible from a distance.

Also, I think "stylized" seal will end up meaning "simplified".

SigggggII_zps101350a9.png

Nobody cares about your humungous-big signature. 

PotD: 29/1/12

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if a team owner who figured out how to make more money than me wants to design his team's logo so it resembles a military logo, I'm not going to get pissed off about it.

Wow, crackerjack invocation of Worthington's Law right here.

Also, if anyone wants to explain why it makes sense for a team in the suburbs of Broward County to start wearing a military-inspired uniform out of freakin' nowhere other than "new owner went to West Point," I'm all ears. This isn't San Diego as Navy town or even Winnipeg as RCAF town. It's not even really a town.

♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I bought a hockey team, I'd make it look however I wanted as soon as the league would let me.

I think everyone on the concepts board would do the same, or else we wouldn't be making these concepts.

you are selling a product, it is more important that your customers like your product then you do, otherwise you will soon be broke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the league with the Columbus Blue Jackets, and despite the early confusion about their name, they aren't representing a bug or a legendary Chief Blue Jacket. It's a military name through and through. The New York Rangers aren't much different, despite the changing meaning of Rangers over time. The Senators looks are really centurions, which are all military, just not modern military. The Winnipeg Jets isn't much distance from it either.

The Leafs and Blackhawks too. Both were named after WWI army regiments. Conn Smythe's grandson even claimed that the Leafs' first logo following the change from the St. Pats name was based on the Canadian Army cap badges from the First World War.

The Canucks have never had a logo that acknowledged it, but Johnny Canuck did spend time in the Canadian military in some of his WWII-era comic strips.

If I bought a hockey team, I'd make it look however I wanted as soon as the league would let me.

I think everyone on the concepts board would do the same, or else we wouldn't be making these concepts.

you are selling a product, it is more important that your customers like your product then you do, otherwise you will soon be broke

People actually liking the team you own isn't a prerequisite to staying in business in the NHL. See Coyotes, Arizona.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that's all he said, then it has to be really freaking close. I bet he can't say "That's it! That's exactly what it looks like!" and expect to be shown such things again.

With this revision, I think this is as close as we're going to get without some description of the font type and what the secondary logo looks like

The only thing I'm wondering if I got wrong is if the stripe is much thicker, like Blackhawks Winter Classic thick. With some reebok jerseys still having no hemline stripes, it's so hard to say what's too plain in the NHL anymore

Can you try it with the current logo?

It looks worse

All in all, I don't mind the military aesthetic, within reason (I think camo is outside of reason). Most everyone makes the comparison of sports to war. Even those who are against war would probably admit that sports are as close to war as one should get. Brothers in arms are probably the only thing that would tie individuals together closer than that of teammates. You fight for the guy next to you, you play for the guy next to you.

And the military has created many many logos that aren't half bad. At least its established numerous shapes that are acceptable, like the 101st Airborne shield. It's a good looking shield.

This is the league with the Columbus Blue Jackets, and despite the early confusion about their name, they aren't representing a bug or a legendary Chief Blue Jacket. It's a military name through and through. The New York Rangers aren't much different, despite the changing meaning of Rangers over time. The Senators looks are really centurions, which are all military, just not modern military. The Winnipeg Jets isn't much distance from it either.

I think it's a good looking shield and something good could be done with it. This team needs a new look, their original look isn't the untouchable perfection we say it is. Let the past be the past and let's all move on.

War is nothing like sports, no matter how badass you think that latest hockey or football game was.

That is why no one should mix those two things, whether it be camo uniforms or stealing military logos and putting them on a sport jersey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I bought a hockey team, I'd make it look however I wanted as soon as the league would let me.

I think everyone on the concepts board would do the same, or else we wouldn't be making these concepts.

you are selling a product, it is more important that your customers like your product then you do, otherwise you will soon be broke

So Steve Ballmer is going to be broke pretty soon?

Smart is believing half of what you hear. Genius is knowing which half.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the league with the Columbus Blue Jackets, and despite the early confusion about their name, they aren't representing a bug or a legendary Chief Blue Jacket. It's a military name through and through. The New York Rangers aren't much different, despite the changing meaning of Rangers over time. The Senators looks are really centurions, which are all military, just not modern military. The Winnipeg Jets isn't much distance from it either.

The Leafs and Blackhawks too. Both were named after WWI army regiments. Conn Smythe's grandson even claimed that the Leafs' first logo following the change from the St. Pats name was based on the Canadian Army cap badges from the First World War.

What about the minor league baseball team? I thought the name was borrowed, at least in part, from them.

Later claiming an army regiment seems good politics, but wasn't that originally part of it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if a team owner who figured out how to make more money than me wants to design his team's logo so it resembles a military logo, I'm not going to get pissed off about it.

Wow, crackerjack invocation of Worthington's Law right here.

Also, if anyone wants to explain why it makes sense for a team in the suburbs of Broward County to start wearing a military-inspired uniform out of freakin' nowhere other than "new owner went to West Point," I'm all ears. This isn't San Diego as Navy town or even Winnipeg as RCAF town. It's not even really a town.

Agh, didn't really mean to invoke Worthington's Law...but let's be real...I don't have "NHL Owner" listed on my Linkedin profile.

Smart is believing half of what you hear. Genius is knowing which half.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Next season will be the NHL's 100th year of existence, but only its 99th season (Thanks Betman). The NHL could wear anniversary patches again. Done this a few times before.

- 75th anniversary

-100th anniversary of the Stanley Cup

- and the year 2000 (for some reason)

2016 is the 99th anniversary (league founded in November 1917), and 2016-2017 will be the 99th season with games played.

Smart is believing half of what you hear. Genius is knowing which half.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the league with the Columbus Blue Jackets, and despite the early confusion about their name, they aren't representing a bug or a legendary Chief Blue Jacket. It's a military name through and through. The New York Rangers aren't much different, despite the changing meaning of Rangers over time. The Senators looks are really centurions, which are all military, just not modern military. The Winnipeg Jets isn't much distance from it either.

The Leafs and Blackhawks too. Both were named after WWI army regiments. Conn Smythe's grandson even claimed that the Leafs' first logo following the change from the St. Pats name was based on the Canadian Army cap badges from the First World War.

What about the minor league baseball team? I thought the name was borrowed, at least in part, from them.

Later claiming an army regiment seems good politics, but wasn't that originally part of it?

Smythe served in the Canadian Army during the First World War (and again during the Second, actually). Which is what leads me to believe that there's some truth to the story that he based the new name on the Maple Leaf Regiment.

The IBL Toronto Maple Leafs winning the league title, and becoming very popular at the time, does seem to indicate that there's also something to the story that he decided to piggy-back off their popularity. Especially considering that the team's "become popular by appealing to the Irish via the St. Pats name" strategy had puttered out.

The short version is that no one's sure. Given the success of the IBL team at the time and Smythe's army service and well-known sense of patriotism? I'm inclined to believe that both played a role. It may have been a case where both factors came together in a way that made a switch to the name "Maple Leafs" a no-brainer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I bought a hockey team, I'd make it look however I wanted as soon as the league would let me.

I think everyone on the concepts board would do the same, or else we wouldn't be making these concepts.

I'm not sure I would do that. Change the uniforms, maybe, but the logo? Depends on how good the logo was in the first place. I think there absolutely is a part of every owner's ego that they want to put their own stamp on the franchise. Make it "Their Era." However, I think some consistency is good. You've seen the Buffalo Sabres and New York Islanders go in a completely different direction, only to have to come back. It just depends on how drastic of a change this rebrand truly is. IMO, the Marlins and Dolphins failed miserably (the Marlins are an entirely different situation when it comes to ego. Jeffrey Loria would have named the team the Miami Lorias, if he could...and all hot dogs would be called Jeffrey's Weiner so that all of Miami could...well).

To me, a brand is something you want to stand the test of time. The goal of branding should be to become Coca-Cola, McDonald's, the Yankees, the Dallas Cowboys, Budweiser, etc. I'm sure there are people out there, where if they could become the CEO of Nike, they would change the name to "Hoopty Dooptys," the logo to a fork wearing running shoes, and JUST DO IT would become HASTA LA VISTA BABY because that's what that CEO wants to do. However, Nike has such a strong brand (and shareholders, which is another issue in of itself) that he'd never get away with it. Buy something with a weaker brand, and you can treat it as an expansion team, while just keeping enough of the history to keep a few older fans happy. That's basically what is going on to some degree. I don't necessarily agree because I'm a fan of history, and I don't think you always have to start over.

If I owned a team, I would view it as the city's team, and I'm just lucky enough to be the one to steward it for the next 10+ years. I would not want to create the team in my image. Not every owner feels that way, but they would never admit that.

Now...who wants to buy some Hoopty Dooptys?

"Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes up. It knows it must run faster than the fastest lion or it will be eaten. Every morning in Africa, a lion wakes up. It knows it must outrun the slowest gazelle or it will starve. It doesn't matter whether you're a lion or a gazelle. When the sun comes up, you'd better be running." - Unknown | 🌐 Check out my articles on jerseys at Bacon Sports 🔗
spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if a team owner who figured out how to make more money than me wants to design his team's logo so it resembles a military logo, I'm not going to get pissed off about it.

Wow, crackerjack invocation of Worthington's Law right here.

Also, if anyone wants to explain why it makes sense for a team in the suburbs of Broward County to start wearing a military-inspired uniform out of freakin' nowhere other than "new owner went to West Point," I'm all ears. This isn't San Diego as Navy town or even Winnipeg as RCAF town. It's not even really a town.

Agh, didn't really mean to invoke Worthington's Law...but let's be real...I don't have "NHL Owner" listed on my Linkedin profile.

Doesn't mean that you don't have better ideas than those who do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The guy owns the franchise since what? Two years? And he feels like adding a personnal element (which will be the main uniform feature by the way) that doesn't go along the team name or history at all?

"You see this here chocolate bar you bought, well you can't eat it because you only bought it a minute ago"

Obviously buying a chocolate bar and eating it is exactly like changing the branding of a 23 years old multi-millions sport team.

makes-sense-to-me.jpg

If I own something I can do whatever I feel like with it. Going back to the chocolate bar analogy, if I bought myself a chocolate bar for myself I couldn't care less how you think it should be eaten.

usbnr3E.png     QrRvhzH.png     u0rDbga.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I bought a hockey team, I'd make it look however I wanted as soon as the league would let me.

I think everyone on the concepts board would do the same, or else we wouldn't be making these concepts.

you are selling a product, it is more important that your customers like your product then you do, otherwise you will soon be broke

Except the product isn't the jerseys, it's the team. Colorado, Ottawa and Pittsburgh seem to be doing just fine with their looks.

usbnr3E.png     QrRvhzH.png     u0rDbga.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I bought a hockey team, I'd make it look however I wanted as soon as the league would let me.

I think everyone on the concepts board would do the same, or else we wouldn't be making these concepts.

I'm not sure I would do that. Change the uniforms, maybe, but the logo? Depends on how good the logo was in the first place. I think there absolutely is a part of every owner's ego that they want to put their own stamp on the franchise. Make it "Their Era." However, I think some consistency is good. You've seen the Buffalo Sabres and New York Islanders go in a completely different direction, only to have to come back. It just depends on how drastic of a change this rebrand truly is. IMO, the Marlins and Dolphins failed miserably (the Marlins are an entirely different situation when it comes to ego. Jeffrey Loria would have named the team the Miami Lorias, if he could...and all hot dogs would be called Jeffrey's Weiner so that all of Miami could...well).

To me, a brand is something you want to stand the test of time. The goal of branding should be to become Coca-Cola, McDonald's, the Yankees, the Dallas Cowboys, Budweiser, etc. I'm sure there are people out there, where if they could become the CEO of Nike, they would change the name to "Hoopty Dooptys," the logo to a fork wearing running shoes, and JUST DO IT would become HASTA LA VISTA BABY because that's what that CEO wants to do. However, Nike has such a strong brand (and shareholders, which is another issue in of itself) that he'd never get away with it. Buy something with a weaker brand, and you can treat it as an expansion team, while just keeping enough of the history to keep a few older fans happy. That's basically what is going on to some degree. I don't necessarily agree because I'm a fan of history, and I don't think you always have to start over.

If I owned a team, I would view it as the city's team, and I'm just lucky enough to be the one to steward it for the next 10+ years. I would not want to create the team in my image. Not every owner feels that way, but they would never admit that.

Now...who wants to buy some Hoopty Dooptys?

But even a team as untouchable as the Montreal Canadiens, how many people wouldn't use the 1946 jersey as an away jersey or at least an alternate? it's the go-to for essentially every Habs concept on this board.

If you somehow bought the Montreal Canadiens, I think most people on this board would change the jerseys...and that's saying something.

I'll respect any opinion that you can defend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I own something I can do whatever I feel like with it. Going back to the chocolate bar analogy, if I bought myself a chocolate bar for myself I couldn't care less how you think it should be eaten.

That's a pretty silly analogy, since a chocolate bar is designed to be a single-use, short-term consumable good and a sports team is an ongoing, patron-supported business.

Many owners may think that they know better what their customers will buy. The number who don't actually care what their customers want is very small indeed. I think you're mistaking the former for the latter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.