Toronto206

Seattle NHL Brand Discussion

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Thaumatrope said:

 

I think you may be overstating the willingness of a generation/mindset to buck convention...at least when it comes to professional sports naming conventions. While I would not consider myself young, I am a millennial (barely), live in the PNW (kinda), and am about as progressive as they get. However the prospect of a non-mascot brand (ie Seattle HC or similar) feels like both lazy branding and an attempt to cash in on the popularity of another sport...neither of which is a good impression.

 

This isn't to say that Seattle couldn't attempt something unconventional. The inclusion of names like Emeralds, Evergreens, Rainiers, and Totems speaks to the organization's apparent willingness to deviate from the trend of overtly aggressive, fast, violent, etc. names. Honestly I think this represents a more significant (and likely) challenge to convention that would be in line with Seattle's reputation as a young, progressive market...and I am 100% on board. 

 

Fair enough, but for every one of you, there’s probably one of me, who ticks all the same boxes and really likes the idea.

 

3 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

The first MLS team to adopt a “City FC” name (outside of DC United) was FC Dallas. In the heart of conservative Texas. 

 

Regardless? You’re forgetting that European naming conventions only work in MLS because soccer fans are, by and large, set in their tastes.

“FC Dallas,” “Toronto FC,” and “DC United” fly because those names are in line with “that’s how it’s done” according to soccer. 

“City FC” isn’t the revolution you’re making it out to be. In fact that style of name’s prominence in MLS reflects the failure of the league’s attempt to revolutionise soccer naming conventions. 

“City FC” names and their prominence in MLS represent the victory of the status quo over “progressive” naming conventions as far as soccer goes. 

 

Where does this leave hockey? Well again, you’re talking about the NHL. Which, unlike MLS, represents the highest level the sport is played at in the world. Unlike MLS? The NHL “sets the standards” of the sport. I can only think of two non-NA style names in NHL history; the franchise that would become the Maple Leafs and the franchise that would become the Maroons. 

Both were officially known as only “Toronto” and “Montreal” at first, but it’s worth noting that we remember them as the “Toronto Arenas” and “Montreal Maroons.” Why? Well it’s because the prodomiennce of North American naming conventions dictates that we do. It just seems off to refer to the pre-St. Pats Leafs as “the Toronto hockey club owned by the Toronto Arena Company.” No, they’re the Toronto Arenas for all intents and purposes. 

 

Now Seattle’s progressivism...forgive me, but I’m finding it hard to see how that matters. Seattle’s just as much a haven for venture capitalism and the upper middle class as it is a hotbed of progressive politics, but that’s neither here nor there. 

I’m just saying. The Bay Area has just as much, if not more, of a history when it comes to progressive politics and no one seems put out by a “how it’s always done” name like the San Jose Sharks. 

New York is solidly liberal but neither “New York Islanders” or “New York Rangers” seems to be putting off younger crowds there. 

 

So why exactly is “Seattle HC” perfect for “progrsssive” Seattle? Is it because they like soccer? Well Seattle’s MLS team name is a weird hodgepodge of European and NA naming conventions, so I’m not sure what that proves.

 

Is it because the young, urban fan base likes kitchy things that buck convention? That’s the only real answer I can seem to wrap my head around to be honest.

Even then...I’m not sure how well that would work. I’m not sure how confident the NHL would be at marketing that name outside of a niche group of Seattle fans. 

 

Not to mention the very good point BBTV brought up. Team names used to develop organically among fans or the press.

That’s impossible this day and age. Every colour commentator, journalist, hack blogger, and fan group knows the game from the get-go with a name like “Seattle HC.” Broadcasts, blogs, “official” fangroup sites, and Twitter are going to be flooded by people attempting to make their idea the “organic” fan choice. 

 

If the brass behind the Seattle NHL team wants a fan-coined nickname? They can run a name the team contest. 

 

You’re forgetting one of the most successful teams of the era: Ottawa Hockey Club. :-)

 

I can’t argue with anything you’re saying here. Everyone understands these points and many share your opinion on them. I just think you’re underestimating the willingness of fans to support something different like this. These are the fans that have willingly embraced a color that no one else uses and that nearly everyone outside Seattle hates.

 

There’s also the recent wave of tribalism, which I think has shown that city-centric design is wildly appealing to people if done right. Another alternative way to think about it: whatever the team nickname is, it will be polarizing, but everyone can get behind Seattle. I’d love to see them build an identity around the color green and the region itself. Having an official name like Seattle H.C. allows them to do that (even if they wanted to informally be the Evergreens or something) without having to resort to using a tree as the logo.

 

The likelihood of Seattle H.C. happening truly is unfathomably slim. At some point, though, someone is going to try something like this, and my only point is I think Seattle would be a good candidate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

 

That’s impossible this day and age. Every colour commentator, journalist, hack blogger, and fan group knows the game from the get-go with a name like “Seattle HC.” Broadcasts, blogs, “official” fangroup sites, and Twitter are going to be flooded by people attempting to make their idea the “organic” fan choice. 

 

I can attest to this. Once the Burn became FC Dallas, every facet of social media started saying "maybe we can be called the Toros?" "No we can be THE HOOPS!" "We wear red! Rojos? Diablos? Vaqueros?"

 

All these years later and all those nicknames are silly. People usually just call them FCD (eff see dee).

 

Sports fans are too aware now. You can't have an organic name develop, because once everyone knows that's the plan, they inorganically fixate on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

You’re forgetting one of the most successful teams of the era: Ottawa Hockey Club. :-)

 

And like the Toronto Arenas (Toronto Hockey Club) and Montreal Maroons (Montreal Hockey Club)? Everyone just calls them the Ottawa Senators. They do that because that’s just how hockey works. 

 

52 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

There’s also the recent wave of tribalism, which I think has shown that city-centric design is wildly appealing to people if done right.

This veers a bit from the “Seattle HC” discussion but I think tribalism in Seattle Sports is exactly why a colour scheme making use of red with green accents is the way to go. 

 

With the Sea Wolves rugby team adopting navy and neon green and attempting to ape the Sounders’ fan and team culture? The Seattle market is, frankly, over-saturated with faux kitsch. 

 

A primarily red identity that’s a hockey team first and foremost- and not tied into “everyone goes to the game with a scarf” culture- just might stand out in the crowded Seattle market. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, B-Rich said:

And at the time, it obviously was not about appropriating the European naming history/tradition for "United" (originally used as a combination of one or more clubs), but more like a nod to the European naming style while being a clever play on words, with DC being the capital of the United States.

 

Common misconception, but still not true.

 

It can mean that (Newcastle United), but in most cases teams just chose “United” because it sounded good.  So DC is exactly like Manchester United, West Ham United, and the like.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mind DC United because it goes with the United States. Real Salt Lake and Sporting Kansas City are bad jokes.

Share this post


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

The likelihood of Seattle H.C. happening truly is unfathomably slim. At some point, though, someone is going to try something like this, and my only point is I think Seattle would be a good candidate.

 

While I disagree about Seattle, I do agree that at some point a “big four” team is going to roll the dice on this strategy. But I don’t think it will be a new organization that will be the first. Rather, I suspect the first team to attempt a “City Club” brand will be an established team with a deeply tarnished brand. As rediculous as it may sound, a team like the Cleveland Indians or Washington Redskins are ideal candidates. They have so much history with their current brands that any attempt to rebrand would feel forced and inauthentic...why not own it (and give a middle finger to contemporary sports branding in general) and be the DCFC or Cleveland Baseball (or just Cleveland...how ballsy would that be?). 

 

Obviously we’re talking about a pretty unlikely series of events, but I feel like that’s a far more likely scenario than Seattle HC...or any new franchise giving up an opportunity to launch a new brand in favor of a generic “City Club” style brand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Pharos04 said:

It would be interesting if they were to go completely "Seattle Hockey Club" but there's too much money to be made on merchandise with the nickname on it right from the start. There's no way they would pass up on that.  Even if they did, they'd have to come up with a crest for the sweater.  So unless they just go with an S like the Metros did, they would already have decided on a nickname at that point and try to play up the "HC" aspect, or they'd become the Metros or Totems by default in that regard.

 

Regarding this whole naming convention debacle, a reminder that even in the history of hockey in North America, the coveted Stanley Cup was won by teams with great nicknames such as:

Montreal Hockey Club (1893, 1894, 1902, 1903)

Ottawa Hockey Club (the original Senators) (1903, 1904, 1905, 1906,1909, 1910, 1911, 1920, 1921, 1923, 1927)

Toronto Hockey Club (Blueshirts, not the Maple Leafs) (1914)

the other Toronto Hockey Club (Arenas, which DID become the Maple Leafs) (1918)

 

okay maybe it's a Canada thing...there was also Winnipeg HC, Galt HC, Edmonton HC (which consisted of two teams, the Thistles and the Stars)

 

Personally? I think it would be a unique take harkening back and would certainly help the team stand out.  But with the amount of cash in marketing and nicknames and shortening of nicknames and everything, I don't see it happening.

 

Lovely.

Pure, without the nonsense.

 

Everyone is banging on about them NOT doing it due to merch sales, but if they are the only club in the whole league to do it then I see it as the opposite and they would benefit greatly.

No sports commentators calling them by their nicknames, no supporter calling them by their nicknames, etc. It would be all Seattle Hockey Club has won 10 in a row, Seattle Hockey Club signs so and so. 

I see it as a better sell than Seattle Whatnots or Seatle Thingys, in a society where we expect a new club to have an identity to what we have all become accustomed to, this could be the one outside of the box, or a return to what once was.

 

It could become bigger than other identities.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/14/2018 at 10:54 AM, Thaumatrope said:

 

My apologies. I admit I'm not well versed on the tribal groups of the PNW. However, based on some quick research, the Haida and Salish cultures share very similar design aesthetics:

 

Salish:                                                                   Haida:

                

 

Obviously these are both contemporary pieces taken from the internet, so I'd be hard pressed to make any claims that either image is definitively Salish or Haida, however I would argue that there are enough similarities between the two that the lay person would be hard pressed to distinguish one from another. Obviously if the Seattle organization decides to adopt indigenous design elements it would be in their best interest to recognize local tribal groups first and foremost, regardless of the exact geographic origins of the design.

White*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Thaumatrope said:

 

While I disagree about Seattle, I do agree that at some point a “big four” team is going to roll the dice on this strategy. But I don’t think it will be a new organization that will be the first. Rather, I suspect the first team to attempt a “City Club” brand will be an established team with a deeply tarnished brand. As rediculous as it may sound, a team like the Cleveland Indians or Washington Redskins are ideal candidates. They have so much history with their current brands that any attempt to rebrand would feel forced and inauthentic...why not own it (and give a middle finger to contemporary sports branding in general) and be the DCFC or Cleveland Baseball (or just Cleveland...how ballsy would that be?). 

 

Obviously we’re talking about a pretty unlikely series of events, but I feel like that’s a far more likely scenario than Seattle HC...or any new franchise giving up an opportunity to launch a new brand in favor of a generic “City Club” style brand.

 

I think it will be a new team, but I think it *should* be an older team that does it. I would love to see the Indians or Redskins do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

 

I think it will be a new team, but I think it *should* be an older team that does it. I would love to see the Indians or Redskins do it.

That's gonna be the only way I see it happening. Someone is going to be told they can't keep their team name, so they'll drop it entirely so all their fans can keep calling them whatever they always did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope they honor the Duwamish culture from where Chief Seattle was from. Work with them in a way FSU has done with the Seminole nation. Support and grow awareness in the region and nationwide for the culture/tribe. And come up with a name that not only honors the Duwamish, but that the Duwamish embrace. Weather it be Seattle Chiefs, Seattle Totems, or a completely new name that the tribe and owners of the club feel is appropriate. Seems like a win/win. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/22/2018 at 6:48 AM, Pharos04 said:

It would be interesting if they were to go completely "Seattle Hockey Club" but there's too much money to be made on merchandise with the nickname on it right from the start. There's no way they would pass up on that.  Even if they did, they'd have to come up with a crest for the sweater.  So unless they just go with an S like the Metros did, they would already have decided on a nickname at that point and try to play up the "HC" aspect, or they'd become the Metros or Totems by default in that regard.

 

Regarding this whole naming convention debacle, a reminder that even in the history of hockey in North America, the coveted Stanley Cup was won by teams with great nicknames such as:

Montreal Hockey Club (1893, 1894, 1902, 1903)

Ottawa Hockey Club (the original Senators) (1903, 1904, 1905, 1906,1909, 1910, 1911, 1920, 1921, 1923, 1927)

Toronto Hockey Club (Blueshirts, not the Maple Leafs) (1914)

the other Toronto Hockey Club (Arenas, which DID become the Maple Leafs) (1918)

 

okay maybe it's a Canada thing...there was also Winnipeg HC, Galt HC, Edmonton HC (which consisted of two teams, the Thistles and the Stars)

 

Personally? I think it would be a unique take harkening back and would certainly help the team stand out.  But with the amount of cash in marketing and nicknames and shortening of nicknames and everything, I don't see it happening.

 

I dont trust the main stream press or the NHL as an authority on the challenge era of hockey history. Most if not all teams prior to 1920 and many after were officially registered as the city name followed by "Hockey Club". Nearly all of them had informal nick-names which the fans and media usually referred to them by however. Incidentally the "Montreal Hockey Club" in fact engraved "Montreal AAA" on the Cup in 1893 - the first year they won it - which flies in the face of this "HC" business. There's not much evidence of hockey teams in North America actually being referred to as "HC". It was not standard for a team to engrave their nickname on the Cup prior to 1920 but even still there is not a single engraving that says "HC" or "Hockey Club" except in 1933 and 1935 when the Rangers and Maroons respectively won.

 

"HC" is not a thing in North America and never has been. It's also not a thing in Seattle because they have already picked a list of 13 names which they will whittle down. And I forgot to add; no the Arenas are not the same franchise as the Maple Leafs despite the Leafs claim to their history. It was a temporary franchise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/26/2018 at 1:10 PM, uniformity said:

 

I dont trust the main stream press or the NHL as an authority on the challenge era of hockey history. Most if not all teams prior to 1920 and many after were officially registered as the city name followed by "Hockey Club". Nearly all of them had informal nick-names which the fans and media usually referred to them by however. Incidentally the "Montreal Hockey Club" in fact engraved "Montreal AAA" on the Cup in 1893 - the first year they won it - which flies in the face of this "HC" business. There's not much evidence of hockey teams in North America actually being referred to as "HC". It was not standard for a team to engrave their nickname on the Cup prior to 1920 but even still there is not a single engraving that says "HC" or "Hockey Club" except in 1933 and 1935 when the Rangers and Maroons respectively won.

 

"HC" is not a thing in North America and never has been. It's also not a thing in Seattle because they have already picked a list of 13 names which they will whittle down. And I forgot to add; no the Arenas are not the same franchise as the Maple Leafs despite the Leafs claim to their history. It was a temporary franchise.

 

A temporary franchise that was sold and renamed the St. Patricks in 1919 (rather than folded and re-established), so yes, it is the same franchise.

 

Stanley+Cup+1919+cp_adrian_wyld2.jpg

 

The original doesn’t feature much H.C., but the “Champions Shoulder” on the current cup has it in spades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just came across this interesting little trove of information on Sonics Rising from someone who attended a recent open house hosted by OVG. (I've taken the liberty of bolding the lines that may be of interest to this group)

Quote

Very quick open house notes:

  • They have not yet settled on a team name and it’s highly unlikely to be the Metropolitans based on some reactions I got from people involved.
  • They have tentatively settled on colors already, and it’s not blue and green (though it may be one of those combined with other colors). It’s also not red, like the renderings, but could have some red. They wouldn’t leak the actual color decision, yet, just got these details.
  • The club sections are larger than I expected, extending all the way to the hash marks on both sides of the lower bowl. GA lower bowl will start at about the hash marks and travel around both goal ends.
  • The "new" north upper level club is new based on overwhelming demand for club seats. I was told that more than 5000 deposits were club level. Info I received a month ago was that only 2000 seats in the arena were going to be club. I’d estimate that’s closer to 3500 now. Prior to the drive, they were unsettled on whether they’d have an upper level club. The north club is on the defensive x2 end, not the attack x2 end. Space needle club is on attack x2 end.
  • GA deposits will not be able to move up into club, but club deposits can move down to GA (this has been known since before the sale).
  • There is a spectator bridge level above the 300 level that will be opposite from the press boxes (like the level of the luxury suites in Rogers arena). It adds about 300-350 seats and will have 3 rows of seating. The view will be high and overhanging the lower bowl seats. I’m not sure I’d like to sit there every game, but I do like the luxury box view from Rogers on occasion. It’s a seat where you truly can see every aspect of the game and every play develop

 

So it sounds like red is at most a secondary or tertiary color, and the organization is looking to avoid using the same color palette as Vancouver. It's worth noting that their response still leaves the possibility of double green on the table. It's more of a stretch, but their response could also suggest a combination of blue or green and teal (or some other shade of blue/green). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only in the NHL, right?? There is ongoing speculation that the Oak View Group will not include Seattle in the expansion club's identity, no matter what the team name is. Because of the popularity of hockey in Washington State and the success of the major junior teams in the area, the regional identity will be Washington State. This angers me to no end as I wanted to see the Vancouver-Seattle rivalry be extended from the soccer scene to hockey. 

 

Quebec Nordiques 2.0 >>>>>>> Washington State Whatevers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, VancouverFan69 said:

Only in the NHL, right?? There is ongoing speculation that the Oak View Group will not include Seattle in the expansion club's identity, no matter what the team name is. Because of the popularity of hockey in Washington State and the success of the major junior teams in the area, the regional identity will be Washington State. This angers me to no end as I wanted to see the Vancouver-Seattle rivalry be extended from the soccer scene to hockey. 

 

Quebec Nordiques 2.0 >>>>>>> Washington State Whatevers.

 

I’d have to think the university would have a major issue with that, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

 

I’d have to think the university would have a major issue with that, no?

 

Not to mention the Capitals!! I've begun to form an opinion that all DC teams should change their location name to that of the District should it become a state. 

 

The most recent official proposal calls for the establishment of a state named "Washington, Douglass Commonwealth." So, the city is Washington, but in stead of "District of Columbia" or "the District" we've got "Douglass Commonwealth" or "Douglass"

 

Fire me up. Douglass Capitals? Great. Let the pacific northwest have "Washington" for their teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, VancouverFan69 said:

Only in the NHL, right?? There is ongoing speculation that the Oak View Group will not include Seattle in the expansion club's identity, no matter what the team name is. Because of the popularity of hockey in Washington State and the success of the major junior teams in the area, the regional identity will be Washington State. This angers me to no end as I wanted to see the Vancouver-Seattle rivalry be extended from the soccer scene to hockey. 

 

Quebec Nordiques 2.0 >>>>>>> Washington State Whatevers.

 

7 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

 

I’d have to think the university would have a major issue with that, no?

 

Just now, DeFrank said:

 

Not to mention the Capitals!! I've begun to form an opinion that all DC teams should change their location name to that of the District should it become a state. 

 

The most recent official proposal calls for the establishment of a state named "Washington, Douglass Commonwealth." So, the city is Washington, but in stead of "District of Columbia" or "the District" we've got "Douglass Commonwealth" or "Douglass"

 

Fire me up. Douglass Capitals? Great. Let the pacific northwest have "Washington" for their teams.

 

APRIL FOOL'S DAY!!!! :P:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just watched a video about the return of the Jets and how they announced the name at the draft.  Now, it's not likely to happen, but I thought it would be kinda cool if Seattle did the same thing.  Have the draft in Seattle the year they are going to join and then have the owner go up to the mic and say "here's our GM to make the pick of behalf of the Seattle _______"  Unlike the Jets, the logo and jersey would also be revealed.  I know the Jets did it because of the short turnover from when they got the team and the draft.  Just an idea.

Share this post


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