NHL 2017-18

[OnWis97]

6 hours ago, Corvus said:

 

Do you feel the Blackhawks need to incorporate all the colours in their logo into their jersey colours? Or the Senators? They have essentially the same issue, colours in one part of the uniform that don't appear elsewhere. 

 

I have never seen a concept for Green on the orca logo that didn't look awful. Generally, it makes it look like it has algae growing on it, which is usually a bad sign for aquatic creatures I think. 

I’m a fan of the two colors plus white look.  To me Vancouver is blue and green.  Chicago is black and red.  The Steelers are black and yellow.  I don’t think of all those extra logo colors as team colors.  Vancouver is pushing one of its key colors to the side.  I hated that the Timberwolves used to do that, too.

 

As for how the logo would look with green incorporated, if it cannot work, then I consider the inability to use one of the two main colors in the logo to be a fatal flaw in the identity.

[Bayne]

14 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

I wasn't even talking to you and you decide to get personal with it. More proof from our earlier discussion that you need to do something about that hair trigger. Not every person with a conflicting opinion is out to personally get you. Nor are they required to keep quiet to avoid upsetting your sensibilities.

 

To the point? I didn't even say that the Canucks' logo was bad. I was merely explaining how it didn't fit with the "VANCOUVER" text it's been paired with. Yet you leapt immediately to the "WHAT? ICE_CAP HATES ANOTHER 90S LOGO? TO THE INTERNET BOX!"

 

I'll just point you to the Seattle Seahawks' original logo vs current logo. That style doesn't have be as agressive as the Canucks' logo makes it out to be.

 

I mean there are a few ways. The first option would be to keep the orca but drop the VANCOUVER text. The second option would be to keep the VANCOUVER text but redesign the orca/C, keeping the same spirit but simplifying it a bit to better match the flat style the text uses. The third option would be to drop both the orca and text entirely and just run with the V/Johnny mashup as the primary.

 

All credibility lost right there.

 

[Thaumatrope]

6 hours ago, Corvus said:

 

Do you feel the Blackhawks need to incorporate all the colours in their logo into their jersey colours? Or the Senators? They have essentially the same issue, colours in one part of the uniform that don't appear elsewhere. 

 

This is an interesting observation. If we were to develop a “unified theory of good uniform design” would it be accurate to state that a logo can have more colors than the jersey, but not less? 

 

In addition to the examples you gave, I’d argue the Avalanche, Jets, and Sharks also support this. Just to be clear, I think San Jose has god awful jerseys, but it has nothing to do with the lack of orange.

 

Las Vegas is the only other team in the league that I can think of that’s like Vancouver, but as others have pointed out, red is a minor detail color compared to grey, gold, and black. Still, I wouldn’t mind a subtle red key line on the logo.

[TBGKon]

On 1/23/2018 at 12:01 PM, Ice_Cap said:

I think most people would be ok with the current slate of outdoor games if we got some new blood. We don’t need Chicago playing in these things every other year. 

So this years slate was good in your opinion....

 

Buffalo and NY Rangers?

Washington and Toronto?\

 

 

[IceCap]

35 minutes ago, AstroBull21 said:

So this years slate was good in your opinion....

 

Buffalo and NY Rangers?

Washington and Toronto?\

 

 

Da. 

 

EDIT- 

It wasn’t perfect. Washington’s been in a few, and Toronto was just in one last year. 

Overall though? It’s better than some other years have been. 

 

4 hours ago, Bayne said:

 

All credibility lost right there.

 

I’m sorry you feel that way, but it’s ok. You’re allowed to be wrong   

[Sport]

I don't get the argument for keeping the Vancouver lettering over the logo when the logo previously worked on a jersey just fine without it. 

 

There's also a handful of different ways they could work some green into the orca which would help the logo look like it actually belongs to the jersey it's on. I don't believe that it has to be just blue and white and I don't think it should be either. 

 

 

OR they just do the correct thing with Skatin' Johnny and solve all their problems. 

[Chromatic]

12 hours ago, Corvus said:

 

Do you feel the Blackhawks need to incorporate all the colours in their logo into their jersey colours? Or the Senators? They have essentially the same issue, colours in one part of the uniform that don't appear elsewhere. 

 

I have never seen a concept for Green on the orca logo that didn't look awful. Generally, it makes it look like it has algae growing on it, which is usually a bad sign for aquatic creatures I think. 

This is irrelevant. They're entirely separate uniforms in entirely separate identities. Do you think the Blackhawks look bad because they don't have 'CHICAGO' arched over the logo? 

 

The fact that green doesn't work with the orca is just another contributing factor to why it looks bad and out of place, but it's not the only reason.

[M4One]

The Canucks should go with the full Johnny Canuck.  They've put it on a green fashion jersey and it doesn't look bad at all.  If that isn't possible, then just go with the stick in rink.  Even though it may not be the strongest logo when compared to, say the Montreal Canadiens, it is still a far better logo than the Orca.  

 

And green doesn't need to be added to the numbers, as it has never been there, and I think it would just bleed into the blue and be unnoticeable.  Green in the collar would only work if they are able to go back to having three layers like on the original jersey as I think there should be some separation between the two colours.

 

[Morgan33]

I'm not saying the full bodied Johnny Canuck couldn't work, but on that particular picture it looks awful.  Maybe it's the crest material, the small size, awkward placement, cheap looking premier template or all four but that really does look like a screen-print for a beer-league team. 

[andrewharrington]

14 hours ago, Corvus said:

 

Do you feel the Blackhawks need to incorporate all the colours in their logo into their jersey colours? Or the Senators? They have essentially the same issue, colours in one part of the uniform that don't appear elsewhere. 

 

I have never seen a concept for Green on the orca logo that didn't look awful. Generally, it makes it look like it has algae growing on it, which is usually a bad sign for aquatic creatures I think. 

 

I think Vancouver is in a unique situation compared to those teams, though, because not only do they have a color in the logo that’s not on the uniform, but they also have a main color on the uniform that’s not in the logo. One or the other can work, but both is quite difficult to pull off.

 

I think the Orca logo looks fine with a green C and a royal blue whale (and no silver).

 

7 hours ago, Thaumatrope said:

 

This is an interesting observation. If we were to develop a “unified theory of good uniform design” would it be accurate to state that a logo can have more colors than the jersey, but not less? 

 

In addition to the examples you gave, I’d argue the Avalanche, Jets, and Sharks also support this. Just to be clear, I think San Jose has god awful jerseys, but it has nothing to do with the lack of orange.

 

Las Vegas is the only other team in the league that I can think of that’s like Vancouver, but as others have pointed out, red is a minor detail color compared to grey, gold, and black. Still, I wouldn’t mind a subtle red key line on the logo.

 

I don’t know that it’s prudent make a “rule” or define a formula. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t.

 

The Blackhawks use extra colors in their logo to add interest and realism to the main design element, but their team colors are still red and black, both of which are featured in their logo. I also think their uniform would be a bit blah without the extra colors. I also fully admit that if you described the Blackhawks’ scenario to me without knowing what it looks like, I’d probably doubt that it would work.

 

I think red could make a welcome addition to the Vegas logo (neon tube outline for the shield and on the star secondary?). I also think the uniform would work without red. It’s also not bad the way it is, and they deserve pretty high marks for their identity, though I feel like there’s one too many colors, be it white, red or black that’s the culprit at any given time.

 

A good example of a team that uses fewer colors in its logo than its uniform? Tampa Bay, though I think they’re missing an opportunity to take advantage of it. I actually wish they used much more black in the striping and left the mark and numbers solid blue and solid white. The Dallas Cowboys are a good example of a team with a single color mark (plus white, I guess) but whose identity is well known for its use of silver.

[Corvus]

3 hours ago, Chromatic said:

This is irrelevant. They're entirely separate uniforms in entirely separate identities. Do you think the Blackhawks look bad because they don't have 'CHICAGO' arched over the logo? 

 

The fact that green doesn't work with the orca is just another contributing factor to why it looks bad and out of place, but it's not the only reason.

 

It's relevant to see how consistent an argument is, to see if the criteria for suggesting change needs to be made applies in all cases, is based on design principles, or if it applies to both ends of the issue of colour palette consistency between jersey elements and logo. 

 

Edit: Also, that would be a bold new direction for Chicago. 

 

I'd be fine with eliminating the text from the Canucks logo. 

[Chromatic]

19 minutes ago, Corvus said:

 

It's relevant to see how consistent an argument is, to see if the criteria for suggesting change needs to be made applies in all cases, is based on design principles, or if it applies to both ends of the issue of colour palette consistency between jersey elements and logo. 

 

Edit: Also, that would be a bold new direction for Chicago. 

 

I'd be fine with eliminating the text from the Canucks logo. 

But it varies on a case by case basis. Like I said they're a separate detail in separate identities. You might have a case if Vancouver and Chicago were using the exact same logo with different colours, but they aren't. You're just picking a detail, saying "but this team does it" as evidence that it's good. I'm not making the case that "logos need to be perfectly in sync with the colours on a uniform", I'm saying this specific instance of this particular logo does not look good.

I made this point earlier but I'll do it again. This maligned jersey uses an arched wordmark as well. Therefore if you like the Canucks use of the script you are obligated to like it here, and if you don't like it you cannot possibly like it here either. 

[Echo]

20 hours ago, Chewbacca said:

Besides Ottawa wearing their outdoor jersey for multiple games this season, will there be any other teams that will be wearing their outdoor jerseys more than once this season?

 

The Sabres will be wearing their Winter Classic jerseys 3 times at home this season, 2/8 vs the Islanders, 2/19 vs the Capitals and 4/4 against the Senators.  I believe the Rangers also plan on wearing theirs a few more times but I don't know the dates.

[Thaumatrope]

1 hour ago, andrewharrington said:

I don’t know that it’s prudent make a “rule” or define a formula. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t.

 

I admit I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek about the whole "unified theory" remark. Design is one of those things where there are a great many rules about what looks good and what doesn't only to have something new come along that breaks all the old rules and establishes a whole new set of rules. 

---

What I will argue is that sports are a unique beast when it comes to design, as you inevitably have to deal with brand equity...which is to say the value that a logo or jersey accumulates over time. Since the Blackhawks keep coming up in this thread, I'll use them as an example.

 

I realize it's not easy to do (especially if you have any connection with the team) but if you can take a step back and look at the logo as being completely new to the world and without any concrete associations with anything...it's not a particularly great logo. Before anybody starts getting upset, allow me to explain:

 

From a technical perspective the logo that was introduced in 1999 is quite charming. The details in the face are particularly pleasant. The understated smile, the stylized spiral of the nostril, the serene gaze...all well executed. Things fall apart a bit with the hair and feathers. Compared with the face they are much more abstract, more flat. The simple elegance of the black, white, red, and bronze is replaced by a cacophony of yellow, green, blue, and orange. Worse still, there doesn't appear to be any particular purpose or order to the colors. It's like when a child gets a new box of crayons and decides to use as many as possible. 

 

Things become even more confusing from a branding perspective. If I was looking at the logo for the first time I'd assume it was for a rustic lodge-themed resort somewhere in Wisconsin, or maybe workwear like leather boots and gloves. The logo feels placid, calm, and ernest. The figure is one of understated satisfaction, like a native buddha figure. None of these things are bad...but by the same token none of these things are in line with what I'd expect from a professional hockey team either. There is no intensity to the logo, no sense of momentum, or competition. The logo is the face of someone who smiles as they watch more foolish men scramble to achieve what is ultimately an illusion. 

 

Worse still, there is nothing connecting the logo to what it represents. Which is to say there is nothing inherent in the logo that connects it to Chicago, and unless you know that Black Hawk was a native leader, there's no direct connection with the name Blackhawks either. (As an aside, does anyone else find it strange that Chicago uses a plural for what is effectively a proper singular name? It's the equivalent of being the George Washingtons or the Abraham Lincolns. I realize the team is supposed to be named after a military division named after Black Hawk, but the whole thing is as grammatically frustrating as the Maple Leafs.) As a result the only way that we know what the logo represents is in the context of someone else telling us. From a contemporary branding perspective this is very problematic. 

 

Last but not least, the logo does not reproduce well. Obviously generations of designers have worked to make the logo as clean and reproducible as possible, but it still struggles to be easily read at small sizes, or when the color palette is limited. When I've taught graphic design over the years these are key principles that I come back to time and again. A logo is a tool of the brand, and the more ways in which a logo can be used (on a bottle cap, a billboard, an icon on a website,  stitched into a scarf, etc.) the more effective a tool it can be. While the Blackhawks logo can be deployed in these various settings, the end results can vary quite a bit, and consistency is another key element of good branding.

 

Ultimately none of these things matter because the Blackhawks have close to 100 years of history with some version of that logo and the equity invested in the brand make it effectively untouchable. The point being that sports based design (and branding) exists in its own universe where even the most agreed upon rules of design do not apply as strongly or consistently...if at all.

 

[Thaumatrope]

Oh jeez...sorry for the wall of text everybody.

 

Sometimes when I start writing I end up in a fugue state and when I come out the other side I've written an essay...my apologies. Carry on with your business.

[The_Admiral]

16 hours ago, Thaumatrope said:

Worse still, there is nothing connecting the logo to what it represents. Which is to say there is nothing inherent in the logo that connects it to Chicago, and unless you know that Black Hawk was a native leader, there's no direct connection with the name Blackhawks either.

 

There's a bunch of stuff named for Black Hawk around Illinois and Iowa. It's a more locally relevant name than anything with bears or socks.

[Thaumatrope]

1 hour ago, the admiral said:

 

There's a bunch of stuff named for Black Hawk around Illinois and Iowa. It's a more locally relevant name than anything with bears or socks.

 

Thats fair. I don't disagree that Black Hawk is much more culturally relevant to Chicago than bears, their offspring, or guys in white socks. 

 

However, there's nothing about the logo itself that visually connects it to Chicago, or to Black Hawk himself short of a very rudimentary "Black Hawk was a native leader, therefore a logo of a native person symbolizes Black Hawk" kind of logic. Yes, people in the region are likely to be aware of who Black Hawk was, but to suggest that the image of a native person automatically creates a connection with Black Hawk is akin to suggesting a logo of a 19th century white man would be inherently associated with Abraham Lincoln.  

[The_Admiral]

The logo should be you because like Black Hawk, you're valiantly fighting a losing effort.

[andrewharrington]

2 hours ago, Thaumatrope said:

 

Thats fair. I don't disagree that Black Hawk is much more culturally relevant to Chicago than bears, their offspring, or guys in white socks. 

 

However, there's nothing about the logo itself that visually connects it to Chicago, or to Black Hawk himself short of a very rudimentary "Black Hawk was a native leader, therefore a logo of a native person symbolizes Black Hawk" kind of logic. Yes, people in the region are likely to be aware of who Black Hawk was, but to suggest that the image of a native person automatically creates a connection with Black Hawk is akin to suggesting a logo of a 19th century white man would be inherently associated with Abraham Lincoln.  

 

The interesting thing to me is, well... none of the other Chicago logos have any visual connection to Chicago, either. It's really time and the investment thereof that has made all these marks synonymous with Chicago. There are very few logos more than, say, twenty years old that *do* have any visual connection to the locales they represent, other than *maybe* color. It's a very recent phenomenon, and the approach seems to be resonating with fans. Maybe because it feels more personal, like some designer thought about what you would like as a fan from wherever. Maybe it's increased tribalism, where fans are learning about and want to rally behind their own special icons. Maybe it's the fact that non-specific design is a tough egg to crack these days, and the easiest way to make something unique is to localize it. Probably a bit of each.

[Kevin W.]

7 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

none of the other Chicago logos have any visual connection to Chicago, either.

The Fire's logo does.