ColeJ Posted April 19, 2017 Author Share Posted April 19, 2017 3 minutes ago, Cosmic said: Hopefully this is in the right spirit: A Sabre is a weapon that a Blue Jacket officer would have carried. The Preds took the Sabres' mascot and turned it into their identity. The Canucks' orca logo only appeared after the Whalers went away. There is a team called the Stars, and three other NHL teams have stars in their primary logos. The Blues and the Flyers came into the league in the same year, and they have similar wing-y shapes in their logos. The Bills and the New York Rangers are both New York State RWB teams whose names are based on Western-themed puns that don't really translate into their identity at all. you're totally on point. your post also reminds me that like vikings/buccs = raiders, panthers/sharks/coyotes = predators... and the wild's logo and canucks' logo would also represent a predator. the response to this thread pleases me. it's nice to have a place as nerdy as me to even discuss this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted April 19, 2017 Share Posted April 19, 2017 8 hours ago, SilverBullet1929 said: Agreed but the way I remember it from their rebrand, they put the Rays of sunshine theme first and the devil ray on the sleeve was meant as an homage to their previous identity. Like moving forward without forgetting their past. Silly I know but that was the explanation. Yeah, but that was so stupidly, transparently false that nobody believed them. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFGiants58 Posted April 19, 2017 Share Posted April 19, 2017 52 minutes ago, Gothamite said: Yeah, but that was so stupidly, transparently false that nobody believed them. My guess is that the Rays were unsure about the whole "ray of light" identity back in 2007/08, so they stuck the old devil ray patch on their sleeves in case they wanted to readopt the old look. Seeing as how it's been ten seasons with the "ray of light" style (complete with a fauxback set), they team is well past the point of needing the recolored devil ray patch. I think @hockey week described this practice as "transitional branding" or something similar, using the example of the Robo-Pen patch on the Penguins' 2002-07 sweaters and the recolored "B-sword" on the Buffaslugs. MLB: Project 32 (Complete), MLB: The Defunct Saga (Complete) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hockey week Posted April 19, 2017 Share Posted April 19, 2017 16 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said: My guess is that the Rays were unsure about the whole "ray of light" identity back in 2007/08, so they stuck the old devil ray patch on their sleeves in case they wanted to readopt the old look. Seeing as how it's been ten seasons with the "ray of light" style (complete with a fauxback set), they team is well past the point of needing the recolored devil ray patch. I think @hockey week described this practice as "transitional branding" or something similar, using the example of the Robo-Pen patch on the Penguins' 2002-07 sweaters and the recolored "B-sword" on the Buffaslugs. Yeah, it's an opt out. A whole "Just kidding!" rip-cord that they can pull and say it was all just experimenting with the brand without throwing it all away. Honestly, I think it's a pretty solid idea in most cases. I'll respect any opinion that you can defend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted April 19, 2017 Share Posted April 19, 2017 Then maybe it's time to finally pull that rip cord. Half measures are seldom the best choice. But I'm not sure I buy that - there's nothing else "transitional" about their rebrand. If they were really unsure about it, I can think of a half-dozen other things they could have done to mitigate the sense of change. Of course, "sense of change" was precisely the point with this one. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrianLion Posted April 19, 2017 Share Posted April 19, 2017 Well it's not completely unheard of for teams from warm weather locales to reference that in their uniforms, even if it really has nothing to do with their identity. The Rays just had the benefit of the play on words/homonym.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greyraven8 Posted April 19, 2017 Share Posted April 19, 2017 On 4/18/2017 at 10:08 AM, ColeJ said: This may or may not fit the theme, but as a hockey fan in Dallas, it gets confusing having a Rangers play against the Dallas hockey team when there is also a Rangers sharing a market (and once an owner) with the team. Also if we are talking same-city stuff, it must have been odd for local Cowboys fans in 1993 to have the new hockey team name themselves Stars when their own team's logo was literally just a Dallas Star. I don't remember because I was a recently transplanted 9 year old at the time. On the same name different major league, besides the Rangers (NHL) and Rangers (MLB) there are the Jets (NFL) and Jets (NHL). Within the NHL we have the weather related Lightning and Hurricanes "Just when I thought you'd said the stupidest thing, you keep on talking" - Hank Hill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferdinand Cesarano Posted April 19, 2017 Share Posted April 19, 2017 11 minutes ago, greyraven8 said: there are the Jets (NFL) and Jets (NHL). Originally that was the Jets (AFL) and Jets (WHA). Even though the AFL was gone by the time the WHA started, the WHA used AFL names for a few other teams: Oilers, Raiders, Broncos. That league also had two teams with ABA names: Cougars, Spurs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leopard88 Posted April 19, 2017 Share Posted April 19, 2017 I assume that, like their American counterparts, Canadian Senators propose and vote on Bills as part of their legislative duties. In the United States, such Bills are acted in upon in Washington, DC and various state Capitals. Most Liked Content of the Day -- February 15, 2017, August 21, 2017, August 22, 2017 ///// Proud Winner of the CCSLC Post of the Day Award -- April 8, 2008 Originator of the Upside Down Sarcasm Smilie -- November 1, 2005 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferdinand Cesarano Posted April 19, 2017 Share Posted April 19, 2017 15 minutes ago, leopard88 said: I assume that, like their American counterparts, Canadian Senators propose and vote on Bills as part of their legislative duties. In the United States, such Bills are acted in upon in Washington, DC and various state Capitals. The Canadian Senate was created as the analogue of the British House of Lords; it is not expected to participate in the making of legislation, except to propose minor changes to bills passed by the House of Commons. The Senate theoretically has the power to veto legislation passed by the House of Commons, but almost never does so -- and would probably precipitate a constitutional crisis if it did so again. Its members are not elected, but appointed by the Prime Minister. (Technically, it is the Governor-General, the Crown's representative, who makes the appointments. But in practice it is the Prime Minister who decides on this.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sport Posted April 19, 2017 Share Posted April 19, 2017 16 hours ago, ColeJ said: Just ask the Blue Jackets, who tried to fit 3 meanings in. lol. northern civil war soldiers, yellow jacket wearing a blue jacket, and? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leopard88 Posted April 19, 2017 Share Posted April 19, 2017 19 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said: The Canadian Senate was created as the analogue of the British House of Lords; it is not expected to participate in the making of legislation, except to propose minor changes to bills passed by the House of Commons. The Senate theoretically has the power to veto legislation passed by the House of Commons, but almost never does so -- and would probably precipitate a constitutional crisis if it did so again. Its members are not elected, but appointed by the Prime Minister. (Technically, it is the Governor-General, the Crown's representative, who makes the appointments. But in practice it is the Prime Minister who decides on this.) Damnit!!! Most Liked Content of the Day -- February 15, 2017, August 21, 2017, August 22, 2017 ///// Proud Winner of the CCSLC Post of the Day Award -- April 8, 2008 Originator of the Upside Down Sarcasm Smilie -- November 1, 2005 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColeJ Posted April 19, 2017 Author Share Posted April 19, 2017 3 hours ago, McCarthy said: northern civil war soldiers, yellow jacket wearing a blue jacket, and? During their inaugural unveilings they kept mentioning a War Chief named Blue Jacket, of the Ohio Shawnee tribe. Though they knew better than to shoehorn in a logo about that one, they did not shy away from mentioning it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceCap Posted April 19, 2017 Share Posted April 19, 2017 3 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said: The Canadian Senate was created as the analogue of the British House of Lords; it is not expected to participate in the making of legislation, except to propose minor changes to bills passed by the House of Commons. The Senate theoretically has the power to veto legislation passed by the House of Commons, but almost never does so -- and would probably precipitate a constitutional crisis if it did so again. Its members are not elected, but appointed by the Prime Minister. (Technically, it is the Governor-General, the Crown's representative, who makes the appointments. But in practice it is the Prime Minister who decides on this.) Typical speech in the Canadian Senate: "Why the Senate is important." PotD 26/2/12 1/7/15 2020 BASS Spin the Wheel, Make the Deal Regular Season Champion 2021 BASS NFL Pick'em Regular Season Champion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mingjai Posted April 19, 2017 Share Posted April 19, 2017 On 4/16/2017 at 11:23 PM, ColeJ said: now THIS, i did not know... and i just double checked to back up your claim, and this is now one of my favorite annoying facts that i will use to destroy real sports conversations in the future... i already thought that it was odd, but acceptable, that two large wild cats joined the league at the same time... but now that i've learned that north american black panthers are actually just black furred jaguars, it boggles my mind. panthers/jaguars is actually the best example of this for me now... that's better than raider/viking, giant/titan, or canuck/canadien. Point of order: Panthers in North America can also refer to cougars--e.g., the Pitt Panthers and Florida Panthers. Because melanistic cougars are scientifically unconfirmed, the term "black panther" is limited for practical purposes to leopards or jaguars. Visit my store on REDBUBBLE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDubK414 Posted April 19, 2017 Share Posted April 19, 2017 Along with Rangers and perhaps Cowboys (NFL), I like that 2 Wisconsin teams are named after occupations, Brewers (MLB) and Packers (NFL). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCM0313 Posted April 19, 2017 Share Posted April 19, 2017 1 hour ago, Mingjai said: Point of order: Panthers in North America can also refer to cougars--e.g., the Pitt Panthers and Florida Panthers. Because melanistic cougars are scientifically unconfirmed, the term "black panther" is limited for practical purposes to leopards or jaguars. Right. Technically there's no single species known as a "panther" - it was a mythological creature in Roman (?) times. Cougars, I believe, are interchangeable with "pumas", "wildcats", and "mountain lions". The "big cats" in general are members of the genus (?) Pantera, so technically they are all panthers in that sense - but there's no one specific animal known as a panther. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted April 19, 2017 Share Posted April 19, 2017 2 hours ago, ColeJ said: During their inaugural unveilings they kept mentioning a War Chief named Blue Jacket, of the Ohio Shawnee tribe. Though they knew better than to shoehorn in a logo about that one, they did not shy away from mentioning it. Pretty sure they only mentioned the chief to say that the team wasn't named after him. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColeJ Posted April 20, 2017 Author Share Posted April 20, 2017 2 hours ago, Gothamite said: Pretty sure they only mentioned the chief to say that the team wasn't named after him. Oh? I remember it differently, but maybe I'm having a Mandela effect moment. I thought they were listing the reasons behind the name, and they said it was an homage to the Union soldiers, a local indian chief, and the mascot was a made-up bug loosely based on yellow jackets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceCap Posted April 20, 2017 Share Posted April 20, 2017 The obvious logo should have been the Stinger logo in a Union soldier's uniform while wearing a comical Native headdress. PotD 26/2/12 1/7/15 2020 BASS Spin the Wheel, Make the Deal Regular Season Champion 2021 BASS NFL Pick'em Regular Season Champion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.