2016-17 NHL Uniform and Logo Changes

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

I think the HC uni is too nice to not wear once in a while. Not a full time alt, but maybe a few times a year?

[Gobbi]

53 minutes ago, chcarlson23 said:

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...

The ebay listing states that it's a custom jersey. I don't think we can give too much validity to the font choices.

[Ark]

46 minutes ago, CreamSoda said:

I think the Jets could do something like this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

I really like the bottom stripes but leave the long shoulder/arm stripe!!

 

That is an uncommon design in the modern NHL. The shoulder yolk above is very common.

[Thaumatrope]

A very well reasoned response @Ice_Cap. Thank you.

 

I agree that trying to take a one size fits all approach is foolish, and as you pointed out there have been other organizations that have managed to gain the approval of native groups.

 

I also agree that the Blackhawks are nowhere near as offensive as the Redskins and Indians. I can easily conceive of a future in which the Blackhawks continue to use some version of the logo they've used their entire existence.

 

But, I can also see a future where they do change. I don't think it's fair or accurate to say that it's inevitable, but it's certainly a strong possibility in the long run. To be clear I'm talking about a change in logo, not a change in name.

 

Its also worth pointing out that some of the examples you gave (specifically those involving the Sioux and Seminoles) may actually reveal some of the weakness associated the Blackhawks logo. Unlike Florida State and UND, Chicago doesn't have a tribal entity to point to for an endorsement. While in the short term this means there isn't a tribal body that might call for the logos removal, it also means that there isn't a native group that can be called upon to defend or legitimize the logo in the long term.

 

Similarly, while the Redskins and Chief Wahoo may be a focus for anger and criticism in the short term, it is not unreasonable to think that the focus may shift to the Blackhawks if and when the other two organizations decide to change. 

 

Once again though, I don't think this is certain or that it will happen any time soon, but I'd give it much better odds than "never".

[worcat]

5 hours ago, charger77 said:

Gretzky Blues "Trumpet" jersey.

 

 

Didn't know where else to post this. 

"Not a Authentic jersey from the St. Louis blues" So why would anyone want to spend $300 on a custom fashion jersey that isn't genuine? 

[habsfan1]

5 hours ago, charger77 said:

Gretzky Blues "Trumpet" jersey.

 

 

Didn't know where else to post this. 

 

There's our first look at the wacky name and number font. OMG lol.

[worcat]

except it's not authentic so it could be font from anything and sewn on and said "It's official"

[habsfan1]

5 hours ago, charger77 said:

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

 

 

 

That would be consistent with the 80s arm stripe jerseys. But a version of that logo would need a different coloring.

[njdevs7]

Even if the font of that Blues jersey is not correct...is that the first time we have even seen pictures of the back of the jersey? Up until now, this was the only picture I ever remember seeing of that jersey.

 

[hockey week]

Now when they say "custom", are they saying that it was a custom prototype for them that they prepped to sell? Or a "custom" jersey that they had a bunch made and are selling it?

 

There was a bunch of 1995 Nordiques jerseys that were made and while not original, they looked great and I wish I would've grabbed one.

[mightyduck]

8 hours ago, charger77 said:

 

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

 

 

 

LOVE the 3rd one!

[worcat]

2 hours ago, njdevs7 said:

 

 

I hope no one wastes their money on this. Compare the amount of stripes on the arms to the original picture. It's clearly not an authentic version. 

[spartacat_12]

I count 5 stripes in both pictures, as in the number of lines in a music bar. 

[worcat]

disregard, i thought i saw something else.

 

 

[Morgan33]

Starter made a lot of fashion jerseys in the late 90's but none of them had a fight strap.  The numbers are likely custom but the rest of the uniform looks like a legitimate authentic.

[Lee Noire]

12 hours ago, Thaumatrope said:

 

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. 

 

 

I read all this and it made me think about American sports fascination with Native American imagery. The more I've thought about it the more strange I've found using a depiction of a race of people as a logo. As a black man I can imagine being taken aback by a team logo with a black guy with big lips and a furrowed brow.

 

That's obviously more on the Cleveland scale, but even a strong respectable image still comes off as weird. What's more I find it weird that people get upset when someone says maybe this shouldn't be a thing. Especially so when it's someone of the culture that is being depicted. 

 

 

 

 

[ColeJ]

Just playing devil's advocate here, but where do names like Vikings and Fighting Irish fall?

 

If Fighting Irish is acceptable (which I believe it is, as an Irish American) then Blackhawks and Sioux and Seminoles and the non Redskinsy options are acceptable as well.

 

If it's not, then does Vikings still have another level all together as it doesn't represent an entire ethnicity, but rather just a specific job or role of that ethnic history? Like Braves or Chiefs or Scouts?

 

Again, as a devils advocate here, the Minnesota Vikings use a logo that depicts inaccurate stereotypes of Scandinavian history.

 

What IS acceptable and at what point does it get "weird?" Technically even Canadiens and Canucks fall loosely into this category as well.

[IceCap]

I would say "Vikings" falls into the catagory of "Braves" and "Chiefs." I would say the Blackhawks and Vikings' logos are roughly on the same level. More or less respectful depictions of their subject matter.

Hell, I would add the Redskins' logo in with those as well. The logo doesn't seem to be the the problem there.

[hockey week]

3 hours ago, ColeJ said:

Just playing devil's advocate here, but where do names like Vikings and Fighting Irish fall?

 

If Fighting Irish is acceptable (which I believe it is, as an Irish American) then Blackhawks and Sioux and Seminoles and the non Redskinsy options are acceptable as well.

 

If it's not, then does Vikings still have another level all together as it doesn't represent an entire ethnicity, but rather just a specific job or role of that ethnic history? Like Braves or Chiefs or Scouts?

 

Again, as a devils advocate here, the Minnesota Vikings use a logo that depicts inaccurate stereotypes of Scandinavian history.

 

What IS acceptable and at what point does it get "weird?" Technically even Canadiens and Canucks fall loosely into this category as well.

 

If you use the Vikings logo and treat Scandanavians as a race, then there is not much difference between many Native American logos and the Vikings, considering how many myths are perpetuated there (horns on helmets never existed) and how many stereotypes perpetuated (blonde hair, fair skin, and beards), but there isn't much controversy there for any number of reasons. You could make adequate arguments that the Vikings logo is entirely inappropriate, and likely do the same with the name if you really wanted to.

 

Obviously positions of power, a lack of oppression (the opposite seems more accurate), and a lack of ongoing racial tension make this a non-issue. But, if you paint broad brush strokes, it absolutely should be included. 

 

This is why targeting very specific issues, problematic logos, stereotypical depictions, is important, rather than trying to get rid of all mentions of everything.

[Gothamite]

 

 

9 hours ago, ColeJ said:

If Fighting Irish is acceptable (which I believe it is, as an Irish American) then Blackhawks and Sioux and Seminoles and the non Redskinsy options are acceptable as well.

 

Well, recognized tribes have the right to their own intellectual property.  Nobody is saying that universities can't use "Sioux" and "Seminoles" and the like, provided that the schools can reach an agreement with the tribes themselves.  No licensing agreement?  Then you can't use it.  That's an easy one.

 

5 hours ago, hockey week said:

Obviously positions of power, a lack of oppression (the opposite seems more accurate)

 

 

This is really key.  Another is that it's one thing for people outside the ethnic group to borrow a name, totally another for people within that group to use it.  The University of Notre Dame was founded partly by Irish priests, so they have a certain claim that others would not.