TheGrimReaper

2016-17 NHL Uniform and Logo Changes

Recommended Posts

Except there's now a team called the Stars in the league and the logo, as cool as it may be, is not as good as the Wild's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugh. I think the Wild's logo is vastly overrated. Too busy by half, and cutesie with all the look-it's-an-eye-it's-a-mouth!.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a solid logo, each jersey is pretty good (yes, I know people freak out that they don't match, but the North Stars' didn't for a long time either), and identities don't just change without something big happening, like a move or an ownership change. This isn't the minor leagues where things change year to year, it's all about branding and stability in the big leagues.

The name isn't going anywhere. Get over it. It's time to move on. It's not like Blues, Kings, Lightning, or Blue Jackets are big winners either in the "tanglible name you can make an easily identifiable logo with" (yes, I know the Blues' logo is beloved, but I bet if we were having this conversation in 1982, at their 15 year anniversary when they were playing around with the identity, we'd say similar things).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except there's now a team called the Stars in the league and the logo, as cool as it may be, is not as good as the Wild's.

I know that. I'm just saying the North Stars were a better identity than the Wild. Shame no one knew how to market it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Dallas Stars should use the North Stars identity... They're practically one colour away aside from the logo, which obviously wouldn't work. It's not like the "N-Star" is any more clever than the Dallas Star's current logo anyways, it's all about the colours.

As for the Wild, they just need a new home uniform. Their primary logo is among the leagues best and is the main reason why their road uniforms are so vastly superior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except there's now a team called the Stars in the league and the logo, as cool as it may be, is not as good as the Wild's.

I know that. I'm just saying the North Stars were a better identity than the Wild. Shame no one knew how to market it.

North Stars stuff sells as well as Wild merchandise. I guess the people who knew how to market it, came around after the N-stars left...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except there's now a team called the Stars in the league and the logo, as cool as it may be, is not as good as the Wild's.

I know that. I'm just saying the North Stars were a better identity than the Wild. Shame no one knew how to market it.

Well I don't disagree with that. I much prefer the North Stars look, but going back to it while the franchise is still in existence is kinda dumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Dallas used any form of the North Stars' classic logo, I'd agree with you. But they don't, they don't even use the same color scheme anymore, so I think the league could quite easily survive with both identities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Minnesota Wild's identity, colors, logo are vastly superior to the North Stars (and I loved the North Stars' colors and logo). The name however, absolutely sucks. Would I be for changing the name as long as everything else stayed the same? Yes. You could use the Wild's current logo for a North Stars identity.

However, the Dallas Stars have themselves a nice identity and they've been rather successful in it. Plus, it's not like a New Orleans Hornets situation where the name has nothing to do with the region. It has everything to do with the region.

Could you have both the Stars and North Stars in the same league? Division? It would be weird, but it beats having a team name that sounds like an Arena Football League team from 1999.

I'd be fine seeing some North Stars variation a few times a year. It's too nice to keep on the shelf completely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Dallas used any form of the North Stars' classic logo, I'd agree with you. But they don't, they don't even use the same color scheme anymore, so I think the league could quite easily survive with both identities.

No, but they hang banners honouring the North Stars' greats (adorned with the North Stars' logo), recognize all their records, and have generally done more than any NHL team to pay tribute to their (p)re-location history. The Wild are not the North Stars, nor will they ever be. That identity is part of Dallas' history and will continue to be so. Besides, the Wild have used the same colours and logos for over 15 years now -- what sense would it make to re-brand now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I've said, you can't bring back the North Stars, you just have to resign yourself to the fact that the Twin Cities dropped the ball on supporting the Stars, the Stars dropped the ball on marketing the team, and now we're stuck with smug Dallas Stars fans and a professional sports team called the Wild. It all just sucks.

have generally done more than any NHL team to pay tribute to their (p)re-location history.

Yeah, I'm sure it's much appreciated as Wacky Jumbotron talks crap about any city that gets snow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Dallas used any form of the North Stars' classic logo, I'd agree with you. But they don't, they don't even use the same color scheme anymore, so I think the league could quite easily survive with both identities.

Add athletic gold to the Dallas Stars and its more than close enough. As for the logos, both combine a star and a letter in a clever way so what's the problem. Better the identity survive in some capacity than to be non-existant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Better the identity survive in some capacity than to be non-existant"

I don't agree. Sometimes it's better that an identity be relegated to throwback merchandised rather than bastardized. Maybe the Hurricanes should use blue and green, so the Whalers' identity isn't non-existent.

As for the Dallas Stars, as you point out if they used athletic gold then there'd be an issue. But they don't, so there isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wild is a terrible name and I believe that the name should have been changed earlier in the organization's existence. I think there is room for both the Stars and the North Stars in one league. With that being said, Dallas would never give up the rights to the North Stars name and history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Better the identity survive in some capacity than to be non-existant"

I don't agree. Sometimes it's better that an identity be relegated to throwback merchandised rather than bastardized. Maybe the Hurricanes should use blue and green, so the Whalers' identity isn't non-existent.

As for the Dallas Stars, as you point out if they used athletic gold then there'd be an issue. But they don't, so there isn't.

Hurricanes/Whalers is a much different comparison. Carolina has spent the last two decades doin' their own thang, so it'd make no sense for them to start paying homage to Hartford's identity now. As for the Stars? Well, they used gold for 20 years in Dallas. Which I think was Morgo's point. When most hockey fans think of "Dallas Stars", most of the images that come to mind probably involve green/black/gold. You can't seriously argue that removing one element of the North Stars/Stars identity while remaining true to many other aspects from its 46-year-old history gives a 1999 expansion team the right to steal that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I didn't argue anything of the sort.

I was thinking of what could or should have been done from the beginning. I don't agree that it's better for certain elements of an identity to survive by themselves; sometimes it's better to let the whole thing pass into history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Minnesota Wild's identity, colors, logo are vastly superior to the North Stars (and I loved the North Stars' colors and logo). The name however, absolutely sucks. Would I be for changing the name as long as everything else stayed the same? Yes. You could use the Wild's current logo for a North Stars identity.

However, the Dallas Stars have themselves a nice identity and they've been rather successful in it. Plus, it's not like a New Orleans Hornets situation where the name has nothing to do with the region. It has everything to do with the region.

Could you have both the Stars and North Stars in the same league? Division? It would be weird, but it beats having a team name that sounds like an Arena Football League team from 1999.

I'd be fine seeing some North Stars variation a few times a year. It's too nice to keep on the shelf completely.

Major League Baseball has both the Red Sox and the White Sox and both clubs play in the American League. It's been that way for over 100 years now and no one has made a fuss about it for all I know.

If the NHL can have shootouts and be the only major sports league to hand out loser points, a Dallas Stars/North Stars co-existance CAN work. The league also has the Blues/Blue Jackets and Canadiens/Canucks.

Otherwise, go with the only good name that was available in that so-called "Name the team" contest - Northern Lights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Northern Lights is no better than Wild (I say it's way worse, you'd never get a logo as good as the Wild's based on that), and we let all sorts of things go because they've been that way since before any of us were around.

From the Steelers with one logo on their helmet, to Montreal having an H in their logo, to the Bruins logo being based on "Boston is the hub of the universe" rather than their team name, etc, if it happened today, we'd be really upset and saying it's all stupid. But it's been around so long that it's accepted, if not loved.

The name isn't going anywhere. It's time to move on and accept it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Northern Lights is no better than Wild (I say it's way worse, you'd never get a logo as good as the Wild's based on that), and we let all sorts of things go because they've been that way since before any of us were around.

From the Steelers with one logo on their helmet, to Montreal having an H in their logo, to the Bruins logo being based on "Boston is the hub of the universe" rather than their team name, etc, if it happened today, we'd be really upset and saying it's all stupid. But it's been around so long that it's accepted, if not loved.

The name isn't going anywhere. It's time to move on and accept it.

Why don't you just accept the fact that you like a team name that's completely stupid all because you like their logo?

With "Northern Lights", a modern take on the old N-Star can be created. Not every logo has to be computer-created.

This is an NHL team we're talking about. Not some team from some fly-by-night Tier II league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I didn't argue anything of the sort.

I was thinking of what could or should have been done from the beginning. I don't agree that it's better for certain elements of an identity to survive by themselves; sometimes it's better to let the whole thing pass into history.

Well, whether the Wild had used their current identity for 15 years, 2 000 years, or never, it wouldn't change the fact that they have no affiliation with the North Stars. That identity remains part of Dallas' history. Whether they choose to bring the whole thing back to the NHL, only parts of it, or none at all (whether now, at their inauguration, or in the future) is entirely up to them and them alone.

EDIT:

@VancouverFan69: What possible correlation exists between the standings system the NHL employs and the legitimacy of the league re-writing its own history books?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.