2016-17 NHL Uniform and Logo Changes

[WSU151]

edit: Thrasher Magazine did sue Ted Turner. I stand corrected.  I'm guessing the settlement wasn't a huge amount.

[Chewbacca]

6 hours ago, insert name said:

Rangers 90th Anniversary patch confirmed. This was from their Facebook page.

With the Rangers using this older Rangers crest on their 90th Anniversary logo, I wonder if maybe, just maybe, New York may surprise us with a special throwback. 

[IceCap]

9 hours ago, BeerGuyJordan said:

Knights is so generic, especially in a nation that does not have knighthood.

The US isn't a monarchy, but that hasn't stopped two American teams in the "big four" from adopting the name "Kings." Hell, it didn't stop Salt Lake City's MLS team from using a name that usually means "we're sponsored by the King of Spain."

 

Anyway I like Knights. It's a very solid name that's criminally underrepresented in North American professional sports. Las Vegas NHL hockey is a disaster waiting to happen, but the name will be a good one.

 

9 hours ago, BeerGuyJordan said:

The NHL having a "no gambling heritage" approach kills most of the city's history.

Gambling's kept professional sports leagues in North America out of Vegas until now. No way the first team there embraces that identity. Making a pro team work in Vegas along with the gambling industry will be a legal and PR tightrope walk. I'm not one to spare the NHL when they do something stupid, but insisting their LV team not touch gambling imagery isn't stupid. It's playing it safe and smart.

 

9 hours ago, BeerGuyJordan said:

Foley has already stated he plans to try to get the team's games off the books, like UNLV. If the league has the balls to be the first to go into Vegas, they should have the balls to back something that honors the military aviation presence , while still giving a small nod to the gaming heritage.

Well there's already a NHL team in a western market that plays in an air force town while being named in honour of that fact. "Jets vs Aces" could be cool, but it's no better than "Kings vs Knights." And Knights has the advantage of not referencing gambling.

This whole venture will be dependent on casinos. They're going to be comping tickets, ensuring the team's success at the gate. At least initially. These casinos also have sports books. Getting the LV team off the books will help with the appearance of a conflict of interest, but either way? Having a team name and logo that calls back to gambling won't help matters.

[NeverSayNever]

Thrashers lawsuit.

[Morgan33]

18 hours ago, Chewbacca said:

With the Rangers using this older Rangers crest on their 90th Anniversary logo, I wonder if maybe, just maybe, New York may surprise us with a special throwback. 

 

That jersey looks so good with a shoulder patch.  It feels much more balanced.  They should put their primary logo on both shoulders, full time.  Either that a royal blue "Lady Liberty" patch with silver removed.  No shoulder patches necessary on the road version.

[Chewbacca]

11 hours ago, Morgo said:

 

That jersey looks so good with a shoulder patch.  It feels much more balanced.  They should put their primary logo on both shoulders, full time.  Either that a royal blue "Lady Liberty" patch with silver removed.  No shoulder patches necessary on the road version.

One thing I like about the Rangers is that they keep things simple. After all these years, a shoulder patch for them just would not be right.

[sparkychewbarky]

On July 15, 2016 at 9:59 PM, Ice_Cap said:

Anyway I like Knights. It's a very solid name that's criminally underrepresented in North American professional sports. Las Vegas NHL hockey is a disaster waiting to happen, but the name will be a good one.

 

Gambling's kept professional sports leagues in North America out of Vegas until now. No way the first team there embraces that identity. Making a pro team work in Vegas along with the gambling industry will be a legal and PR tightrope walk. I'm not one to spare the NHL when they do something stupid, but insisting their LV team not touch gambling imagery isn't stupid. It's playing it safe and smart.

 

Well there's already a NHL team in a western market that plays in an air force town while being named in honour of that fact. "Jets vs Aces" could be cool, but it's no better than "Kings vs Knights." And Knights has the advantage of not referencing gambling.

This whole venture will be dependent on casinos. They're going to be comping tickets, ensuring the team's success at the gate. At least initially. These casinos also have sports books. Getting the LV team off the books will help with the appearance of a conflict of interest, but either way? Having a team name and logo that calls back to gambling won't help matters.

 

I don't see how you can be so certain about the "disaster" part.

L.V.'s a pretty unique market....40 million visitors a year...the only pro sports team in a city of 2.5 million...

a city that exists on marketing, promotion, entertainment.

There's a lot of X factors at play here.

I'm keen on seeing what Vegas can do with this.

In relative terms, I think that Vegas can bring more to the league than some of the existing franchises.

 

The tickets "sold" so far (13000+) had nothing to do with the casinos. Foley wanted it that way.

If the casinos comp out available tickets as some sort of value-added incentive for their customers... so what?

Have you been to a Leafs game lately? A lot of bums in those seats are there on a business schmooze.

 

There's a difference between a name and a theme.

My version of "Aces", for example, has the aviation theme...nothing at all to do with gambling.

You're going to get the gaming association in the media no matter what you name the team. "Las Vegas Gets Flushed"..."Vegas Doubles Down"...etc.

 

"Knights" would work...I guess...if it had to...(Red Green).

"Knights" as a name just doesn't say Vegas to me...kinda like how "Predators" doesn't scream out "Music Capital of the World".

You'll still get the gaming references, as well as all the lame Monty Python & the Holy Grail schticks.

 

Aces>Knights>Black Knights... and pretty much every poll that I've seen so far backs my opinion.

 

 

 

 

[Gothamite]

On 7/17/2016 at 8:51 AM, sparky chewbarky said:

"Knights" would work...I guess...if it had to...(Red Green).

"Knights" as a name just doesn't say Vegas to me...kinda like how "Predators" doesn't scream out "Music Capital of the World".

You'll still get the gaming references, as well as all the lame Monty Python & the Holy Grail schticks.

 

 

Yeah, I think "Knights" is a solid name in general, but I don't have much hope that they'll be able to do anything good with it.

[BeerGuyJordan]

On 7/17/2016 at 7:51 AM, sparky chewbarky said:

"Knights" would work...I guess...if it had to...(Red Green).

"Knights" as a name just doesn't say Vegas to me...kinda like how "Predators" doesn't scream out "Music Capital of the World".

 

The name itself doesn't, but there's at least a story behind it that ties into Nashville's history.

 

Back in the 70's, I believe, while building a major skyrise, the developer discovered a cave that contained what was, up to that point, the most in-tact Smilodon (sabre-toothed tiger) fossil ever found. The event made national headlines and the site was even preserved in a vault in the basement. 

 

For a city with an unremarkable hockey history and not much of a winter, the ice-age creature was a relatively unique choice for a logo. The team unveiled the logo, and held a contest to name the team. The three finalists were Ice Cats, Attack and Fury. Craig Leipold, not really crazy about any of them, added a fourth choice: Predators, before the final round of voting. Predators was reported to win by a large margin.

 

I'm ok with identities that might not seem like an initial fit, so long as there's history and/or fan selection involved. Knights currently has neither on its side. 

[IceCap]

On July 17, 2016 at 8:51 AM, sparky chewbarky said:

 

I don't see how you can be so certain about the "disaster" part.

L.V.'s a pretty unique market....40 million visitors a year...the only pro sports team in a city of 2.5 million...

a city that exists on marketing, promotion, entertainment.

There's a lot of X factors at play here.

I'm keen on seeing what Vegas can do with this.

In relative terms, I think that Vegas can bring more to the league than some of the existing franchises.

 

The tickets "sold" so far (13000+) had nothing to do with the casinos. Foley wanted it that way.

If the casinos comp out available tickets as some sort of value-added incentive for their customers... so what?

Have you been to a Leafs game lately? A lot of bums in those seats are there on a business schmooze.

A discussion that has nothing to do with the Maple Leafs and you find a way to take a shot at MLSE. Never let me down. 

 

Anyway you're missing the point. EVERY team needs strong local corporate support. It's part of the economics of professional team ownership. 

Here's the thing though. The Maple Leafs' business partners, and the business partners of almost every team team in the league, have no ties to gambling. 

Vegas won't have that luxury because so much of the local economy revolves around gaming. So you need to ensure that there's zero concern that the gaming industry is affecting the integrity of the on-ice game for the LV team, and the entire league by proxy. 

Getting the team off the books is key to that. A name that has zero ties to gambling would also be preferable because it removes a potential PR headache down the line. 

You may not like it, but at this point? It's clear there will not be any gambling-related name. Aces, Wildcards...they're all non-starters.

 

As for me being sure of Vegas being a bust? Well you have a town with a huge shift worker population that's going to be unable to invest in season ticket packages, a huge out of town crowd that's there to see things that have nothing to do with pro sports, and a track record for financial failure when it comes to NHL hockey in the desert.

 

There's a difference between a name and a theme.

My version of "Aces", for example, has the aviation theme...nothing at all to do with gambling.

You're going to get the gaming association in the media no matter what you name the team. "Las Vegas Gets Flushed"..."Vegas Doubles Down"...etc.

Yep, you will. You have that with most markets. Hack writers will resort to cheap local cliches for headlines. 

Best to not let the untalented decide on the branding for your $500 million+ franchise though.

 

"Knights" would work...I guess...if it had to...(Red Green).

"Knights" as a name just doesn't say Vegas to me...kinda like how "Predators" doesn't scream out "Music Capital of the World".

You'll still get the gaming references, as well as all the lame Monty Python & the Holy Grail schticks.

Who cares if "Knights" doesn't "say Vegas"?

What does the city of Cleveland have to do with loyalists to King Charles I? Nothing. The name "Cleveland Cavaliers" works though.

Neigher "Penguins" or "Pirates" have much to do with Pittsburgh.

Let's check in with the NFL, the most brand-conscious league in North America. "Bengals," "Lions," "Eagles," "Jaguars." Quite a few names without a strong tie to their local markets. 

 

A name shouldn't have to tie in with the local market. If a good local option is available? Sure, but a good name with little connection is always superior to a mediocre name with that connection.

 

Aces, to me, has two strikes against it. The first is that it's got a gambling connection. Which is a non-starter as far as the NHL goes. 

In addition to that? "Las Vegas Aces" just sounds clunky. "Las Vegas Knights" just flows off the tongue.  

 

Aces>Knights>Black Knights... and pretty much every poll that I've seen so far backs my opinion.

Well that's irrelevant because a gaming-themed nickname just won't happen. Period. 

 

[JayMac]

You know, after just saying Las Vegas Aces to myself, it does sound clunky. Too many 'S' sounds. Knights is generic but I think it does sound good. My only complaint is when the drab black and gold color scheme is announced...

[IceCap]

11 minutes ago, jmac11281 said:

You know, after just saying Las Vegas Aces to myself, it does sound clunky. Too many 'S' sounds. Knights is generic but I think it does sound good. My only complaint is when the drab black and gold color scheme is announced...

I really don't mind an old gold and black colour scheme. The Ducks have started to emphasize orange over old gold, and the Pens have gone back to athletic gold. 

[BeerGuyJordan]

1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

As for me being sure of Vegas being a bust? Well you have a town with a huge shift worker population that's going to be unable to invest in season ticket packages, a huge out of town crowd that's there to see things that have nothing to do with pro sports, and a track record for financial failure when it comes to NHL hockey in the desert.

 

One factor people aren't accounting for: the team has almost 16,000 season ticket deposits. Sure not every one will translate to a butt in a seat, but the revenue is already there. Three year commitments for those, and at least 13.5 k of those are to private citizens. Hotels (especially MGM, who essentially owns the arena) will undoubtedly start doing packages/comps. The shift worker not attending games argument is a straw man offering. Do you know what the average first season attendance is for a new NHL team, from the Sharks to the Jets? 14,519 per game. Almist all of those in larger metro areas considered substantially more "hockey friendly." They're already ahead of the curve. 

 

Sure, it's still an uphill battle, but the NHL and Foley both took steps to try and make sure this wasn't just going to be Phoenix all over again. I say we give them a chance. If Vegas succeeds, it's a huge win for the sport and the league.

 

9 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

I really don't mind an old gold and black colour scheme. The Ducks have started to emphasize orange over old gold, and the Pens have gone back to athletic gold. 

 

The original expansion in 67 was aesthetically exciting because it added color to a league built mostly on reds, white, black, and blues. Many of those teams have muted/darkened their color schemes to feel more "edgy". I feel that the league could use more color. Vegas is a great opportunity for a flashy, exciting color scheme. Black, silver and some neon could look great.

[IceCap]

Maybe it could look great. Or it could look dated in three years once the "new car smell" is gone. Flashy= gimmicky. And gimmicky doesn't build a viable long-term brand. 

 

The '67 expansion teams provided colour, but the league prior to that was only six teams strong, with two of them sharing a  colour scheme, and five out of the six having either royal blue or red primaries. 

My point is that the deigns of the '67 expansion class were all very traditional. The Flyers had the most modern look of the bunch, but even then. It was simple. 

The infusion of colour didn't come with gimmicky design. 

 

1 hour ago, BeerGuyJordan said:

 

One factor people aren't accounting for: the team has almost 16,000 season ticket deposits. Sure not every one will translate to a butt in a seat, but the revenue is already there. Three year commitments for those, and at least 13.5 k of those are to private citizens. Hotels (especially MGM, who essentially owns the arena) will undoubtedly start doing packages/comps. The shift worker not attending games argument is a straw man offering. Do you know what the average first season attendance is for a new NHL team, from the Sharks to the Jets? 14,519 per game. Almist all of those in larger metro areas considered substantially more "hockey friendly." They're already ahead of the curve. 

The Coyotes drew great at the start too. 

Two decades in? It's a financial black hole.

As for the Jets...yeah, but that arena holds 15,000 fans. It's going to be interesting to how, over the course of a season, Vegas compares to Winnipeg when it comes to actual butts in seats.

Considering Winnipeg has one of, if not the, smallest arenas in the league and doesn't require financial assistance from the league? Yeah.

 

Will shift workers attend games? Yeah. Probably. Will they be able to afford season ticket prices? No. Especially not considering how Vegas took the recession tougher than most locales. 

Also it's not a strawman argument just because you say it is

 

Quote

Sure, it's still an uphill battle, but the NHL and Foley both took steps to try and make sure this wasn't just going to be Phoenix all over again. I say we give them a chance. If Vegas succeeds, it's a huge win for the sport and the league.

Phoenix would have been a tremendous boon to the league if that had worked out. 

 

Of course you want to give it a chance. You're a sunbelt cheerleader whose bought into this group identity that says "sunbelt teams good, traditional markets bad, boo any city where it snows."

 

As a fan tired of seeing my country getting jerked around, even from our own players? I'm inclined to be much more critical.

Overly critical maybe, but at least I have history and economics on my side.

 

EDIT-

And it's not that I think giving new markets a chance is a bad thing. Dallas, Tampa, and Nashville were chances that panned out, and the league is stronger because of it. Even if two of those three have thin-skinned ownership groups that faint at the sight of an opposing team's sweater in the crowd and the other has a JumboTron run by idiots who think mean-spirited memes directed at northern cities constitutes comedy. 

 

The thing is that Arizona is a financial albatross around whoever is dumb enough to buy into the franchise. It's been an ongoing embarrassment for the league for years. 

Vegas, as a market, is Phoenix with more downside. Expanding is always risky for a league like the NHL. It's not the NFL, where any team anywhere can just print money. Expanding the league carries certain  risks over the long-term. 

I don't want to see this league suffer financially because they've landed themselves with two desert based hockey teams that just suck up money. It's an unnecessary gamble, if you'll pardon the pun. Not when Quebec City is right there with an arena.

 

It snows in Quebec City though, so I can see why you wouldn't approve.

[BeerGuyJordan]

12 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

Of course you want to give it a chance. You're a sunbelt cheerleader whose bought into this group identity that says "sunbelt teams good, traditional markets bad, boo any city where it snows."

 

As a fan tired of seeing my country getting jerked around, even from our own players? I'm inclined to be much more critical.

Overly critical maybe, but at least I have history on my side.

 

Now you're sounding bitter and making generalizations about me just because I'm a Predators fan.

 

I want to see the game grow. New markets do that better than old markets. That doesn't mean I'm anti-traditional markets. When they first announced expansion, I was pulling for Seattle/Houston if they did give Vegas one, I wanted to see Milwaukee. I want to see expansion into new markets, but not at the expense of traditional ones. I want balance, and I don't feel the AHL has been properly used as a tool to reach that goal. 

 

I'm a huge advocate of Quebec getting a team. I just don't think expansion was a realistic vehicle for it. I think a relocated Hurricanes are.

 

In my opinion the best looking 32 team league would be expansion into Milwaukee and Seattle, move the Devils to SW Toronto/NW Hamilton (although I do see the Islanders as potentially being in big trouble in a few years, if they don't connect with the new Brooklyn fanbase), Hurricanes to Quebec, Panthers to Houston and the Coyotes to Vegas. Push Nashville to the Eastern Conference, and carry on, wayward son. That just isn't realistic, especially for a league that seems more intent on appearing stable than actually being stable.

 

Of all the teams, Carolina is actually hurting the worst, they need to go. 67% average attendance this past season? Plus the legal battle the ownership is in. Last time the league had this recipie, the end product was a return to Winnipeg. I see Quebec's return in 2017 or 2018, unless something big happens.

[IceCap]

2 minutes ago, BeerGuyJordan said:

Now you're sounding bitter and making generalizations about me just because I'm a Predators fan.

If I'm bitter it's because I have good reason to be considering how southern fans tend to treat their northern counterparts. That and the after-mentioned jerking around.

 

As for generalising? That implies I'm not basing my assumptions on past behaviour. 

You claim that you're a big advocate for QC getting a team, but I cannot recall a single time you've posted to that affect off the top of my head. 

I can recall plenty of times you've posted in support of Vegas, "growing the game," and so forth. 

 

I want to see the game grow. New markets do that better than old markets. That doesn't mean I'm anti-traditional markets. When they first announced expansion, I was pulling for Seattle/Houston if they did give Vegas one, I wanted to see Milwaukee. I want to see expansion into new markets, but not at the expense of traditional ones.

Saying "I want to see the game grow" is such a tired excuse. And it's twenty years past when it actually could have meant something. 

As to the bold? Yes it does, if you choose the new market over the traditional one every time. 

 

I'm a huge advocate of Quebec getting a team. I just don't think expansion was a realistic vehicle for it. I think a relocated Hurricanes are.

Well this entire expansion was unrealistic. The league can't even field thirty financially viable teams. 

 

As to the point in hand...Quebec City can get the dumpster fire team, but the expansion franchise the league is bending over backwards for? Give that to Vegas! 

Those Canadians will take any old team

right? Vegas needs something special

 

Of all the teams, Carolina is actually hurting the worst, they need to go. 67% average attendance this past season? Plus the legal battle the ownership is in. Last time the league had this recipie, the end product was a return to Winnipeg. I see Quebec's return in 2017 or 2018, unless something big happens.

That's super. And it's also not garunteed.

 

The league bends over backwards for Arizona. Bends over backwards for Las Vegas. 

 

The only way Canada can get more teams though? They need to corner the league into it. That you can't see that, that you cannot understand how frustrating that is, proves my point.

 

Ultimately?  I don't want to grow the game. I want as many stable, healthy markets as possible. QC offers more upside in that regard. 

[ldconcepts]

This probably doesn't mean anything, but these kids in a Canadiens video were either given a Winter Classic jersey or a home jersey. Not a road white in sight...

Hmmmm... 

[M4One]

The Winter Classic logo patch is on the jersey.  I highly doubt the Canadiens will be making any major changes to their uniforms.  Maybe, they plan on bringing it in as an alternate at some point or just had some extra stock lying around and decided to use them for this hockey camp.

[ldconcepts]

5 minutes ago, M4One said:

The Winter Classic logo patch is on the jersey.  I highly doubt the Canadiens will be making any major changes to their uniforms.  Maybe, they plan on bringing it in as an alternate at some point or just had some extra stock lying around and decided to use them for this hockey camp.

Exactly what I was thinking. Still, worth posting (and will probably spark a discussion over which of the two Montreal whites is better)...

[Cosmic]

5 hours ago, BeerGuyJordan said:

Do you know what the average first season attendance is for a new NHL team, from the Sharks to the Jets? 14,519 per game. Almist all of those in larger metro areas considered substantially more "hockey friendly.

The Sharks and the Lightning both started out in arenas that only held 11,000.