2016-17 NHL Uniform and Logo Changes

[Thaumatrope]

9 hours ago, Ark said:

"Progress" is a meaningless concept.

 

Despite your rhetoric, the Chicago Blackhawks will never change their logo or identity, and that's a good thing.

 

I'd just like to point out that at no point did I use the term "progress". Rather, my point is that things change and what is acceptable today can become unacceptable tomorrow.

 

As far as the Blackhawks are concerned I feel like they are the least problematic, and I personally don't see them as offensive. They also have a lot of history and some amazing brand equity. The NHL could very well disappear before the Blackhawks change. However, I do believe they will be facing more headwinds and social pressure going forward. We may not see any change in our lifetime or in our children's lifetime, but it would be foolish to believe that even an organization as storied as the Chicago Blackhawks is immune to the changing sensibilities of society.

[hockey week]

@Thaumatrope is right, and though I disagree with the Blackhawks changing and I don't think the logo is a problem, the inevitable march of history will probably make the decision for us. The example with the lawn jockeys and porters is right on. That kind of thing has mostly gone away, or at least lost its unique African-American depiction, without much of a fuss. I think Native American logos might do the same.

[NYYNYR]

21 hours ago, dont care said:

I don't see what you are getting at, the red wings leafs winter classic is a better representation.

I don't think you were getting my sarcasm. I'm saying the Preds/Pens and Silver Kings/white Nucks are reasons why the league should reconsider its policy against regular season color vs. color games. I'm in favor of color v. color, and these two games are classic examples of why.

 

Seeing the Preds in yellow vs. the Pens in black and the Kings in silver vs. the Canucks in blue/green would be waaaaaaaaay preferable.

[chcarlson23]

2 hours ago, hockey week said:

@Thaumatrope is right, and though I disagree with the Blackhawks changing and I don't think the logo is a problem, the inevitable march of history will probably make the decision for us. The example with the lawn jockeys and porters is right on. That kind of thing has mostly gone away, or at least lost its unique African-American depiction, without much of a fuss. I think Native American logos might do the same.

Except those aren't anything like sports logos, especially today... Now I'm not saying that Native American Logos, including the Blackhawks, aren't ever going to be under any pressure, but a lawn jockey doesn't have the same cultural significance that a sports logo does. An offensive lawn jockey could be banned or changed, and no one would really care. A sports logo being banned however, would cause a whole lot of problems, especially over an issue like this...

 

All I'm basically saying is that it's a bad comparison... 

[NYYNYR]

20 hours ago, VancouverFan69 said:

 

Too bad darks can't be worn on the road. The Penguins' black vs the Preds' yellow would be a beautiful match up.

Ya, this is what I'm saying ! 

[Coast2CoastAM2006]

On 10/21/2016 at 4:22 PM, B-mer said:

The Flyers wore their anniversary uniform last night against the ducks. I love it, except for the gold. Would be a solid base for a complete set for almost any team, which I can understand is what some don't like about it. 

The Flyers should wear this on a full time basis again: 

 

Everything else afterwards looks like a flyers concept add-on that I used to see on NHLDepot

 

 

[Thaumatrope]

1 hour ago, chcarlson23 said:

Except those aren't anything like sports logos, especially today... Now I'm not saying that Native American Logos, including the Blackhawks, aren't ever going to be under any pressure, but a lawn jockey doesn't have the same cultural significance that a sports logo does. An offensive lawn jockey could be banned or changed, and no one would really care. A sports logo being banned however, would cause a whole lot of problems, especially over an issue like this...

 

All I'm basically saying is that it's a bad comparison... 

 

I realize that lawn jockeys and restaurants aren't the same thing as sports logos, and there really isn't a good "apples to apples" comparison that I can make.  The underlying point is that what a society finds acceptable changes over time. Obviously a lawn ornament or a chain of restaurants has much less significance to a community than a sports team with 80 years of history. That's a big part of the reason why we are having this discussion in the first place. If it were trivial it likely would have disappeared years ago. Instead we are witnessing a very long and drawn out process with no shortage of anger on both sides.

 

We may be decades (or more) away from any change to the Chicago Blackhawks, but the changes are already happening whether we approve of them or not. We need only look at UND to see which way the wind is blowing. Whether we agree or disagree with why it happened, how it happened, or if it should have happened, we ultimately witnessed an organization abandon a Native American brand (with all the associated history and equity) in exchange for a new identity that didn't have the same cultural, historical, and political baggage. Obviously UND made those changes because they were forced to do so.

 

I don't see Chicago being in the same position (at least not in our lifetimes). But I could see the conditions changing to a point that the team decides that the inevitable fan backlash (and there will most certainly be a backlash) is worth walking away from their current logo and all of its implications. Keep in mind this is likely years away and may never come to pass. There are other organizations that are under significantly more pressure to change (Redskins, Indians) that have yet to do so.

 

However the tide appears to be against them and if I were betting on the outcome I would be putting all my money on change. Once again, the timing is up for debate, but I doubt future generations of team owners will have the same appetite for defending brands like the Washington Redskins as the current generation. 

 

 

[Sport]

On 10/20/2016 at 9:52 PM, Morgo said:

This is great news.  Boston's third came from the same class of alternate uniforms that brought us the ingenious white version of the Star's worst uniform, Atlanta's football horror-show, and Ottawa's laughable "SNES" clown suit.  Like most uniforms of that era, I hated it the second it was unveiled.

I'm a few days late here, but I must agree. It was from an era of unnecessary alternates, like because the league took the 07-08 season off from alternates everyone rushed out just to have one and many of them felt like rush jobs. Like Vancouver's, that alternate look, was way too close to the primary to get excited about. Plus, they wore them will black socks and because the striping was the same as the regular primaries that felt very un-Bruins. 

 

The jerseys from last year's stadium game are pretty cool and I approve, but I would've just had them use the brown and yellow jerseys from the Fenway Park winter classic as the full time alternates

 

 

These things were only worn for a couple of games, IIRC, which is far too few. 

 

 

[Ark]

49 minutes ago, Coast2CoastAM2006 said:

The Flyers should wear this on a full time basis again: 

 

Everything else afterwards looks like a flyers concept add-on that I used to see on NHLDepot

 

 

 

Absolutely agreed, this set is perfect.

[hockey week]

18 minutes ago, Ark said:

 

Absolutely agreed, this set is perfect.

 

I miss the stripe at the bottom, and the little stripe on the sleeves is unnecessary. I prefer something between the Flyers current/inaugural and this.

[Ark]

But there is a stripe at the bottom, it's just different from what we're used to.

 

That Flyers set is a completely unique design that looks good. It should be their uniform to this day.

[charger77]

Gretzky Blues "Trumpet" jersey.

 

 

Didn't know where else to post this. 

[BeerGuyJordan]

18 hours ago, habsfan1 said:

So any chance the Jets Heritage jerseys get consideration to become new primaries??

I wouldn't mind seeing it become an alternate, especially with some minor tweaking. I am violently against getting rid of Winnipegs current mains.

[charger77]

21 minutes ago, BeerGuyJordan said:

I wouldn't mind seeing it become an alternate, especially with some minor tweaking. I am violently against getting rid of Winnipegs current mains.

 

Would any of these logo swaps work, or just use that HC jerseys as a full time alt?

 

 

[colinturner95]

24 minutes ago, charger77 said:

 

Would any of these logo swaps work, or just use that HC jerseys as a full time alt?

 

 

I actually think 1 or 3 would work great. I think the logo on the second jersey should stay on the HC jerseys or in the 70's. 

[BrianLion]

I'd go with #3. #1 is nice as a one off, but it's WAY too close to the Rangers otherwise. 

[chcarlson23]

I the Jets HC jersey and logo should stay as is, and should be worn a few times a year as throwback jerseys... The updated logo with a better jet and in Navy is wonderful! But I wouldn't want it to replace their current set...

 

Also is this the first time that we've seen the name and number font? The numbers look like the Burger King jersey font, but that NOB... That's something else man...

1 hour ago, charger77 said:

Gretzky Blues "Trumpet" jersey.

 

 

Didn't know where else to post this. 

[njdevs7]

WOW What a find ^

[IceCap]

4 hours ago, Thaumatrope said:

I don't see Chicago being in the same position (at least not in our lifetimes). But I could see the conditions changing to a point that the team decides that the inevitable fan backlash (and there will most certainly be a backlash) is worth walking away from their current logo and all of its implications. Keep in mind this is likely years away and may never come to pass. There are other organizations that are under significantly more pressure to change (Redskins, Indians) that have yet to do so.

I disagree with the central premise that the Blackhawks will be under pressure to change one day. You're assuming there's a "one-size fits all" approach to this issue (ie that all Native-themed sports identities are inherently problematic/bothersome to Native populations). @hockey week is right. That's not the case. 

 

Some cases, like the Redskins' name and Indians' Chief Wahoo, are clearly racist relics from the past that should be removed. Yet such clear-cut cases are the exception these days. Not the norm.

 

Descendants of the Illini tribe objected to the University of Illinois' Chief Illiniwek mascot and logo, but seem fine with the name so long as the school and its teams don't use racist caricatures of their ancestors.

The Seminole tribes of Florida seem to have fully embraced Florida State's use of the Seminole name and their logo, which depicts a Seminole warrior.

The Fighting Sioux name at the University of North Dakota is an even muddier issue. UND had to stop using the name and logo because they failed to get permission from the two Sioux tribes living in North Dakota (in accordance with NCAA bylaws on the use of Native-themed names). And yet...neither tribe objected to the use of the Fighting Sioux name and logo. One tribe gave the ok, the other tribe declined to state their position one way or another.

Now don't get me wrong. UND absolutely should have changed the nickname. They failed to get permission from both tribes, and that amounted to having to lose the name. No question there. To say that the Sioux tribes in North Dakota rejected the name though? That's not accurate either. The truth falls somewhere in the muddy, grey middle ground.

 

With the three NCAA examples above? One school has the complete support of the tribes in question regarding name and logos. One has support for the name but not the logos, and one had to drop its name and logos because while the Native tribes in question didn't reject anything? They didn't give enough consent to satisfy the NCAA.

 

That's just the NCAA. We have professional examples like the Chicago Blackhawks. This whole issue is being fuelled by objections to their logo, and this is the first time I've actually heard any. No Native groups seem to be particularly concerned with the Kansas City Chiefs either. A team with a name that isn't a slur and logo that doesn't even depict a Native person. The positives that separate the Blackhawks from the likes of the Indians' Wahoo logo and the Redskins' name have been covered. 

 

So I disagree with the hypothesis that we're trending in a direction that will see all Native-themed names and logos vanish eventually. We're not trending in that direction at all. The NCAA, the body with the most teams using Native-themed names, seems to be a hodgepodge of various levels of acceptance, from complete acceptance to complete rejection, with everything in between.

 

What I'm saying is that this is really a case-by-case issue, where each team's logo and nickname need to be examined in an appropriate context, because there is no general trend in one direction (aside from moving away from obviously racist names and imagery). 

And in that regard? The Blackhawks are in a very strong position to keep their primary logo as-is.

[CreamSoda]

I think the Jets could do something like this: