2021-2022 NHL Jersey Changes

[DoctorWhom]

I never understood why Colorado had that Bigfoot logo? I don't recall them being that well known for Bigfoot sightings. 

 

Would have made more sense on seattle (had they gone with sasquatch name) or a portland team. 

[Bagel]

The Avalanche originally had a yeti as a mascot, hence the bigfoot secondary logo.

 

[DoctorWhom]

6 hours ago, Bagel said:

The Avalanche originally had a yeti as a mascot, hence the bigfoot secondary logo.

 

Yeah again that's just odd, since last i checked Colorado isn't really a huge well know Bigfoot hotspot. 

 

I guess I could kind of see what they're going for. 

[dont care]

12 hours ago, DoctorWhom said:

Yeah again that's just odd, since last i checked Colorado isn't really a huge well know Bigfoot hotspot. 

 

I guess I could kind of see what they're going for. 

And yetis are “native” to the Himalayas not the rockys 

[FinsUp1214]

I never minded the Yeti mascot or the Yeti foot. In fact, I really liked them. Even though Yetis are related more to the Himalayas and not the Rockies, I still get the connection they were going for. A snowy mountain creature didn’t ever seem that too far fetched for a team named the Avalanche to use.

[The_Admiral]

It was a bit too far afield. By the same logic, they could have had the little Swiss yodeler guy from Cliff Hangers on The Price Is Right because the Alps, like the Himalayas, are also mountains with snow. Something local always would have been a better choice. But then of course, the team was a hairsbreadth from being named the Rocky Mountain Xtreme, which would have been plenty local and also awful.

[Ridleylash]

Honestly, I think that they would have been the Rockies had the MLB team not existed when they came into town. "Rocky Mountain Xtreme" sounds like a really forced attempt to keep the Rockies tie there while not actually being the Rockies.

[FinsUp1214]

19 minutes ago, the admiral said:

It was a bit too far afield. By the same logic, they could have had the little Swiss yodeler guy from Cliff Hangers on The Price Is Right because the Alps, like the Himalayas, are also mountains with snow. Something local always would have been a better choice. But then of course, the team was a hairsbreadth from being named the Rocky Mountain Xtreme, which would have been plenty local and also awful.

Well, these are mascots we’re talking about. Half the mascots in sports are afield to some degree. Gorillas aren’t local to Phoenix, so far as I know. And whatever Gritty is supposed to be looks like he’d be much more local to Sesame Street than Philadelphia. 

 

I don’t know. I mean I get it, but I don’t think mascots are meant to be taken that seriously. That the legend of Yetis aren’t a Colorado thing doesn’t bother me all that bad; especially when you really can make a valid connection to the name, which is more than can be said for a few other mascots out there.

 

 

[The_Admiral]

Oh, I don't care about the mascot. I'm talking about the secondary logo. The shoulder foot was never good.

[tBBP]

19 minutes ago, Ridleylash said:

I maintain that they would have been the Rockies again had the MLB team never existed.

 

I don't know about that...they would have had to wrest that IP from the New Jersey Devils to have a shot at it.

 

And regarding the Yeti foot--not to mention this particular tangent of discussion as a whole: I think sometimes people forget it's perfectly okay to have FUN with a sports brand (or at least an element of it)...okay, so what Sasquach was more related to the Himalayas than the Rockies? Unless you were at a zoo, you ain't never seen a penguin in Pittsburgh, either, and yet...they even went so far as to nickname the former Civic Arena/Mellon Dome "The Igloo". See? Fun. That's what the Yeti foot represented to me...a more fun, lighthearted aspect of their brand. And if you play it right, with an element like that, it actually allows for further brand expansion, probably for more like fan gear or something...imagine a bunch of Yeti monster T-shirts available for young fans. And while I'm on that tangent: think of the kids. If you want to hook kids on your brand, well...that there is how you do it: hook them on something fun. (There's a reason minor league baseball makes its living with that approach, after all.) On the other hand, sometimes the problem with going hyper-local is that you can paint yourself right into a corner which can prohibit potential brand expansion (and thus more revenue opportunities...yes, there's a business aspect of this to consider, as well.)

 

This all reminds me that not that long ago someone over in the Concepts section posted a design for a fictitious team he called the Carolina Crocs...and people jumped all over him for using "Crocs" as a nickname, mainly reasoning that there are no crocodiles in the Carolinas. I remember replying along the lines of "well there aren't any jaguars in Jacksonville, either, and yet...sometimes it's okay to have fun with a name. So what there aren't any crocs in Carolina? The name is fun and alliterative (much like Jacksonville), and sometimes that works just as well if not better than trying to go hyper-local so often.

 

Really the most important thing is finding something tangible that fans can connect with on an emotional level, whatever that is, hyper-local, fun and imaginative, whatever an organization feel resonates best and presents the best opportunities to generate connection and revenue...at the end of the day, that's the key to successful branding. (That's a free nugget for anyone who wants it...and for what it's worth, this is fifteen years of experience talking to you here.)

[andrewharrington]

9 hours ago, tBBP said:

 

I don't know about that...they would have had to wrest that IP from the New Jersey Devils to have a shot at it.

 

And regarding the Yeti foot--not to mention this particular tangent of discussion as a whole: I think sometimes people forget it's perfectly okay to have FUN with a sports brand (or at least an element of it)...okay, so what Sasquach was more related to the Himalayas than the Rockies? Unless you were at a zoo, you ain't never seen a penguin in Pittsburgh, either, and yet...they even went so far as to nickname the former Civic Arena/Mellon Dome "The Igloo". See? Fun. That's what the Yeti foot represented to me...a more fun, lighthearted aspect of their brand. And if you play it right, with an element like that, it actually allows for further brand expansion, probably for more like fan gear or something...imagine a bunch of Yeti monster T-shirts available for young fans. And while I'm on that tangent: think of the kids. If you want to hook kids on your brand, well...that there is how you do it: hook them on something fun. (There's a reason minor league baseball makes its living with that approach, after all.) On the other hand, sometimes the problem with going hyper-local is that you can paint yourself right into a corner which can prohibit potential brand expansion (and thus more revenue opportunities...yes, there's a business aspect of this to consider, as well.)

 

This all reminds me that not that long ago someone over in the Concepts section posted a design for a fictitious team he called the Carolina Crocs...and people jumped all over him for using "Crocs" as a nickname, mainly reasoning that there are no crocodiles in the Carolinas. I remember replying along the lines of "well there aren't any jaguars in Jacksonville, either, and yet...sometimes it's okay to have fun with a name. So what there aren't any crocs in Carolina? The name is fun and alliterative (much like Jacksonville), and sometimes that works just as well if not better than trying to go hyper-local so often.

 

Really the most important thing is finding something tangible that fans can connect with on an emotional level, whatever that is, hyper-local, fun and imaginative, whatever an organization feel resonates best and presents the best opportunities to generate connection and revenue...at the end of the day, that's the key to successful branding. (That's a free nugget for anyone who wants it...and for what it's worth, this is fifteen years of experience talking to you here.)

Re: The Penguins

 

I believe the name was actually inspired by the arena, which was already nicknamed “The Igloo”. Those little connections make it work.

[tp49]

I'd like to see the white in the Avs gloves be burgundy might make them less jarring to me.

[Ridleylash]

51 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

Re: The Penguins

 

I believe the name was actually inspired by the arena, which was already nicknamed “The Igloo”. Those little connections make it work.

That it was; the Civic Arena was already called "The Big Igloo" when the Pens were coming into the league, and that's what sparked the name alongside the fan name vote. Though honestly, I would not at all be surprised if Youngstown State played a hand in it as well, given their proximity to Pittsburgh.

[spartacat_12]

22 hours ago, FinsUp1214 said:

I never minded the Yeti mascot or the Yeti foot. In fact, I really liked them. Even though Yetis are related more to the Himalayas and not the Rockies, I still get the connection they were going for. A snowy mountain creature didn’t ever seem that too far fetched for a team named the Avalanche to use.

 

My high school's sports teams were called the Avalanche, and we also used burgundy & blue as our colours. When they decided to add an actual mascot, the students got to vote on the name and what it would be. I think our options were a snowman, a snowball, a snowflake, a St. Bernard, and a yeti. The yeti ended up winning the vote. We didn't live anywhere near mountains, so it made even less sense for us than it did Colorado.

[Sport]

The Avalanche and their white jerseys have been bothering me all playoffs.  

 

Two Things:

1. They switched from black to blue pants and gloves to simplify the color scheme and balance the uniform better. I would've solved the problem differently in order to keep black, but I get why they made those decisions. The Colorado shoulder patch looks good on the burgundy jerseys because it contrasts with the blue yokes, the white jersey however, which could use more blue, somewhere, anywhere, just uses the same shoulder patch.  Here's what it looks like now:

 

 

Here's how I think it should look:

 

 

2. The numbers! How did they mess these up? Burgundy and their blue should never touch! EVER. The values are too similar and it creates a "vibrating" effect. They get this right almost everywhere else on the uniform except for the numbers. The policy should be that the numbers are only ever outlined with silver. Also, for consistency's sake, why are they outlined in silver on the back of the burgundy jerseys, but stroked with blue on the burgundy sleeves of the white jerseys? They got this right the first time when they outlined the black numbers in silver on the white jerseys, but when they switched to blue numbers they inexplicably decided to outline them in burgundy and it doesn't work IMO.  

 

Also I'd use a darker, gray twill instead of a silver, shimmery material so the outline isn't lost when touching against white like it is here:

 

The Kings have the same problem on their black jerseys

[WSU151]

How does bright blue on dark maroon create a vibrating effect? 

 

One bright, one dark is the opposite of a vibrating effect. 

 

The burgandy outline essentially looks black in most photos.  The contrast between the bright blue and the dark burgandy is pretty fantastic. 

 

[Sport]

7 minutes ago, WSU151 said:

How does bright blue on dark maroon create a vibrating effect? 

 

One bright, one dark is the opposite of a vibrating effect. 

 

It's called chromostereopsis 

 

It's not "one bright, one dark". They're too close in value to use effectively touching each other like that. If you look at the uniform in black and white there's very little discernible difference between the two colors. I know the pants are blue, I know the jersey is burgundy, but you can't tell the difference here. 

 

 

Beyond that, though, it's also visually inconsistent with how the two colors are used with a buffer color in almost every other application. The other problem is, look at the A on Mackinnon's chest, the blue used on the numbers appears to be a much brighter blue than the blue equipment or the blue on their socks.

 

The numbers are bad for like 3 different reasons that would all be solved by simply not outlining them with burgundy. 

[WSU151]

7 minutes ago, Sport said:

 

It's called chromostereopsis 

 

It's not "one bright, one dark". They're too close in value to use effectively touching each other like that. If you look at the uniform in black and white there's very little discernible difference between the two colors. I know the pants are blue, I know the jersey is burgundy, but you can't tell the difference here. 

 

I can tell the A is blue, and if you showed the back numbers in black and white I could tell which part of the number is blue and which part is burgandy. 

 

Twill reflecting light differently than other parts of any uniform has been an issue in sports forever, in all sports. 

[Sport]

5 minutes ago, WSU151 said:

 

I can tell the A is blue, and if you showed the back numbers in black and white I could tell which part of the number is blue and which part is burgandy. 

 

Yeah I addressed that. They're not identical BUT they still don't look good together because "They're too close in value to use effectively touching each other like that."

 

and

 

"Beyond that, though, it's also visually inconsistent with how the two colors are used with a buffer color in almost every other application. The other problem is, look at the A on Mackinnon's chest, the blue used on the numbers appears to be a much brighter blue than the blue equipment or the blue on their socks.

 

The numbers are bad for like 3 different reasons that would all be solved by simply not outlining them with burgundy."

 

If you like the Avs numbers that's fine. I think they look bad, which is why I used IMO in my original post. Have a good one.  

[WSU151]

5 minutes ago, Sport said:

 

Yeah they're not identical BUT they still don't look good together because "They're too close in value to use effectively touching each other like that."

 

and

 

"Beyond that, though, it's also visually inconsistent with how the two colors are used with a buffer color in almost every other application. The other problem is, look at the A on Mackinnon's chest, the blue used on the numbers appears to be a much brighter blue than the blue equipment or the blue on their socks.

 

The numbers are bad for like 3 different reasons that would all be solved by simply not outlining them with burgundy."

 

If you like the Avs numbers that's fine. I think they look bad, which is why I used IMO in my original post. Have a good one.  

 

But you also used selection bias in your opinion...and when we look at other pictures, your opinion is easy to argue. Keep in mind I'm not arguing about inconsistencies on both unis and the sleeves (which apparently you think I'm arguing)...I'm literally just saying there's a lot of contrast on the back numbers of the white jerseys. 

 

Take care man.