2020-2021 NHL Changes

[SHaMROCK]

On 5/31/2020 at 2:15 PM, ieatstaples said:

 

Personally I don't like the forced inclusion of orange. Why not omit the stick entirely? It such an outdated 90s motif that doesn't even make sense in the context of the logo (we eating hockey sticks because we are aggressive, grrrr). Teal, silver, black and white are already enough colors. Add orange and you've got a mess of 5 colors.

 

Maybe a gray shark is monochromatic but if the base of the jersey is teal, I don't see any issues with that. Here's a concept I made a few years ago that incorporates the current shark with the original triangle.

 

 

This is all very, VERY good....

[ManillaToad]

22 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

I do wonder if the third will return.

 

 

Part of me wants to see it buried, but part of me wants it sticking around.

The head logo on the dark green looks awesome. I like the idea of the sleeves and bottom there but it wasn't executed well

[FiddySicks]

On 5/31/2020 at 11:15 AM, ieatstaples said:

 

Personally I don't like the forced inclusion of orange. Why not omit the stick entirely? It such an outdated 90s motif that doesn't even make sense in the context of the logo (we eating hockey sticks because we are aggressive, grrrr). Teal, silver, black and white are already enough colors. Add orange and you've got a mess of 5 colors.

 

Maybe a gray shark is monochromatic but if the base of the jersey is teal, I don't see any issues with that. Here's a concept I made a few years ago that incorporates the current shark with the original triangle.

 

This is MUCH better than what they have now. The Sharks should have a bit of a darker, murky looking color scheme. That’s what you see in the waters around the actual bay, which is called the Red Triangle because of the prevalence of Sharks. If anything, a small touch of dark red could’ve worked really well. 

But instead they threw the whole look out of whack by using that garishly bright and ugly yellowish orange color. They basically tried to split the difference between yellow and orange (maybe because of the baseball teams?) and ended up with this awful color that looks like a Manila envelope. And instead of keeping it just to the stick, which still would’ve sucked but at least made sense, they added it to the striping pattern! It’s such a STUPID inclusion. It would be like if the Yankees added red highlights to their uniforms because the baseball in the primary logo has red stitching. It’s not just the worst part of this particular Sharks branding era, it’s one of my least favorite colors that any pro sports team has ever used. And I say that as a Bucs fan

[Bayne]

On 6/4/2020 at 2:05 AM, Survival79 said:

 

I put this together a few years ago.

• Modified logos
• 1991-92 through 1997-98 colors
• 1991-92 through 1996-97 uniforms

 

See, that to me is really starting to work. Originally I was thinking that grey highlights on the shark was the way to go, but using the teal in a much brighter shade of blue might serve it better IMO. Losing the stick simplifies it a bit too, which I've always been critical of the current one. It just has a bit too much fine detail for a logo, for my liking. I could really get behind this update (using the modern fin shoulder patch instead which I really like), not to mention that it harkens back to their original look nicely, which is an added bonus. Jerseys could use a bit of work, but overall this is quite nice and much better than what they have now.

[TBGKon]

On 6/3/2020 at 6:56 PM, WSU151 said:

 

 A darker purple would really improve this (maybe call it midnight purple)

 

Also the NOB font (Friz Quad I think) and block numbers don't really mix. 

Agreed, that shade of purple is way too bold.  In its current shade, id only use it as a tertiary accent, otherwise something mor like a midnight purple as suggested would be best to let the brick and sand stand out.

[CaliforniaGlowin]

On 5/31/2020 at 7:21 PM, FiddySicks said:

The Sharks should just use this logo and call it a day 

 

 

I don't normally like "cartoony" logos, but I don't see this that way.  I see a badass shark with soul, it makes the past sharks look robotic.

[Gothamite]

That "S", though.  So amateurish.  

 

 

[SFGiants58]

1 minute ago, Gothamite said:

That "S", though.  So amateurish.

That’s the whole “new Shark” in a nutshell. Amateurish.

 

The shark-in-triangle has nearly 30 years of brand equity. It has to stay, albeit done better than the two previous iterations.

[FiddySicks]

Yeah but the current logo is amateurish too, so...

[Morgan33]

4 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

The shark-in-triangle has nearly 30 years of brand equity. It has to stay, albeit done better than the two previous iterations.

 

This.

The Sharks also have way too many logos and it has diluted their entire brand.

[Gothamite]

I've never been a fan of the triangle logos.  I get what they're going for, I guess, but they've always seemed unmotivated.  I think by trying to integrate the shark, they lose something.  The Penguins do it better just by superimposing their logo against a triangle.

 

 

This just works in a way that it wouldn't if they tried to depict him skating through the triangle, or tried to slant the triangle to give it, I dunno, speed or something.

 

But as for the modern shark logos, the full-body is okay:

 

 

Or, if you want one without the stick, use the other full-body logo and remove it from there. 

 

 

Would be a lot more balanced than the triangle versions, which have always been inferior to either of the full-body sharks.

[SFGiants58]

@Go Red Sox! did great logos for the Sharks.

 

I like the superimposition over the triangle (easier to center) and the new fin.

[Gothamite]

And while Googling those shark logos, I found this version I don't recall ever seeing before.

 

 

Is this an example of a newspaper mistakenly grabbing a concept logo?  You think the Mercury News would have official graphics in their files.

 

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/03/31/san-jose-sharks-add-ncaa-division-is-leading-scorer-to-its-ranks/

 

 

[Ridleylash]

6 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

And while Googling those shark logos, I found this version I don't recall ever seeing before.

 

 

Is this an example of a newspaper mistakenly grabbing a concept logo?  You think the Mercury News would have official graphics in their files.

 

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/03/31/san-jose-sharks-add-ncaa-division-is-leading-scorer-to-its-ranks/

 

 

It's not a concept logo, as far as I can tell, because this tweet makes me think it's official;

I dunno why it's not on the main site, since it seems to be an official team logo; just one not used all that often, seemingly.

[CC97]

35 minutes ago, Ridleylash said:

It's not a concept logo, as far as I can tell, because this tweet makes me think it's official;

I dunno why it's not on the main site, since it seems to be an official team logo; just one not used all that often, seemingly.

 

 

Not in any of their official style guides or style sheets, just checked theirs annually from 2013-2019

[Ridleylash]

2 hours ago, CC97 said:

Not in any of their official style guides or style sheets, just checked theirs annually from 2013-2019

Oh, wait, it's from the 25th anniversary logo;

 

So I guess it's an official logo, but just wasn't used by itself on official team style guides? Seems kind of odd that they'd make an entirely new shark logo, use it for their anniversary logo and not put it in the style guide. 

[Gothamite]

That is odd. 
 

but I kinda like the logo. 

[Bayne]

I don't like any of the Sharks' logos, they just look awkward and too cartoony. 

[The_Admiral]

I like the triangle for the Sharks because San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose form a triangle, albeit a very scalene one. 

[monkeypower]

Triangles were also a bit trendy for logos at that time too.
 

The Sharks, the Mighty Ducks, the Hurricanes flag logo, the Perds white jersey logo.