2021-2022 NHL Jersey Changes

[The_Admiral]

It has the same status as the Nordiques logo but for people who don't particularly love Canada or hockey, make of that what you will

[andrewharrington]

Is there any other example of an enduring pro sports logo being so inextricably tied to a major pop culture piece? Durham Bulls, maybe?

 

Either way, I’d consider the duck mask logo iconic, and in my opinion, I have high standards for the term.

[B-mer]

I go back and forth on the Sharks “best look”. They had two such distinctively different looks in their original jerseys and the pre-edge ones.  If the edge jerseys used silver instead of orange maybe it would have hit differently. 
 

The pre-edge does carry an identity with it the most out of anything they’ve had. not too long ago I made this concept to go back to the pre-edge look and simplify the home. Frankly you could use either logo too but put the current one on it, using the old fin on the pants again. 
 

[Chromatic]

1 hour ago, the admiral said:

It has the same status as the Nordiques logo but for people who don't particularly love Canada or hockey, make of that what you will

Let's not pretend the Quebec fans particularly love Canada.

[The_Admiral]

34 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

Is there any other example of an enduring pro sports logo being so inextricably tied to a major pop culture piece?

 

idk maybe

[IceCap]

11 hours ago, Sec19Row53 said:

Really? I get that it came from the movie, but does anyone ELSE think this is true?

Gotta agree with you. 
It's a logo that came about during the 90s at the height of targeted marketing. I know, I was the target! It's the same sort of thing that brought us the Raptors' dribbling dinosaur. 

 

It's part of my generation's "childhood," but is it on the same level as the Habs' CH or the Chief Black Hawk head? No. I wouldn't say so. 

 

9 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

Is there any other example of an enduring pro sports logo being so inextricably tied to a major pop culture piece? Durham Bulls, maybe?

 

Either way, I’d consider the duck mask logo iconic, and in my opinion, I have high standards for the term.

I'm not sure the Mighty Ducks movies are beloved outside of my generation. I don't have data to back this up, but I do work with teenagers for a living so...

And I'm pretty sure that most younger people today aren't that aware of those movies. Or even aware that's where the name/logo come from. It's just the old Ducks logo to them. 

 

The Mighty Ducks movies weren't anything groundbreaking either. They were hockey's version of the "misfit kids sport team" movie that got recycled over and over. And hey that's cool, I enjoyed them but...pop culture touchstone? Eh....

[Digby]

There's a pretty high budget Mighty Ducks revival series on Disney+ this year. With Emilio Estevez and everything. I don't know if it's been a ratings hit or anything, seems like Ted Lasso currently has the "heartwarming sports TV series on a streaming service" spot on lock. But somebody thought splashing big bucks on Mighty Ducks media in 2021 was a thing worth doing.

[The_Admiral]

3 hours ago, IceCap said:

The Mighty Ducks movies weren't anything groundbreaking either. They were hockey's version of the "misfit kids sport team" movie that got recycled over and over. And hey that's cool, I enjoyed them but...pop culture touchstone? Eh....

 

I feel like more people remember D2 than the original, and that was more of a typically Disney human-cartoon sort of kids' movie. The first one felt, I don't know, I wouldn't call a Disney kids' movie dark or gritty, but the fact that they actually shot it in Minneapolis in winter counts toward something. It ain't Slap Shot but it feels more like a hockey movie.

[andrewharrington]

11 hours ago, the admiral said:

 

idk maybe

I said “enduring.” That one was retired.

 

3 hours ago, IceCap said:

Gotta agree with you. 
It's a logo that came about during the 90s at the height of targeted marketing. I know, I was the target! It's the same sort of thing that brought us the Raptors' dribbling dinosaur. 

 

It's part of my generation's "childhood," but is it on the same level as the Habs' CH or the Chief Black Hawk head? No. I wouldn't say so. 

 

I'm not sure the Mighty Ducks movies are beloved outside of my generation. I don't have data to back this up, but I do work with teenagers for a living so...

And I'm pretty sure that most younger people today aren't that aware of those movies. Or even aware that's where the name/logo come from. It's just the old Ducks logo to them. 

 

The Mighty Ducks movies weren't anything groundbreaking either. They were hockey's version of the "misfit kids sport team" movie that got recycled over and over. And hey that's cool, I enjoyed them but...pop culture touchstone? Eh....

 

I didn’t say they were good movies, but it always was and still remains a popular media franchise with continental, if not global recognition. Otherwise, Disney wouldn’t have wasted its time creating a whole new series out of it.

 

Heck, I’d argue that there are a lot of people who recognize the duck mask logo over many traditional hockey brands, and it’s just a natural result of there being more people interested in kids movies than there are serious hockey fans.

[AstroCree]

23 hours ago, EddieJ1984 said:

This was the best they looked imo.

 

I thought it had way too much going on with the shoulder patches and chest number. I did like the orange trim. I have nothing against it.

[monkeypower]

I definitely agree that the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim logo is one of the most well known hockey, if not sports, logos in history.

 

The thing is is that Mighty Ducks of Anaheim logo never came from the movie franchise. The logo is intrinsically tied into the movie franchise because of the NHL team, but it didn't appear in the movie franchise until after the NHL team started. The logo is only tied into the movie franchise because of the use of the NHL Mighty Ducks jerseys later on in the series.

 

The NHL Mighty Ducks brand and logo were created for the NHL team. Nothing remotely similar to the NHL Mighty Ducks logo nor brand appears in the first Mighty Ducks movie. The fact that the existence of the team is tied into that first movie notwithstanding, the lone branding connection back in 1993 between the NHL team and the movie franchise was in team name only, plus Eisner wearing a jersey from the movie during the name announcement. The NHL Mighty Ducks jersey doesn't appear in the movies until the end of D2 and then in parts of D3. There is also a thing at the end of D3 where the school's team name changes from Warriors to Mighty Ducks, but in the black/red/gold of the school colours. I haven't watched the movies in a while, so maybe I'll have to again just to find out the screen time of the NHL Mighty Ducks jerseys in the franchise.

 

What's weird is that the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim exist within the Mighty Ducks movie universe and is still named after the D-5 Ducks, because Paul Kariya appears in D3 as a member of the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim and I seem to recall Charlie trying to hit on a girl in D3 by saying there's an NHL team named after his team. However, the NHL Ducks are never referenced in the Disney+ series, just the Wild, so there's no indication if the team also dropped Mighty in the movie universe.

 

22 minutes ago, the admiral said:

I feel like more people remember D2 than the original, and that was more of a typically Disney human-cartoon sort of kids' movie. The first one felt, I don't know, I wouldn't call a Disney kids' movie dark or gritty, but the fact that they actually shot it in Minneapolis in winter counts toward something. It ain't Slap Shot but it feels more like a hockey movie.

 

People forget that the impetus for the plot is that Gordan Bombay, a high powered lawyer, gets arrested for a DUI and is sentenced to community service, which he serves by coaching a hockey team made up of 11 and 12 year olds.

 

Like I said, I haven't seen the movies in a while, but I think I would tend to agree with your assessment. D1 did have a lot of the "rag-tag 90s children's sports movie" story beats, but D2 was definitely more "typically Disney human-cartoon sort of kids' movie".

[wildwing64]

Funnily enough for the Disney+ series, they made a mock version of the logo to get around the fact that it's owned by the NHL Ducks.

 

 

[pepis21]

23 hours ago, EddieJ1984 said:

This was the best they looked imo.

 

Nah this jersey was too heavy.

[IceCap]

52 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

Otherwise, Disney wouldn’t have wasted its time creating a whole new series out of it.

Disney has a streaming service, needs content, and we're at the point in the nostalgia timeline where a 90s revival is about due. Seems about the right time to dust off that franchise. 

The new show doesn't even use the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim logo. 

 

52 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

Heck, I’d argue that there are a lot of people who recognize the duck mask logo over many traditional hockey brands, and it’s just a natural result of there being more people interested in kids movies than there are serious hockey fans.

I'm not sure about that. If it's true then it's got a pretty big asterisk after it. Go to the more hockey-crazed parts of the world (where the NHL just so happens to have teams) and I'm not certain the Mighty Ducks logo is more recognized than a classic NHL logo. 

 

34 minutes ago, monkeypower said:

The thing is is that Mighty Ducks of Anaheim logo never came from the movie franchise. The logo is intrinsically tied into the movie franchise because of the NHL team, but it didn't appear in the movie franchise until after the NHL team started. The logo is only tied into the movie franchise because of the use of the NHL Mighty Ducks jerseys later on in the series.

I don't buy that, sorry.

 

Yes, the logo was designed for the NHL team, but it's not so clear cut. Eisner wore a D-5 Ducks jersey from the first movie to the announcement for the team and the team in the movies wore the NHL uniforms for the first and second movies. 

 

While the duck goalie mask and sticks logo was designed for the NHL team there's very clearly some strong corporate synergy going on between the movies and team branding, and there was from day one until the day Disney sold the team. 

Denying that very clear fact because of a fear that some other fan will make fun of your team from "coming from a Disney movie" is dumb. They're going to do that anyway. Lean into it, don't deny the obvious. 

 

52 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

I didn’t say they were good movies, but it always was and still remains a popular media franchise with continental, if not global recognition.

Hey, if Disney wants to try a revival series out on their streaming platform because they need content and this is an IP they own, all the power to them. 

 

The problem I have with this "the Mighty Ducks logo is one of the most iconic logos in all of hockey" talk is that it mostly comes from my generation- the people who were kids who watched the original movies, were marketed to by the NHL team with the demographically-aimed unis, and maybe even watched the 90s cartoon (their agent is a dead ringer for ECW-era Paul Heyman). 

And this putting of this pop culture logo up on a pedestal just rings a bit like the general arrested development of my generation, where so many of us can't quite let go of what we were enamoured by as kids.

 

I'm hardly one to talk, I have a SEGA Genesis and a few shelves worth of games for it. I'm not immune to nostalgia.

But be it comic book movies rehashing the same stuff, the purveyors of plastic knack trying to sell us early 30-somethings a cheap statue of some character from some franchise we're obsessed with, or just a general cultural stagnation where if it's not a BRAND it's not worth growing in literature, tv, or film... I donno. Someone in my generation gushing about the Mighty Ducks logo because it was in a movie they liked when we were all ten just rubs me the wrong way. 

[monkeypower]

1 hour ago, IceCap said:

The new show doesn't even use the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim logo. 

 

Because Disney doesn't own that logo anymore (which is kind of where I was going with my post and is kind of not an argument for your point).

 

The only NHL rights I assume the Disney+ show got were to the Wild because some of the kids are wearing Wild stuff and there were posters on the bedroom wall (I don't know how getting rights for wearing sports teams items works in movies and tv). 

 

1 hour ago, IceCap said:

2 hours ago, monkeypower said:

The thing is is that Mighty Ducks of Anaheim logo never came from the movie franchise. The logo is intrinsically tied into the movie franchise because of the NHL team, but it didn't appear in the movie franchise until after the NHL team started. The logo is only tied into the movie franchise because of the use of the NHL Mighty Ducks jerseys later on in the series.

I don't buy that, sorry.

 

Yes, the logo was designed for the NHL team, but it's not so clear cut. Eisner wore a D-5 Ducks jersey from the first movie to the announcement for the team and the team in the movies wore the NHL uniforms for the first and second movies. 

 

While the duck goalie mask and sticks logo was designed for the NHL team there's very clearly some strong corporate synergy going on between the movies and team branding, and there was from day one until the day Disney sold the team. 

Denying that very clear fact because of a fear that some other fan will make fun of your team from "coming from a Disney movie" is dumb. They're going to do that anyway. Lean into it, don't deny the obvious. 

 

Oh, I wasn't trying to "[deny] that very clear fact because of a fear that some other fan will make fun of your team from "coming from a Disney movie"". If you've known my posting on the boards, or continued to read my post there where I also mention Eisner wearing the D-5 jersey, I've never denied the Disney connection and I've never been against the Disney connection and that's not what I was going for in that post.

 

I was more commenting about how the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim logo and brand are so tied into the movie franchise, and rightfully so,  but the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim logo and brand were not something from the original movie and were added to the later movies because of the NHL team. Yes it was synergy on Disney's part to include the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim jerseys in the movie franchise, but it was Disney putting their NHL team in their movie and not putting their movie in their NHL team. The Mighty Ducks of Anaheim jerseys were only one of four jerseys the team wore over the movie series, but it is the one that is most representative of the series because of the NHL team and Disney synergy.

 

The original movie influenced the NHL team who went in a different direction for their NHL team specific branding and in turn that NHL team specific branding influenced the following movies and tv series and then the resulting, partially retroactive, branding of the entire movie/tv universe (the MDCU?) as a whole.

 

I was trying to make a point about this larger discussion on how saying the "Mighty Ducks logo is the logo from the movie" is true, but it's surface level. There's a deeper and more interesting branding conversation to be had about the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim and the MDCU, especially when you include the canon of the MDCU.

 

1 hour ago, IceCap said:

The problem I have with this "the Mighty Ducks logo is one of the most iconic logos in all of hockey" talk is that it mostly comes from my generation- the people who were kids who watched the original movies, were marketed to by the NHL team with the demographically-aimed unis, and maybe even watched the 90s cartoon (their agent is a dead ringer for ECW-era Paul Heyman). 

And this putting of this pop culture logo up on a pedestal just rings a bit like the general arrested development of my generation, where so many of us can't quite let go of what we were enamoured by as kids.

 

I'm hardly one to talk, I have a SEGA Genesis and a few shelves worth of games for it. I'm not immune to nostalgia.

But be it comic book movies rehashing the same stuff, the purveyors of plastic knack trying to sell us early 30-somethings a cheap statue of some character from some franchise film, or just a general cultural stagnation where if it's not a BRAND it's not worth growing in literature, tv, or film... I donno. Someone in my generation gushing about the Mighty Ducks logo because it was in a movie they liked when we were all ten just rubs me the wrong way. 

 

While there is some true to this about the arrested development stuff, I think saying that people who like the Mighty Ducks logo are putting a "pop culture logo up on a pedestal" and "gushing about the Mighty Ducks logo because it was in a movie they liked when we were all ten" is a really jaded take (perhaps an eggplant and jaded take). I also don't think you can argue against a logo being iconic because you don't like how it became iconic. I would also argue that any of the other NHL teams would wish they had a fraction of the cultural cache and merchandising sales that the Mighty Ducks did during that time.

 

Like I was getting at, there is some separation between the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim and the MDCU and I think most people can and are conceptualizing that separation. You even say it yourself, which I do agree with, in that there are a sizable amount of young people who only know the Mighty Ducks logo as the Ducks old logo (which is what that logo is if it was never included in D2 or D3). The images going through the minds of people clamouring for the return of the Mighty Ducks, at least from what I have seen, are images of Paul and Teemu, Guy Hebert, the 2003 Stanley Cup run and Getzlaf and Perry being drafted together in the eggplant and jade, not Goldberg scoring the game winning goal in the Junior Goodwill Games.

 

However, in spite of everything I am arguing about the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim brand existing on its own, that separation between the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim and the MDCU will never fully be a clean break, at least not for another generation or so (depending on what the Ducks do branding wise because, given the story of the first season of the Disney+ series, the MCDU appears to be moving away from the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim look, which makes sense given the canon of the MDCU and because they don't own the logo anymore).

[IceCap]

12 minutes ago, monkeypower said:

While there is some true to this about the arrested development stuff...

There's a lot of truth to it. Pop culture seems frozen in the 1982-1998 sort of malaise. It's not even a case of the same old brands... brands themselves aren't being allowed to evolve, because the money is in shoving as much nostalgic crap at 30-40 somethings, and you can't even move characters in brands beyond their most marketable forms.

And people of my generation are so paralyzed of moving on from childhood that it keeps the cycle going.

 

Like... @Digby pointed out that there's real money in this new Mighty Ducks series. It would have been nice to see that funnelled into something new, but no. Let's retread the imagery and plot points of the 90s movie again. 

And Disney's right to do it from a financial standpoint because dredging the Mighty Ducks brand up again is going to make more money then a new idea. 

Which is the problem. People of my generation clinging to this stuff instead of letting Disney make new things for a new generation of kids. 

 

18 minutes ago, monkeypower said:

I think saying that people who like the Mighty Ducks logo are putting a "pop culture logo up on a pedestal" and "gushing about the Mighty Ducks logo because it was in a movie they liked when we were all ten" is a really jaded take (perhaps an eggplant and jaded take). I also don't think you can argue against a logo being iconic because you don't like how it became iconic.

Well how it became iconic is kind of the point. This isn't the Maple Leafs' crest which- however often its been tweaked- is part of the civic identity of Toronto. Or the Yankees' NY, which is almost a global symbol for the sport of baseball.

The Mighty Ducks logo is just...like the Autobot symbol or Batman's symbol or Pikachu's face. It's pop culture. Yes, developed for the team, but it was shoved into two movies and an animated cartoon to promote the broader brand. You can't separate it from that. 

 

My point is that it feels like something just as much at home hanging off the wall of a dusty comic book shop where you'd buy old action figures and Funko Pops as it is on a hockey sweater. It's engrained in pop culture and probably memorable because of that, but it gives me the same exhausted vibes I get when I see people my age losing their  on YouTube over another Marvel movie coming out. 

 

Like...yeah. I remember this stuff too, and it's cool, but can our collective pop culture be more than just the same stuff we were all into as kids? 

 

I mean bottom line- the Ducks can bring it back, and probably will, and it'll be cool in a way...but this notion that it's the best and most beloved logo in all of hockey crosses into some broader "state of the world" territory I'm liable to go off about. 

[IceCap]

On 10/22/2021 at 12:07 PM, AFirestormToPurify said:

Beautiful matchup in a league with too many dark blue teams imo

 

 

I count three teams that have a primary that I'd call dark blue. That's not bad at all. 

 

Columbus Blue Jackets

Seattle Kraken

Winnipeg Jets 

 

It goes up to six if you count alts...

Colorado Avalanche 

Edmonton Oilers 

Washington Capitals 

 

But overall I would disagree with the notion that the league is too dark blue heavy. 

 

[The_Admiral]

50 minutes ago, IceCap said:

There's a lot of truth to it. Pop culture seems frozen in the 1982-1998 sort of malaise.

 

We live in a radio station that plays "the best of the '80s, '90s, and today!" It will never stop being today.

[The_Admiral]

10 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

I said “enduring.” That one was retired.

 

So was the Duck Mask. Have both not endured?

[Delicate Genius]

Here are the helmet sponsors for the 32 teams this season. Some teams have sponsors on all their helmets, some on just one set, and four teams don't have sponsors at all. Arizona and Columbus added sponsors after the season started.

 

Prudential is donating its helmet space to a (not yet selected) Black-owned, local business for 13 Devils games this season.

 

Spoiler

Anaheim: UCI Health (all helmets)

Arizona: no sponsor (home), Med-Supply (away)

Boston: TD Bank (all helmets)

Buffalo: no sponsor (home), KeyBank (away)

Calgary: no sponsor (home), Telus (away)

Carolina: Lenovo (all helmets)

Chicago: Belle Tire (all helmets)

Colorado: no sponsors

Columbus: Designer Shoe Warehouse (home/alternate), iDesign (away)

Dallas: Energy Transfer (home), 7-Eleven (away)

Detroit: Meijer (all helmets)

Edmonton: no sponsors

Florida: Amerant Bank (home), no sponsor (away)

Los Angeles: Spectrum (all helmets)

Minnesota: Toyota (all helmets)

Montreal: Bell (home), CIBC (away)

Nashville: Vanderbilt Health (home), no sponsor (away)

New Jersey: Prudential (home); no away games yet

NY Islanders: UBS (away); no home games yet

NY Rangers: Benjamin Moore (all helmets)

Ottawa: no sponsors

Philadelphia: no sponsors

Pittsburgh: Bold Penguin (home), PPG (away)

San Jose: no sponsor (home), SAP (away)

Seattle: Amazon (home), The Climate Pledge (away)

St. Louis: Stifel (home), Enterprise (away)

Tampa Bay: Tampa General Hospital (all helmets)

Toronto: TikTok (all helmets)

Vancouver: TD (all helmets)

Vegas: Credit One Bank (home/alternate); P3 Health Partners (away)

Washington: Capital One (all helmets)

Winnipeg: Bell (all helmets)