TheGrimReaper

2016-17 NHL Uniform and Logo Changes

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, hockey week said:

This board, every time a logo or jersey changes:

onoz_omg2.gif 

that's the whole point

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nostalgia, Hockey Week.

 

Nostalgia.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People using the term "iconic" to describe any logo they happen to like is always fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, hockey week said:

 

Just once, I'd like this to happen

I'm%2BOk.png

That happens sometimes. Every time there's a negative reaction to a new look someone makes the point that people here are never satisfied and I don't think it's true. Generally I think the reaction to a new look is entirely appropriate. The Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Cleveland Browns, and Jacksonville Jaguars all got :censored: on because those are bad looks. I remember Dallas Stars' rebrand being pretty well received. The Sacramento Kings thread isn't overly negative right now. I'm seeing a lot of support over there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

People using the term "iconic" to describe any logo they happen to like is always fun.

I apologize that you prefer baby Simba over a classic logo. So sorry, I guess I'm in the wrong with the other 90% of people.

 

SimbaColoured1.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, worcat said:

I apologize that you prefer baby Simba over a classic logo. So sorry, I guess I'm in the wrong with the other 90% of people.

 

SimbaColoured1.png

 

Mountain Lions and Lions are not the same species.  

 

Both big cats, but that is like calling a Tiger logo a Simba knockoff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

That happens sometimes. Every time there's a negative reaction to a new look someone makes the point that people here are never satisfied and I don't think it's true. Generally I think the reaction to a new look is entirely appropriate. The Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Cleveland Browns, and Jacksonville Jaguars all got :censored: on because those are bad looks. I remember Dallas Stars' rebrand being pretty well received. The Sacramento Kings thread isn't overly negative right now. I'm seeing a lot of support over there. 

Right.  The Vikings change was viewed positively overall.  The Blue Jays was a love-fest (though in fairness, they were getting back to an old beloved look).  Probably an appropriate mix here for the Kings.  

 

We had mixed responses to the Dolphins and even the Seahawks.

 

I'd say Golden State was very well-received in the NBA, along with the Hawks, Bucks, and Sixers.  I myself happen to think the current Cavs primaries are the best in the NBA.

 

In the NHL, the Jets had a mix of reviews generally between nuetral and positive.  

 

In MLB, the Marlins, who went with a very "out there/modern" look got a pretty decent mix of reviews.

 

People here also like more modern stuff that pre-dates the boards, like the Islanders fisherman.

 

Maybe the reason certain changes get roundly panned is because they are awful.  The Bucs new uniforms are awful in a vacuum and how anyone could not consider them a downgrade from the previous, I'll never know.  The Browns had a bit of a mix of reviews on the updated orange, the brown facemask, and even the jerseys; it was really the pants that were almost unanimously disliked and, well, come on.  Similarity, with the Jags it was just the helmet.  I happen to think the whole thing is awful, but a lot of people feel the jags look good from the neck down.

 

This "you guys hate everything" response is much more "muscle memory" than us actually hating everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not getting into a debate over different lion species/breeds - only the similarities to how cute the new logo looks. Didn't know disney bought the panthers lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One positive of the new logo is that it does resemble a Florida panther, which for all intents and purposes is a mountain lion, much more than the original logo did, which seems to suggest a big cat instead.

 

That's about where the positives run out for me. I don't like "PANTHERS" or "FLORIDA" appearing in the logo. While you could argue that putting the location name in there is necessary to distinguish from the Carolina Panthers (I probably wouldn't argue this), putting "PANTHERS" above a panther feels a little dopey for a new logo at the major-league level. The real reason for all that, of course, is not anything involving the Panthers but an excuse to mock up an Army division patch because the new owner is an Army man, and that's something I don't like. It's not a civic nod like the Winnipeg Jets using an RCAF roundel, it's just grafting one's personal history onto a team that has passed through several ownership groups without such additions. I know teams are rich people's toys, but to me, it represents poor stewardship: the team was there before you and will probably be there after you. They're not your Army buddies. 

 

I'm even less enthusiastic about the Habs template, the lace-up collar, and the color palette. The Panthers needed freshening up, but not by combining the worst of trend-hopping and vanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, bowld said:

Meant no disrespect towards you, I think you did a great job. I was referring to the logo itself

 

lol no I was joking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am really torn on the Panthers.  On one hand, I tend to prefer full-body animal logos, given how prevalent animal head logos are.  On the other, there is too much detail in the old logo.  I kinda like the new logo.  It's not trying to be ferocious.  Making logos ferocious does not always work. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hockey week said:

 

Just once, I'd like this to happen

I'm%2BOk.png

 

Never going to happen...  Even the spectacular, Dallas Stars, re brand had its detractors.  "OMG, teh r playing original six dressup, etc..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, McCarthy said:

That happens sometimes. Every time there's a negative reaction to a new look someone makes the point that people here are never satisfied and I don't think it's true. Generally I think the reaction to a new look is entirely appropriate. The Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Cleveland Browns, and Jacksonville Jaguars all got :censored: on because those are bad looks. I remember Dallas Stars' rebrand being pretty well received. The Sacramento Kings thread isn't overly negative right now. I'm seeing a lot of support over there. 

 

1 hour ago, OnWis97 said:

Right.  The Vikings change was viewed positively overall.  The Blue Jays was a love-fest (though in fairness, they were getting back to an old beloved look).  Probably an appropriate mix here for the Kings.  

 

We had mixed responses to the Dolphins and even the Seahawks.

 

I'd say Golden State was very well-received in the NBA, along with the Hawks, Bucks, and Sixers.  I myself happen to think the current Cavs primaries are the best in the NBA.

 

In the NHL, the Jets had a mix of reviews generally between nuetral and positive.  

 

In MLB, the Marlins, who went with a very "out there/modern" look got a pretty decent mix of reviews.

 

People here also like more modern stuff that pre-dates the boards, like the Islanders fisherman.

 

Maybe the reason certain changes get roundly panned is because they are awful.  The Bucs new uniforms are awful in a vacuum and how anyone could not consider them a downgrade from the previous, I'll never know.  The Browns had a bit of a mix of reviews on the updated orange, the brown facemask, and even the jerseys; it was really the pants that were almost unanimously disliked and, well, come on.  Similarity, with the Jags it was just the helmet.  I happen to think the whole thing is awful, but a lot of people feel the jags look good from the neck down.

 

This "you guys hate everything" response is much more "muscle memory" than us actually hating everything.

 

Maybe this is a "perception" rather than statistical fact, but I remember A LOT of absolute hate for the Stars because they dropped gold. You would've thought that gold was what gave them their first pet and saved them from a bully as a child, because losing that was worse than losing their left arm. To say nothing of all the Original Six Dressup accusations being thrown around, likewise with the similarities to the Rangers or Chicago.

 

Didn't people freak out over the Vikings weird font? I remember that being "terrible" 

 

Winnipeg was the most boring logo ever, according to this board. Tolstoy couldn't have made it more boring, the notch on the top was outrageous corporate branding worse than the orca, everyone had a problem with the jet or the leaf, and my favorite detraction: it looks like the jet is exploding.

 

The LA Kings was everything from a pencil to a home plate, and minimizing the crown was a crime against nature.

 

The front page of that Sacramento Kings logo unveil is pretty brutal...but that IS a rehash of an old logo...so I maintain that this board is filled with nostalgia nuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, hockey week said:

Maybe this is a "perception" rather than statistical fact, but I remember A LOT of absolute hate for the Stars because they dropped gold. You would've thought that gold was what gave them their first pet and saved them from a bully as a child, because losing that was worse than losing their left arm. To say nothing of all the Original Six Dressup accusations being thrown around, likewise with the similarities to the Rangers or Chicago.

 

There were some ridiculous reactions to the Stars rebrand on their Facebook page. Some hated it simply because it wasn't the old star-stripe design. Others would rather have had the bland college script jerseys that they just dumped only because they had gold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, hockey week said:

Maybe this is a "perception" rather than statistical fact, but I remember A LOT of absolute hate for the Stars because they dropped gold. You would've thought that gold was what gave them their first pet and saved them from a bully as a child, because losing that was worse than losing their left arm.

 

Well, when you trumpet a redesign as a "return to form" and then omit one of the main colors, you haven't really returned to anything. It was stupid when the Stars wore no green before this, and it isn't much better with them wearing no yellow/gold.

 

Also, their logo has some considerable flaws that showed up in TV graphics, namely that all the green and black gets lost on a black background or green-to-black gradient, leaving you with just the silver and white. The Stars have always been a team that the hockey intelligentsia goes gaga over (no one will ever adequately explain to me the cult of Ralph and Razor), so if anything, people pulled their punches on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, the admiral said:

 

Well, when you trumpet a redesign as a "return to form" and then omit one of the main colors, you haven't really returned to anything. It was stupid when the Stars wore no green before this, and it isn't much better with them wearing no yellow/gold.

 

Also, their logo has some considerable flaws that showed up in TV graphics, namely that all the green and black gets lost on a black background or green-to-black gradient, leaving you with just the silver and white. The Stars have always been a team that the hockey intelligentsia goes gaga over (no one will ever adequately explain to me the cult of Ralph and Razor), so if anything, people pulled their punches on them.

 

Idk, they went from green being marginalized and at times being completely gone from 1992-93 through 2012-13. That's a solid decade of everything being painted black and green being a lowly accent. On top of that, the gold was metallic, unlike the rest of the team's history. Nobody seemed to complain about that distinction. 

 

Creating a new look that was all about being green after 10 years of ignoring it is pretty substantial. I'd say that was "going back". 

 

I can't speak to things blending in, but I think the new logo is very nice, I think it has a good look, I think it has enough callbacks to the original looks, and the jerseys are great, no matter who else they look like. It's a good evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this their new striping pattern?

 

Florida-Panthers-New-Logo-Leaked.jpg

Share this post


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