2016-17 NHL Uniform and Logo Changes

[Morgan33]

Someone should provide real reasons why it's cartoony and over the top then.  Is it because the 'A' has three layers?  Is it the skewed circle?  The Puck?  Or is it because it depicts the teams namesake because I'm drawing a blank.  The logo is no more cartoon-like than the ones below as they are all the same basic concept.  An initial combined with subject matter representing the teams name.  The Blue Jackets logo everyone fawns over is almost the same concept.

 

[Gothamite]

The skewed circle is bad, but it's really the hideous forced perspective that makes it cartoony.  And what dates it. 

 

Since you mention it, the Blue Jackets logo is cartoony in the same way.   And I don't think it's a particularly great logo either.  The Calgary and Dallas logos at least have the virtue of being flat, without that terrible and forced 3D perspective. 

[Chromatic]

3 hours ago, Morgo said:

Someone should provide real reasons why it's cartoony and over the top then.  Is it because the 'A' has three layers?  Is it the skewed circle?  The Puck?  Or is it because it depicts the teams namesake because I'm drawing a blank.  The logo is no more cartoon-like than the ones below as they are all the same basic concept.  An initial combined with subject matter representing the teams name.  The Blue Jackets logo everyone fawns over is almost the same concept.

 

Skewed circle, puck, the way the snow wraps around the 'A', the logo looks off balance, a lot of the lines feel extremely superfluous (to me at least).

 

I don't think the logo is necessarily "Over the top" but it definitely looks dated. When I look at the Avs logo it just screams 90s to me. That doesn't necessarily mean "Bad", but I think those details are starting to really show the era it was designed in. You're comparing it to the flames but it lacks the timelessness of the Flames logo. Columbus (Which I'm not a fan of) and Dallas are still pretty recent to really make the dated argument.

[spartacat_12]

What do people think of my old high school's logo:

[IceCap]

5 hours ago, Morgo said:

Or is it because it depicts the teams namesake because I'm drawing a blank.

I'll make it clear. No one has anything against logos depicting team namesakes. You don't see anyone calling for the Maple Leafs to abandon their logo for the Arenas' block "T" do you?

Yes. The Avalanche's logo depicts the namesake. That's not why we dislike it. We dislike it because we think it's bad due to being very dated. The fact that it depicts the team's namesake has nothing to do with our dislike. Your attempt to frame that as the reason we dislike the logo amounts to a less-than-convincing strawman argument.

 

As far as the Rockies-esque alternate that's replacing it? I just want to say that I called its inevitable rise to primary status when it debuted. Not because I liked it (though I do), but just because I've been following NHL uniform news for over ten years now, and you just start to notice patterns.

Anyway, no, it doesn't depict the team's namesake. That being said...it gets close enough for me. The team is named the Colorado Avalanche. So you have the state flag, which gets the Colorado part down. And the mountain is more than enough to hint at the "Avalanche" name.

It's also flat, which is a huge improvement over the current logo's dated skewed perspective. And the use of a C over an A follows my preference of logos representing the locale name over the team nickname.

Further, it may call to mind the old Rockies' logo, but the shape and colours differentiate the two. Add in the fact that the Avs aren't actually trying to claim the Rockies' history (which rightfully remains with the Devils)? And it's checks across the board for me.

 

You obviously disagree, and that's cool. I just take objection to your insistence on trying to frame those who don't like the current logo as having a problem with logos that depict team nicknames. That's not the case at all.

[BBTV]

The Avalanche logo is mostly well designed and a fine logo, just not for a major league team.  It's an amazing AHL logo, just looks too, I don't know the word - animated? - for the NHL.  At the time it debuted, I thought it was cartoony.  I'm not sure that's the right word for it, but I can't think of too many better.

 

The fact that it was paired with a legitimately cartoony bigfoot shoulder logo just amplified it's frivolous qualities.

 

I'm also not a fan of logos that play off the initial of the nickname rather than the city, but I'm softening a bit on that stance as I go on.

[DTConcepts]

I'll throw my hat into the ring.

 

The only thing I dislike about the Avs logo is the circle. Even in the versions I've seen without it the logo looks incomplete, but in the versions with it look odd. 

 

I think the Rockies logo the Avalanche use will make a good primary. They either need to use that or totally rebrand themselves.

[nash61]

They actually look better with the colours switched. 

 

Though I'm actually surprised the State of Colorado hasn't taken issue with it:

[oddball]

I'll throw my two cents into this whole Avalanche logo debate. The "A" with the puck at the head of an Avalanche should stay and the Rockies logo should go. Why? Because straight up, the Rockies logo has nothing to do with the Avalanche or the franchise. The Rockies logo depicts a mountain with a C over it... okay great. Except it does not literally or figuratively say "Avalanche", so it is a complete failure that should be abandoned. And I get there are plenty of logos like that, by why should the Avs, downgrade to a completely bland and pathetic logo, when they have a logo that screams, "Avalanche". To change logos to the Rockies and to use the Rockies logo at all, is just change for the sake of change and nothing more. I don't think there is a person out there that has ever clamored for the Rockies logo.

[Gothamite]

3 hours ago, oddball said:

I don't think there is a person out there that has ever clamored for the Rockies logo.

 

Before it was introduced as an alternate for the Avalanche?  You're probably right.   But now?  They have the numbers, they know the demand.  if they make the switch now, it will be entirely because it sells better.  It'll be because people are clamoring for it now.  

[andrewharrington]

On 2/27/2017 at 4:50 PM, mcj882000 said:

I know this has been brought up before, but I was talking about this with a friend the other day, and now that it's come up again, I guess I should ask...

Why are the Avalanche even bothering to remember the Hockey Rockies, anyways? What legacy is there that's worth paying tribute to with a stylized alternate/possible new home jersey? 

Like, let's really dive into this: the Hockey Rockies existed for 6 seasons, and they stunk in all 6 of 'em - the most wins they ever had in a season was 22, and the best average attendance they had was 9,788 (in an arena built for 16,399, and one the Avs had no problems selling out, BTW). Don't forget, they were the same franchise that Gretzky decried as a "Mickey Mouse organisation"; one that, between Kansas City, Denver & New Jersey, missed the playoffs in 12 of their first 13 seasons. In that one playoff season, 1976-77, they somehow finished 2nd in their division despite only managing 19 wins & a team record 59 points before getting swept 2-0 by the Flyers. Arguably their most famous player - Lanny McDonald - was only there 'cause he was exiled out of Toronto, and even then Denver was just a stopover before moving on to Calgary. Their most famous coach - Don Cherry - proved past his prime in the only year he was there; and their one lasting legacy, the widespread use of their goal song, doesn't even matter anymore 'cause its singer turned out to be a pedophile! And on top of all that, they're not even the most famous sports team to be called the Colorado Rockies!

 

Seriously, the Avalanche's own 21-season history blows the Hockey Rockies' out of the water, with 2 Stanley Cups and 9 division titles compared to absolute bupkis. It's a little like the NY Mets' new stadium paying more attention to the NY Giants & Brooklyn Dodgers' histories than their own - except the Giants & Dodgers actually had histories worth remembering. Admittedly the Rockies' identity was the only thing they had going for them - their logo was quite clever and fit the team's name, and I personally love red-blue-yellow colour schemes - but even then the Avs are half-assing it; the logo's been simplified from "Colorado Flag Carved Into A Mountain" to "C Inside A Frost-Tipped Triangle" and their muted colours don't work as well with it, in my opinion at least. Hell, if the Avs straight up stole the Rockies' away jersey and made it a vintage alternate, I think I would've liked that better.

But then again... a pale, inferior imitation of something that was already done much better in the past... maybe that really does suit the Avalanche right now!

 

It’s not only about the Rockies v. the Avalanche. It’s about hockey in Colorado, and this was the origin of that, which is valuable and important. The visuals also matter, and the Rockies-inspired mark is a more versatile, timeless piece than the A logo. 

 

Compositionally, the triangle is a much more pleasing holding shape than the irregular mountain silhouette, and the snowy tip gives the proper indication that the triangle is a mountain. I do wonder if there’s a better way to define the C and puck without resorting to outlines, but that’s really the only change I’d explore.

 

For those of you criticizing this mark because it doesn’t “scream ‘Avalanche’” or “depict the team’s namesake,” you haven’t done your homework. There’s a reason it’s a triangle in the first place.

 

 

Sometimes literal works well and sometimes it appears trite, unclear, and/or forced. I find the current logo closer to the latter. A literal Avalanche is difficult to depict graphically, not to mention the fact that most people haven’t seen one. Is the logo an accurate representation of an Avalanche, or are we just taking their word for it? I don’t know. I do know, though, that anyone who’s been up a mountain where avalanches happen has probably seen the warning sign, thus making it a more familiar (and verifiable) association, especially for locals.

 

On 2/27/2017 at 8:21 PM, Gothamite said:

It's not always about "relevance" or about winning.  Plenty have teams have played their best while wearing their worst uniforms.

 

The Avs' primary logo is just bad. Even though they have in the past played well while wearing it. 

 

On 2/27/2017 at 9:31 PM, Gothamite said:

To you it is.  And fair enough.  I respect your opinion. 

 

But that still doesn't make it any good.  And that's my opinion.  

 

Preach. Classic objective v. subjective battle.

 

On 2/28/2017 at 9:33 AM, CreamSoda said:

It's because of the damn Colorado themed merchandise.  People love anything with the Colorado C/State Flag on it.

 

They would simply be cashing in on a design trend in the face of a good brand identity.

 

You call it a design trend, but that, too is a good brand identity; the brand identity of the state in which many of these fans, staff, and players call home! I’d argue that the location is often more important than the nickname for that reason, and it shows because people have obviously responded well to locally-focused design in general (depending on the locale and quality of the pertinent design elements, of course). People are proud of their home.

 

On 2/28/2017 at 11:52 AM, McCarthy said:

 

Check out that thread for the logo the Avalanche should be using. 

 

 

Reasons why I hate this: 

 

1. it's a complete ripoff. A ripoff of a failed team at that so it doesn't even have winning associated with it. Sorry, but I can't get behind out and out copying of a logo no matter how good the original was. (the original wasn't that good) You know what does have winning associated with it? Their current logo. 

2. It's supposed to be in the Colorado state flag C, but in those colors that doesn't read right away and the actual state flag doesn't have the inner circle outlined like that. The yellow butts right up against the red. It's also yellow because it symbolizes gold. IDK what a navy blue dot means. If it was black then they could say it was a puck. 

3. I hate the visually jarring intersection points where the C meets the triangle. It feels jammed in there, uncomfortable, cramped, claustrophobic. Those whole spaces vibrate in my eyes. I don't like it. The old one had some space for the C to breathe a little bit. Either Shrink the C like the original. Might as well since you're already shamelessly knocking it off, or grow it about 20% so it overlaps the triangle. 

4. There's no visual hierarchy. The triangle and C compete for attention. It looks like two different elements dropped on top of one another because that's what it is. 

5. Burgundy, navy blue, silver, and white have been my dream colors for the Avs for over a decade. This isn't the right way to use them. 

 

The A logo isn't perfect by any means and it's a little dated, but being dated isn't a bad thing and it tells you everything you need to know right then and there. It could be cleaned up, lose the oval behind it and simplify some of the lines and they're good. Instead they're throwing the baby out with the bathwater and then bringing in older bathwater that belongs to another baby. 

 

You know what other logo is dated? The original Rockies logo. 

 

If there’s no hierarchy in that logo, then what’s the hierarchy of the current logo? The giant A? The wraparound ice trail following the puck? The variable weight oval everything is stacked upon?

 

And being dated certainly does carry with it a negative connotation. The only reason you concluded that “being dated isn’t a bad thing” is because you happen to like this particular logo. Subjectivity.

 

---

 

Now, with all that said, you guys do realize you’ve just used t-shirts from a kids charity game to completely invent a freak-out narrative for which you have no other evidence, yes? Doesn’t that seem foolish? ?

[Dynasty]

29 minutes ago, Kaz said:

The Blue Jackets logo sucks, the Flames logo doesn't really resemble the other three and is an otherwise mid-tier logo, and the Stars logo is okay but would be much better without the bevels.

 

That brings me to another unpopular opinion... I like bevels. Are they needed? In most cases, probably not, but I think they'd appeal well with certain teams (like the Titans).

[Morgan33]

On 2017-03-04 at 5:22 PM, Gothamite said:

The skewed circle is bad, but it's really the hideous forced perspective that makes it cartoony.  And what dates it.

Sorry but I'm not seeing this forced perspective at all.  That logo looks flatter than a pancake.  I could do without the skewed circle but don't think it looks dated enough to sink the entire design.
 

On 2017-03-04 at 7:00 PM, Ice_Cap said:

As far as the Rockies-esque alternate that's replacing it? I just want to say that I called its inevitable rise to primary status when it debuted. Not because I liked it (though I do), but just because I've been following NHL uniform news for over ten years now, and you just start to notice patterns.

You certainly begin to notice patterns after time and I'm seeing an awful one.  It's not even a question of 'traditional' vs 'modern,' its a question of trying to force square pegs into round holes.  You have new teams with established, modern identities trying to copy original six aesthetics when they have no business doing so.  There's the Lightning playing Leafs-dressup, the Panthers using the Habs chest stripes, the Hurricanes ditching their unique striping and now the Avalanche flushing their entire 21 year history down the toilet.  I like the uniforms of the Original Six as much as anyone here, I just don't think every team needs to look like them.  Not only does it remove any opportunity for creativity it cheapens the original six aesthetic by watering it down.

What is honestly wrong about a team established in 1996 taking design cues from the 90's anyways?  I'm not saying they need to go Wild-Wing on us, but I hardly see anything wrong with being proud of their actual history instead of pretending they're from 1920...

 

Quote

Anyway, no, it doesn't depict the team's namesake. That being said...it gets close enough for me. The team is named the Colorado Avalanche. So you have the state flag, which gets the Colorado part down. And the mountain is more than enough to hint at the "Avalanche" name.

It's still a team named the "Colorado Avalanche" being represented by an avalanche-less mountain.  A good brand is not established by merely "hinting" at it's subject matter in my opinion.
 

Quote

And the use of a C over an A follows my preference of logos representing the locale name over the team nickname.

 

The current logo contains a 'C' as well and they didn't need to trace it from a flag.  As others have said, the current logo says everything it needs to about the team.  There's a 'C,' an 'A,' a puck to represent the sport and most importantly, an avalanche.  The updated Rockies logo, on the other hand, could represent any Colorado based establishment.

 

20 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

The visuals also matter, and the Rockies-inspired mark is a more versatile, timeless piece than the A logo.

I know the word timeless gets thrown around a lot here but the logo has been around two seasons.  Lets not jump the gun here.

[wildwing64]

Don't know if it's just me but the Avs logo always seemed kind of generic. In the way that it's got ice and snow and a puck because ice hockey. May as well stick "Ice" in front of the name and you've got a minor league identity ready to go.

 

I don't hate the design but I don't find it particularly interesting either. I'm kind of neutral on it because of its generic feel. It's not exactly a timeless icon and it could use an update. I don't know if the Rockalanche alternate mark is really the best way to update the brand, but between the two I actually kinda prefer it. Something about it just... works. It conveys the name and locale in a very simple and effective way and it looks fine on a hockey uniform.

 

27 minutes ago, Morgo said:

... and now the Avalanche flushing their entire 21 year history down the toilet.

 

That's a bit of a stretch. Swapping out a logo doesn't mean anything. Let's not forget that the Stars and Lightning have rebranded since winning their Cups, arguably for the better. And like those two examples there's enough thematic similarity between the current Avs logo and and Rockalanche for there to be consistent continuity, if you will. At least they're not going with a dull black uniform and replacing their logo with a wordmark.

[Gothamite]

51 minutes ago, Morgo said:

Sorry but I'm not seeing this forced perspective at all.  That logo looks flatter than a pancake.  I could do without the skewed circle but don't think it looks dated enough to sink the entire design.

 

You really see many hockey pucks that are 1/4 the size of a mountain?

[C-Squared]

2 hours ago, Dolphins Dynasty said:

 

That brings me to another unpopular opinion... I like bevels. Are they needed? In most cases, probably not, but I think they'd appeal well with certain teams (like the Titans).

 

I think a somewhat subtle bevel effect on the jersey numbers would be a great Nike-fied element for the 2018 Titans set, would be a great way to strengthen the Greek motif

[Toronto206]

Not necessarily trying to change the multiple page subject, but new anniversary logo came out the other day:

[ldconcepts]

Anything with the Avalanche's current logo on the front would be better than their current uniforms, IMO.

[andrewharrington]

2 hours ago, Morgo said:

Sorry but I'm not seeing this forced perspective at all.  That logo looks flatter than a pancake.  I could do without the skewed circle but don't think it looks dated enough to sink the entire design.
 

You certainly begin to notice patterns after time and I'm seeing a awful one.  It's not even a question of 'traditional' vs 'modern,' its a question of trying to force square pegs into round holes.  You have new teams with established, modern identities trying to copy original six aesthetics when they have no business doing so.  There's the Lightning playing Leafs-dressup, the Panthers using the Habs chest stripes, the Hurricanes ditching their unique striping and now the Avalanche flushing their entire 21 year history down the toilet.  I like the uniforms of the Original Six as much as anyone here, I just don't think every team needs to look like them.  Not only does it remove any opportunity for creativity it actually cheapens the original six aesthetic by watering it down.

What is honestly wrong about a team established in 1996 taking design cues from the 90's anyways?  I'm not saying they need to go Wild-Wing on us, but I hardly see anything wrong with being proud of their actual history instead of pretending they're from 1920...

 

It's still a team named the "Colorado Avalanche" being represented by an avalanche-less mountain.  A good brand is not established by merely "hinting" at it's subject matter in my opinion.
 

 

The current logo contains as 'C' as well and they didn't need to trace it from a flag.  As others have said, the current logo says everything it needs to about the team.  There's a 'C,' an 'A,' a puck to represent the sport and most importantly, an avalanche.  The updated Rockies logo, on the other hand, could represent any Colorado based establishment.

 

I know the word timeless gets thrown around a lot here but the logo has been around two seasons.  Lets not jump the gun here.

 

The actual style of the mark is undeniably more timeless. That’s all I’m getting at. I’m not implying that it would or even should last decades (if it were to theoretically become the primary mark, that is). Objectively, the third jersey mark is simple enough that it could have been designed at any point in the last several decades, whereas it’s very easy to identify the time period in which the current logo was designed, meaning it’s not timeless in the least.

 

I don’t think they’re pretending to be original six or older than they are, either. Their third jersey is a crisper, clearer look than their primary jersey. More conservative or restrained? Sure, but not old.

 

The logo itself certainly says “Colorado” more than it says “Avalanche,” but there’s nothing inherently wrong with that approach. Personally, I think it’s preferable (for reasons already mentioned). In fact, I think the strength of the mark is in the way it *does* say Avalanche, which is very smart, engaging, and unexpected. It’s analogous to the Hurricanes using the hurricane warning flag as a graphic device; definitely a more successful approach than a logo featuring a puck being rained on and washed out to sea would have been.

[DTConcepts]

The alternate logo, the more I think about it, is far better than their 90's mark. Here's why:

 

It's classic. The Rockies might not have ever been good, nor are they connected to the Avalanche, but their logo is a classic. It's iconic.

 

It sells better. Living in Colorado, I've been seeing tons of merch being worn with the alternate logo rather than the 90's one.

 

It's just well designed. The 90's logo seems awkward, with the shape of the 'A', the oval, the forced avalanche, and the puck at the bottom. The alternate mark plays off the past and simplifies it. It's just a good logo.

 

It may not have a winning history behind it like the other one, but the Avs have been hovering around the bottom of the league ever since Sakic left. They had a good year a while ago, but that's all. You can talk about the iconic mountain uniforms from the 90's and early 2000's, but that's where they belong. The current Avs need a fresh start, and their identity does too.

 

That's all I got. This topic has turned into a storm since this whole Avalanche debate broke out.