Las Vegas NHL Expansion

[4_tattoos]

18 hours ago, BJ Sands said:

UNPOPULAR OPINION

 

I like Knights. The name itself is underused in American sports 

Gotta disagree. I feel like Knights is one of the most common names you'll come across in youth, high school and college sports. Up there with wildcats, hawks, bulldogs, tigers, etc.

[BJ Sands]

25 minutes ago, 4_tattoos said:

Gotta disagree. I feel like Knights is one of the most common names you'll come across in youth, high school and college sports. Up there with wildcats, hawks, bulldogs, tigers, etc.

Major-league sports?

[IceCap]

"Knights" is no more generic than "Tigers," "Lions," "Eagles," "Bears," "Flyers," "Sharks," or "Hawks." All of which are used by top flight sports franchises in North America. 

[O.C.D]

Las Vegas Diamonds or Las Vegas Silverbacks

[fumbler]

El Vee Hockey.

 

If they were the only choices to pick from i'd go with Vipers. Other wise Black Jacks or or Aces for me.

[daniel75]

I don't get the Flamingo connection. Other than having a casino named the Flamingo I don't associate Flamingos with L.V.

[sparkychewbarky]

8 hours ago, BeerGuyJordan said:

 Sparky's conceptual identity video, with mascot, alternates, branding and merchandising is incredible, while also promoting the military aviation heritage and a nice balance of gambling.

 

Thanks for that, Beer Guy.

 

8 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

Again...Sparky's concept wouldn't happen, even if the name was Aces. It's a non-starter for a name that's a non-starter. 

 

Thanks for that Ice_Cap.

Looking forward to proving you wrong.

[IceCap]

10 minutes ago, sparky chewbarky said:

Thanks for that Ice_Cap.

Looking forward to proving you wrong.

Eh? How? The name WON'T be Aces. Even it were they wouldn't use your concept. Not because it's bad...teams just don't accept fan concepts anymore. The legal case around the Baltimore Ravens' original fan-submitted logo killed the idea.

[FiddySicks]

7 hours ago, fumbler said:

Other wise Black Jacks or or Aces for me.

 

AWFUL choices. Especially considering Reno has already had pro baseball teams with both of those names. How is recycling crappy gambling-themed names any less generic than Knights?

 

Why not just call them the Las Vegas hockey 51s at that point?

[fumbler]

38 minutes ago, Bucfan56 said:

 

AWFUL choices. Especially considering Reno has already had pro baseball teams with both of those names. How is recycling crappy gambling-themed names any less generic than Knights?

 

Why not just call them the Las Vegas hockey 51s at that point?

 

I didn't know there were previous clubs named that.

I do like Black Jacks very very much.

 

Knights would make a nice identity but i still think Vipers is better.

 

[SlammMastaJ]

12 hours ago, O.C.D said:

Las Vegas Diamonds or Las Vegas Silverbacks

 

I like Las Vegas Diamonds / Las Vegas Checks / Las Vegas Aces

[sparkychewbarky]

8 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

Eh? How? The name WON'T be Aces. Even it were they wouldn't use your concept. Not because it's bad...teams just don't accept fan concepts anymore. The legal case around the Baltimore Ravens' original fan-submitted logo killed the idea.

Yea, Yea...I hate to admit it, but you're right.

 

Franchise legal management 101, (after the Ravens' thing) is that you do not acknowledge any receiving of any submissions from a fan.

 

Just so you know, I've never sent any of my work to a team...until now.

I do this only as a hobby for my own interest...but this idea kinda took off after it won a contest over at UniWatch.

Since then, the work has been featured on ESPN, TSN, CBC, The Hockey Writers, and of course, YouTube, SportsLogos, and HFBoards.

Between here, YouTube and ISSUU, my concepts have had 200,000 views.

I know for a fact that both the Vegas group, and Adidas have seen the concepts.

Again, this is something that I didn't plan, but just sorta took on a direction of its own.

 

It'll be interesting to see what Adidas comes up with.

Perhaps we should ask "MEANS" how it's going.

[VikWings]

How about they go with Outlaws!

 

 

 

[WSU151]

1 hour ago, sparky chewbarky said:

Yea, Yea...I hate to admit it, but you're right.

 

Franchise legal management 101, (after the Ravens' thing) is that you do not acknowledge any receiving of any submissions from a fan.

 

Well a team can receive fan submissions, but the fan(s) has to be compensated.  This has been dozens of times.  The Ravens got in trouble because they didn't compensate the fan and then lost a lawsuit. 

 

Mark Cuban picked the Mavericks' alternate jersey from a fan-design contest.  

[BrianLion]

yeah the Ravens issue was that they basically stole a fan's (bad) design.  (That winged shield logo was one of the WORST logos I've ever seen.)

 

Plenty of pro/college teams since then have solicited fan designs for alt logos, jerseys, etc.  You just have to compensate them for it.  

 

Don't give up, Sparky. 

[TBGKon]

Outlaws isn't a terrible name...but that skull steer logo is ugly.  Use the LV monogram as a secondary.

[BeerGuyJordan]

16 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

"Knights" is no more generic than "Tigers," "Lions," "Eagles," "Bears," "Flyers," "Sharks," or "Hawks." All of which are used by top flight sports franchises in North America. 

Not exactly: 

Eagles: Philadelphia touting itself as the birthplace of American freedom and using the national bird isn't generic.

Lions: Named to thematically fit with the city's Tigers team

Flyers: Result of a name the team contest.

Sharks, Hawks, Bears: a bit generic, but still part of the local fauna.

 

The only one that fits is Tigers, and I'm conceding that one because the origin is muddled.

 

Knights: ummm...no ties to the location, at all...but it sounds sounds good and...um...just because...

 

If the fans want a generic name, so be it. An owner forcing one on them just because it "sounds good," with no other reasoning has a solid argument as a bad business call.

 

[IceCap]

25 minutes ago, BeerGuyJordan said:

Not exactly: 

Eagles: Philadelphia touting itself as the birthplace of American freedom and using the national bird isn't generic.

The lack of a single red, white, and blue Philadelphia Eagles uniform has me thinking the name "Eagles" was chosen because the owners at the time thought it was a good name. Any connection to Philadelphia as "the birthplace of American freedom" seems like a stretch considering the team never once tried to play up the "eagle as a symbol for America" angle in their branding. 

 

Quote

Lions: Named to thematically fit with the city's Tigers team

And? What does the name Tigers have to do with Detroit? Both big cat names were chosen because ownership thought they sounded good. There's no "local" reason for either team to be named what they're named. And that's ok.

 

Quote

Flyers: Result of a name the team contest.

Again, I find myself asking "and?" I'm not talking about how the name was chosen. Merely the fact that the name has no inherent tie to Philadelphia. FFS, the Royal Canadian Air Force's hockey team used the name. 

 

Quote

Sharks, Hawks, Bears: a bit generic, but still part of the local fauna.

Don't try to claim the Atlanta Hawks' name has local significance. The team used the name "Hawks" in Milwaukee and St. Louis before they ended up in Atlanta. It's use by the team has nothing to do with any sort of local tie-in. If there is one? It's a happy accident. 

Bears? Sharks? These names are generic because they can apply to any number of places. You could use them for teams where there isn't a local connection and no one would bat an eye. The Memphis Grizzlies do just that!

 

Quote

Knights: ummm...no ties to the location, at all...but it sounds sounds good and...um...just because...

"Sounding good" should be the primary concern when it comes to naming a team. You shouldn't marry yourself to a local connection if no suitable option is available. 

 

I keep bringing up the Cleveland Cavaliers because thematically a Cavalier and a Knight are similar. They're both nobles who raise arms in the name of their monarch. A Cavalier is a Knight adapted to the age of gunpowder.

There is no local reason for a team in Cleveland to be named the Cavaliers. They went with it for one reason. It sounded good. And it worked out for them in the long run. 

 

"Knights" has a wealth of imagery to build an identity around. It sounds good. It has no ties to gambling. 

Passing on that to go with a sub-par name with a pained local connection? That's bad business in the long run.

If Vegas is going to succeede as a market? The long run has to be the focus. A name that can build a solid, enduring identity for potentially decades to come is key. "Knights" provides that. 

 

 

[Sykotyk]

Chicago Bears was because of the Chicago Cubs.

 

A name that has no local significance is the Pittsburgh Penguins. It's just alliterative and gives a 'cold' vibe that fits for a game played on ice. Nothing more.

 

Now, just up the road, YSU Penguins name was because of a basketball road trip through the snow. When the players got to the gym, they were shaking off the cold and snow and looked like they were walking like Penguins. The name just stuck and eventually all the sports teams became Penguins.

[OnWis97]

46 minutes ago, BeerGuyJordan said:

Not exactly: 

Eagles: Philadelphia touting itself as the birthplace of American freedom and using the national bird isn't generic.

Lions: Named to thematically fit with the city's Tigers team

Flyers: Result of a name the team contest.

Sharks, Hawks, Bears: a bit generic, but still part of the local fauna.

 

The only one that fits is Tigers, and I'm conceding that one because the origin is muddled.

 

Knights: ummm...no ties to the location, at all...but it sounds sounds good and...um...just because...

 

If the fans want a generic name, so be it. An owner forcing one on them just because it "sounds good," with no other reasoning has a solid argument as a bad business call.

 

Most of these names are roughly no more fitting to the city than "Knights."  A better argument from your standpoint is that most of them came about in the first half of the 20th Century; Eagles, Lions, Hawks, Bears. (Flyers and Sharks are newer and, while somewhat "generic" are not used nearly as frequently in high schools, etc.).  So your retort may be better of as "those are good names but they have been around for a long time; we don't need to be assigning generic names today.  Remember 'Bobcats?'"

 

I don't really like Knights myself, but I will say that I like "generic" better than "abstract" or weird.  Knights, while not outstanding, probably won't be regretted in ten years like, say, Wild.

 

Regarding city/regional representation, that is absolutely NOT a must.  Sure, Steelers, Ravens, Pacers, Padres, Brewers, etc. work great.  Magic (Kingdom) and Wild are representative of area and state, respectively and are, of course, awful.  A name can be good (or bad) either way.  Obviously, that is in the eye of the beholder (given our split on "Knights," "Aces," etc.).  I like a good local name like Steelers, but if that idea is insisted upon, we'd end up with some real bad names (well, more...we already have "Wild").

 

Regarding gambling: I don't want to see an obvious gambling reference, not because of the whole "image" thing but because it's just almost too obvious and the team should not be party to sorta pigeonholing Las Vegas as being nothing more than that.  I don't love "Knights" because I really do get a "generic" vibe more than I do from, say, Eagles.  But I'll take it over "Black Jacks" any day.  Going too obvious on gambling is one step above sticking "Ice" before a name.  Go Ice Knights.

 

TL;DR: Learn from "Wild."