2021-2022 NHL Jersey Changes

[DTConcepts]

I think the Avs' move to blue is a lateral move. It definitely matches the identity much better, but I agree that the black had become so normal that it does feel a bit off.

 

On 5/22/2022 at 7:32 AM, adsarebad said:

Avs need the black, and bigfoot back on the shoulders.

 

I will never understand peoples' affinity for the foot, though. The logo only existed because of the Avs' former mascot Howler the Yeti, who has since been replaced by Bernie the St. Bernard. It doesn't make sense to have a logo based off a mascot who hasn't seen daylight in 20 years after reportedly getting into a fight with a fan after a game.

 

The Colorado flag C just makes so much more sense from a branding perspective. It's an actual symbol of the state the team plays in, instead of a weird mark that stands to please foot fetishist hockey fans.

[wildwing64]

52 minutes ago, spartacat_12 said:

The Ducks wore these uniforms at home during the '06 playoffs, right before they dropped the 'Mighty' and switched to different black jerseys with a wordmark on them:

 

Even before that, they slyly swapped it with the home uniform around midway through the season.

[JTernup]

16 hours ago, Sec19Row53 said:

I think it's less how important the black is, and more how used to it we are.

 

If we flip it around and the Avs changed to black following 20 years of blue, I think the general consensus here would be of OMG BFBS.

See, I totally disagree. Whether we like it or not there are a lot of unconscious perceptions tied to the color black. Seeing Sakic race down the ice in a black helmet and brawls with Red Wings definitely contributes to that gritty/tough perception that I associated with those Avs teams. Something about the blue just doesn't hold that same visual weight. I just can't imagine the photo below with that goofy blue helmet. You can say that's because I'm used to black but I think it's more than that.

 

Is that stupid? Yeah, probably. But color theory is very real.

 

I agree that if we flip it though it would've felt like an unjustified bizarre BFBS.

[gosioux76]

2 hours ago, spartacat_12 said:

 

Teams knowing a uniform change is coming might want to look as close to that as possible for the playoffs, even if they can't wear the exact jersey. The Oilers can't wear royal blue in the playoffs, but I guess they think navy is closer to how they plan on looking than orange.

 

The Ducks wore these uniforms at home during the '06 playoffs, right before they dropped the 'Mighty' and switched to different black jerseys with a wordmark on them:

 

Yeah, I understand the general suggestion. I just think the logic is flawed.

 

If they're switching to royal blue next year, wearing navy now isn't the same, and it's barely  a passable placeholder if that's the intent. You wouldn't hold one up to the other and say, "eh, close enough."  But even then, I don't get how a decision being made for next season would have any bearing on choices being made for this season. Maybe I'm missing the point. 

 

[TalktoChuck]

As the boards number one hater of the Avs switching away from black, I can say that I have finally gotten used to the blue. The blue numbers help a ton. But like others have said it's a lateral move.

 

It's along the same lines as the Bruins black socks, and the Blues white numbers. Does it look better? Sure, probably. But it definitely doesn't look right.

[Ridleylash]

1 hour ago, gosioux76 said:

If they're switching to royal blue next year, wearing navy now isn't the same, and it's barely  a passable placeholder if that's the intent. You wouldn't hold one up to the other and say, "eh, close enough."  But even then, I don't get how a decision being made for next season would have any bearing on choices being made for this season. Maybe I'm missing the point. 

They can't pick jerseys they don't have in their active rotation this season to wear in the playoffs, so this is their best option since the 40th anniversary jersey isn't available.

 

As for why do it? Simple; it's an easy way to transition a brand away from one look (orange-dominant at home, blue-dominant alternate) and into another one (blue-dominant at home, orange-dominant alternate).

[chcarlson23]

14 minutes ago, TalktoChuck said:

As the boards number one hater of the Avs switching away from black, I can say that I have finally gotten used to the blue. The blue numbers help a ton. But like others have said it's a lateral move.

 

It's along the same lines as the Bruins black socks, and the Blues white numbers. Does it look better? Sure, probably. But it definitely doesn't look right.

I love the Blues white numbers, but the Bruins black socks don’t look good. The gold shoulder yoke makes the whole look super top heavy without gold socks.
 

If they ditched the gold yoke it would work a little better with the black socks. The Happy Gilmore jerseys look decent with the gold socks, but would have worked with black as well. 
 

The biggest issue about those socks is the color balance. It’s way off without the gold socks. I love that the road socks are updated, but the home’s is awful…

[Nordiks_19]

The only thing left for the Avs now is to add a blue line on their road jersey, to match the socks. After that their look will be nailed. The black pants/helmets/gloves are more appropriate with the Sakic/Forsberg/Roy/Foote era. It looked all right in the late 90's - mid 00's

[gosioux76]

1 hour ago, Ridleylash said:

They can't pick jerseys they don't have in their active rotation this season to wear in the playoffs, so this is their best option since the 40th anniversary jersey isn't available.

 

As for why do it? Simple; it's an easy way to transition a brand away from one look (orange-dominant at home, blue-dominant alternate) and into another one (blue-dominant at home, orange-dominant alternate).

 

I could see it if they're transitioning the brand to something entirely different, like Anaheim did. But going back to something they'd worn before is hardly jarring for consumers.  Seems silly not to wear the uniforms you've worn all year just to have some contrived transitionary period from one blue to another.  Unless they've really gotten tired of orange, which seems more plausible. 

[Ridleylash]

24 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

Seems silly not to wear the uniforms you've worn all year just to have some contrived transitionary period from one blue to another. 

I mean, it's not unusual in the NHL; the Ducks did it in 2006, the Pens did it in 2016, the Coyotes did it in the bubble, the Flames did it. The fact that teams can choose which jerseys they want to use in the playoffs means playoff teams that want to change up their look the following season often use their postseason appearances to transition into that new look by replacing one of their jerseys from the previous branding.

 

The Caps and Canes are exceptions, but the Caps haven't changed their look since 2007 (though they really should) and the Canes just seem to have a penchant for wearing different jerseys and changing their jerseys even without an overarching brand refresh.

[Delicate Genius]

The Oilers' players hate the orange uniforms. I assume that's why they chose to wore the navy alternates in the playoffs last year as well.

[Sec19Row53]

11 hours ago, Delicate Genius said:

The Oilers' players hate the orange uniforms. I assume that's why they chose to wore the navy alternates in the playoffs last year as well.

Source?

[adsarebad]

22 hours ago, DTConcepts said:

I think the Avs' move to blue is a lateral move. It definitely matches the identity much better, but I agree that the black had become so normal that it does feel a bit off.

 

 

I will never understand peoples' affinity for the foot, though. The logo only existed because of the Avs' former mascot Howler the Yeti, who has since been replaced by Bernie the St. Bernard. It doesn't make sense to have a logo based off a mascot who hasn't seen daylight in 20 years after reportedly getting into a fight with a fan after a game.

 

The Colorado flag C just makes so much more sense from a branding perspective. It's an actual symbol of the state the team plays in, instead of a weird mark that stands to please foot fetishist hockey fans.

It does not, the team is called avalanche, those take place in mountains, who lives in a mountain area?  a yeti, bigfoot. 

it's awesome, brilliant   , clever, funny. and it looked great, good design.

 

Colorado C flag makes as much sense as the Canada and Alberta flags on the Calgary Flames jersey. And looks just as bad.

[adsarebad]

18 hours ago, Nordiks_19 said:

The only thing left for the Avs now is to add a blue line on their road jersey, to match the socks. After that their look will be nailed. The black pants/helmets/gloves are more appropriate with the Sakic/Forsberg/Roy/Foote era. It looked all right in the late 90's - mid 00's

what about red wings, rangers, hawks, habs

 

any era they looked better in?

 

They have not changed, nether should Colorado have

 

[gosioux76]

13 hours ago, Delicate Genius said:

The Oilers' players hate the orange uniforms. I assume that's why they chose to wore the navy alternates in the playoffs last year as well.

Even if there isn't a source, this idea at least makes sense as to why they're not wearing the orange jerseys. 

[andrewharrington]

35 minutes ago, adsarebad said:

It does not, the team is called avalanche, those take place in mountains, who lives in a mountain area?  a yeti, bigfoot. 

it's awesome, brilliant   , clever, funny. and it looked great, good design.

 

Colorado C flag makes as much sense as the Canada and Alberta flags on the Calgary Flames jersey. And looks just as bad.

Yeah, but the Yeti lives in the Himalayan mountains, and Bigfoot lives in the Cascades and Sierra Nevadas.

[Sport]

21 hours ago, TalktoChuck said:

As the boards number one hater of the Avs switching away from black, I can say that I have finally gotten used to the blue. The blue numbers help a ton. But like others have said it's a lateral move.

 

It's along the same lines as the Bruins black socks, and the Blues white numbers. Does it look better? Sure, probably. But it definitely doesn't look right.

 

The blue numbers help, but I think outlining them in burgundy was a mistake because they flash and vibrate and it makes the blue appear brighter on the numbers than it does anywhere else in the uniforms. I would've outlined them in silver. 

[gosioux76]

26 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

Yeah, but the Yeti lives in the Himalayan mountains, and Bigfoot lives in the Cascades and Sierra Nevadas.

 

It seems like everybody has a cousin in Colorado, why would Yeti be any different? 

[Ridleylash]

2 hours ago, adsarebad said:

It does not, the team is called avalanche, those take place in mountains, who lives in a mountain area?  a yeti, bigfoot. 

it's awesome, brilliant   , clever, funny. and it looked great, good design.

As Andrew pointed out, Bigfoot is decidedly not a Rocky Mountain thing, and yetis definitely aren't in the Rockies. Plus it's just flat-out unnecessary; their mascot is a St. Bernard, not a yeti or Bigfoot, so bringing back that logo makes no sense from a marketing perspective.

 

Besides, if anything St. Bernards are more relevant to mountains and avalanches than either a yeti or Bigfoot, considering the fact that they were literally bred to be mountain rescue dogs...and thus were bred to work in rescuing people from avalanches.

 

So really, just put the old pawprint logo Bernie used to have up there if anything foot-related needs to be in the brand; but honestly, do the Avs REALLY need to cater to the foot fetish furry community?  

 

Quote

Colorado C flag makes as much sense as the Canada and Alberta flags on the Calgary Flames jersey. And looks just as bad.

Now this is just flat-out untrue; the reason those flags looked horrid on the Calgary jersey is because they clashed horribly with the jersey coloration-wise (seriously, bright blue on a Flames jersey?!). The Avs don't even use the flag on their primaries, either; they use the C in team colors, which is literally the most iconic piece of Colorado state imagery and also a nice tribute to the Hockey Rockies.

 

The flag is on the alternates, and I don't really think a small little dot of red and yellow is enough to ruin that jersey when the majority of the flag fits in just fine.

 

1 hour ago, adsarebad said:

what about red wings, rangers, hawks, habs

 

any era they looked better in?

 

They have not changed, nether should Colorado have

The Wings, Rangers, Hawks and Habs also all have equipment that matches their jersey's color scheme instead of just being stark black.  A professional hockey club in the highest-level North American league shouldn't look like they grabbed their gloves, pants and helmet from a completely different uniform from their jerseys and socks.

 

It looked especially horrible on their whites, since those didn't even have black besides the logo puck and lettering. And it doesn't even accomplish anything burgundy doesn't already accomplish, either, so it's just totally redundant and only got put in because black was a trendy color in the 90's.

[sitboaf]

18 hours ago, Ridleylash said:

I mean, it's not unusual in the NHL; the Ducks did it in 2006, the Pens did it in 2016, the Coyotes did it in the bubble, the Flames did it. The fact that teams can choose which jerseys they want to use in the playoffs means playoff teams that want to change up their look the following season often use their postseason appearances to transition into that new look by replacing one of their jerseys from the previous branding.

 

The Caps and Canes are exceptions, but the Caps haven't changed their look since 2007 (though they really should) and the Canes just seem to have a penchant for wearing different jerseys and changing their jerseys even without an overarching brand refresh.

Just to toss out another idea as to why the Navy alts are being worn...

If the team has decided they are moving back to Royal and are done with Orange, then they're DONE. Why place a fresh order of playoff jerseys in orange when the team has decided to move on from that look?