Jump to content

2016-17 NHL Uniform and Logo Changes


TheGrimReaper

Recommended Posts

theres nothing classic and iconic about it. no winning history, just flat and very simple which most people associate with other actual classic logos like the leafs and habs. It's static, boring, flat and lifeless and the only reason they're going for it is a cash in, nothing more. Let's stop acting like a yield sign with a C in it ripped off from a flag is anything close to classic and iconic. Pathetic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I like the Avs logo quite a bit. I'd put it somewhere in the top 10 in the league. It's got some personality to it. It's not as dated as say the Panthers logo was or the Sharks logo was. It's got a slightly cartoony element to it, but so does about half the league. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Bayne said:

I like the Avs logo quite a bit. I'd put it somewhere in the top 10 in the league. It's got some personality to it. It's not as dated as say the Panthers logo was or the Sharks logo was. It's got a slightly cartoony element to it, but so does about half the league. 

exactly. These are the same people who ant the canucks to switch over to a box with a stick for a logo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's pivot away from the logo in and of itself and concentrate on what, to me, is the real problem, which is a navy/burgundy color scheme. Yeah, the distribution of burgundy, slate blue, grey, and black was always a mess for the Avs, but at least it was still a good color palette. The direction they're going in now with the thirds seems very dull and grim to me. There's not enough contrast between the two colors, and they're holding over old design elements but stripping features from them -- the numbers are more or less the old style but single-layer and without the little psuedo-serifs, and the NOB lettering is still arched Trade Gothic. As I've said before about other teams, this is a very bad thing to do. It symbolizes dormancy and resignation: colors fading, details forgone. At a time when most teams seem to be seeing the folly of darkening and fading classic color schemes, here are the Avs doing that. (Not entirely coincidentally, another team moving against the flow of traffic is their sister franchise, the Los Angeles Rams.) Not only is navy and burgundy a bad color scheme, it calls to mind their other sister franchise, the old 1993-2003 Denver Nuggets, another moribund and neglected Denver-based sports team.

 

I'm of the belief that team colors ought to be sacrosanct: you can change up your designs, but fans should always know what your colors are. That, far more than any bad logos they've had, is what makes the Canucks, Astros, and Padres the disasters they've been. I can deal with this lousy rehash of the Hockey Rockies logo, but head-to-toe navy blue with minimal burgundy, which doesn't even contrast with the navy blue, is very ugly and doesn't even stand for the winning history the Avs lean on so heavily as to let Joe Sakic run them into the ground because he's Joe Sakic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, the admiral said:

Let's pivot away from the logo in and of itself and concentrate on what, to me, is the real problem, which is a navy/burgundy color scheme. Yeah, the distribution of burgundy, slate blue, grey, and black was always a mess for the Avs, but at least it was still a good color palette. The direction they're going in now with the thirds seems very dull and grim to me. There's not enough contrast between the two colors

 

Yeah, that's my only issue with them going this direction. It's a nice enough uniform design, but in action it all blurs together into a dull dark mess. It sucks for the same reason the Coyotes throwback sucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Rollins Man said:

exactly. These are the same people who ant the canucks to switch over to a box with a stick for a logo.

 

Nah. Johnny Canuck or bust.

 

Quite frankly, I don't like the current Avs primary or the faux-Rockies look. The former is a messy logo, and the latter is really bland (no matter how much brand-speak you put behind it). Going in an entirely new direction would be the best course for them. IMHO, said new direction should be a burgundy/powder blue color scheme (kind of like the Colorado Rapids) without black/silver/navy. It's brighter, simpler, and more pleasing to the eyes than any look the team has had in the past (while also sticking with the traditional colors of the team, avoiding a Canucks/Padres/Bucks type of mess).

 

As for "throwing 21 years of history down the drain?" Maybe it's for the best. Given the ways in which the franchise has propped up its "storied past" in the face of prolonged abject failure (even when they're trying to win), severing the direct visual link between the current Avs and the modern Avs might just be a good idea. However, they shouldn't link it up to the maligned Rockies, a poorly-defined color scheme, and a lame attempt to cash in on weed tourism. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

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?

 

Easy. It's an avalanche moving down a mountain (the A). Your eye starts at the top and flows downward with the ice trail that is being led by the puck. There's directional movement. It's not static like the triangle. I see it and I know exactly what it is.

 

If I'd never been provided context for the triangle logo I wouldn't have known it was for the Avalanche. It's this same reason the Canucks stick in rink is a bad logo.

 

23 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

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.

 

 

That's not fair. 1. if we're holding "dated" against the A logo then we have to hold "dated" against the triangle because it's basically the Rockies logo and that's not subjective. 2. I don't buy that as a bad word. I think a lot of really successful logos could be described as "dated". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Webhamster said:

New Ottawa Senators president mulling a logo change

 

An article in today's Ottawa Citizen drops that new team president Tom Anselmi is considering a logo change. Obviously too late for next season but... let the speculation roll...

Please Lord promote the third jerseys and make matching roads. Enough with Romans- honor the history the matters to the city, not ancient history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Webhamster said:

New Ottawa Senators president mulling a logo change

 

An article in today's Ottawa Citizen drops that new team president Tom Anselmi is considering a logo change. Obviously too late for next season but... let the speculation roll...

 

Next season would be ideal, what with this Adidas switchover and everything. He's implying a possible switch to the =O=, which could mean the heritage set goes full-time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, the admiral said:

Let's pivot away from the logo in and of itself and concentrate on what, to me, is the real problem, which is a navy/burgundy color scheme. Yeah, the distribution of burgundy, slate blue, grey, and black was always a mess for the Avs, but at least it was still a good color palette. The direction they're going in now with the thirds seems very dull and grim to me. There's not enough contrast between the two colors, and they're holding over old design elements but stripping features from them -- the numbers are more or less the old style but single-layer and without the little psuedo-serifs, and the NOB lettering is still arched Trade Gothic. As I've said before about other teams, this is a very bad thing to do. It symbolizes dormancy and resignation: colors fading, details forgone. At a time when most teams seem to be seeing the folly of darkening and fading classic color schemes, here are the Avs doing that. (Not entirely coincidentally, another team moving against the flow of traffic is their sister franchise, the Los Angeles Rams.) Not only is navy and burgundy a bad color scheme, it calls to mind their other sister franchise, the old 1993-2003 Denver Nuggets, another moribund and neglected Denver-based sports team.

 

I'm of the belief that team colors ought to be sacrosanct: you can change up your designs, but fans should always know what your colors are. That, far more than any bad logos they've had, is what makes the Canucks, Astros, and Padres the disasters they've been. I can deal with this lousy rehash of the Hockey Rockies logo, but head-to-toe navy blue with minimal burgundy, which doesn't even contrast with the navy blue, is very ugly and doesn't even stand for the winning history the Avs lean on so heavily as to let Joe Sakic run them into the ground because he's Joe Sakic.

 

I think navy blue and burgundy could work, but the way they use that scheme on the thirds and probably future primaries is the worst way to use them - with blue being the primary and an overemphasis on white. When you have two dark colors like that you have to use the lighter color (burgundy in this case) as your dominant base otherwise it gets lost when viewed from a distance.

 

This principle is why the Lightning looked like a black and white team in their 2004 cup jerseys. The blue was invisible. If those had been inversed where blue was the jersey color and black was the striping and pants color then both colors would've been visible and it would've been a far more visually distinctive look. 

 

But you're right about their colors. When everyone else is going brighter, back to their roots, fixing past mistakes, the Avalanche are running in the other direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, McCarthy said:

The way they use that scheme on the thirds and probably future primaries is the worst way to use them - with blue being the primary and an overemphasis on white. When you have two dark colors like that you have to use the lighter color (burgundy in this case) as your dominant base otherwise it gets lost when viewed from a distance.

 

Logo arguments aside, this is definitely the biggest problem I have with the navy alternates.  Up close the uniforms look decent yet from afar, the dark shades of Maroon and Navy just kind of blur together.  It also doesn't really make sense for them to make a colour they never previously used the new dominant swatch.  They've been the de-facto burgundy team for 21 years, why change now?

If they truly are going with the Rockalanche logo, my hope is that they at least fix these problems first.  The snow capped shoulders are a good idea but the execution looks goofy as hell.  If the goal is go traditional, why not use a rounded yoke similar to Montreal's roads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rollins Man said:

no there is no right when it comes to logos, but if you think a stick in a box is a good unique look that says it all when it comes to your standards and everyone like you. 

You realize you can flippantly dismiss any logo by dumbing it down right?

 

"If you think a C and an H is a good unique look that says it all when it comes to your standards and everyone like you".

"If you think "Toronto Maple Leafs" written inside a leaf is a good unique look that says it all when it comes to your standards and everyone like you"

"If you think a spoked 'B' is a good unique look that says it all when it comes to your standards and everyone like you"

"If you think the word "Washington Capitals" is a a good unique look that says it all when it comes to your standards and everyone like you"

 

The  Stick-In-Rink is the most iconic logo the Canucks have had. While its not an amazing logo, it has all the qualities you'd want 'Simple, clean, timeless, etc' and beats out the other ones by a wide berth. The flying skate is great for nostalgia but I would never want it as a full time logo. Johnny Canuck is a good concept but I've yet to see a design that would actually look good as the primary crest on a jersey. And the orca is just hot garbage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Chromatic said:

You realize you can flippantly dismiss any logo by dumbing it down right?

 

"If you think a C and an H is a good unique look that says it all when it comes to your standards and everyone like you".

"If you think "Toronto Maple Leafs" written inside a leaf is a good unique look that says it all when it comes to your standards and everyone like you"

"If you think a spoked 'B' is a good unique look that says it all when it comes to your standards and everyone like you"

"If you think the word "Washington Capitals" is a a good unique look that says it all when it comes to your standards and everyone like you"

 

The  Stick-In-Rink is the most iconic logo the Canucks have had. While its not an amazing logo, it has all the qualities you'd want 'Simple, clean, timeless, etc' and beats out the other ones by a wide berth. The flying skate is great for nostalgia but I would never want it as a full time logo. Johnny Canuck is a good concept but I've yet to see a design that would actually look good as the primary crest on a jersey. And the orca is just hot garbage.

well what do you want the leafs to wear then? And the capitals logo is not very good at all, much better when they had the eagle. The stick in rink is one of the most overrated boring and uninspiring logos ever. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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