2023-24 NHL Jersey Changes

[monkeypower]

3 hours ago, BBTV said:

Regardless, aren't they celebrating prematurely?  Shouldn't next year be the celebration since Dec 1 2024 falls in the '24-'25 season?

 

If the Bruins were a human child, where we don't count as one year-old (at least in the western world) until after the first year has been completed, they would be 100 on December 1, 2024 in the 2024-25 season.

 

However for sports franchises, we start the count of at one at the beginning of the first season and not after the first season has been completed. So the Bruins were officially one season old at puck drop in their first season on December 1, 2024.

 

The 2023-24 season is the Bruins 100th season in existence while the 2024-25 season would be their 100th calendar year in existence. 

 

(Hope that makes sense)

(I also counted the seasons on Wikipedia and this upcoming season is 100 seasons)

[Kevin W.]

And in any case, they've celebrated too many anniversaries in line with this being 100 for it to change now. They did their 50th in 1973-74, their 75th in 1998-99 and so on.

[BBTV]

9 hours ago, monkeypower said:

 

If the Bruins were a human child, where we don't count as one year-old (at least in the western world) until after the first year has been completed, they would be 100 on December 1, 2024 in the 2024-25 season.

 

However for sports franchises, we start the count of at one at the beginning of the first season and not after the first season has been completed. So the Bruins were officially one season old at puck drop in their first season on December 1, 2024.

 

The 2023-24 season is the Bruins 100th season in existence while the 2024-25 season would be their 100th calendar year in existence. 

 

(Hope that makes sense)

(I also counted the seasons on Wikipedia and this upcoming season is 100 seasons)

 

so it's a seasons vs anniversary thing?  Also does the lockout count or do we just ignore it since it's easier to count the years?

[pepis21]

9 hours ago, monkeypower said:

(I also counted the seasons on Wikipedia and this upcoming season is 100 seasons)

99th season if we didn't count 04/05 which was cancelled.

[Froob]

Is bruins logo change permanent? Much needed if so.

[henburg]

18 minutes ago, Froob said:

Is bruins logo change permanent? Much needed if so.

No, it is only meant to last this season according to the team. It's a pretty unprecedented move in pro sports to only adopt a look for 1 year, but I honestly could see them rolling with it full time in the near future if it is as well received as I think it will be this season. 

[monkeypower]

4 hours ago, BBTV said:

so it's a seasons vs anniversary thing?  Also does the lockout count or do we just ignore it since it's easier to count the years?

 

3 hours ago, pepis21 said:

99th season if we didn't count 04/05 which was cancelled.

 

Hockey is (and I guess basketball too) always weird with anniversaries because a single season takes place in two years. The NHL is even more weird because of the lockout where now the "anniversary", "years" and "seasons" might not match up depending on how a team counts (despite all three terms being sometimes used interchangeably when they really shouldn't be). 

 

The Bruins did count the lockout and if you scroll down on the Bruins mothership page to the anniversary logos, the 100th anniversary lines up with the previous anniversaries.

 

I think it really just ends up being what the team wants because neither the Ducks nor the Panthers have counted the lockout. Both teams celebrated their 10th anniversary in 02-03 but have since done the 20th, 25th and now the 30th on the 13-14. 18-19 and 23-24 seasons respectively. So their anniversaries shifted a year because of the lockout and now do line up with the calendar years.

[monkeypower]

I went through and by my count, 10 didn't count the lockout, 12 did, 3 unsure (Chicago and Detroit haven't had anniversary celebrations post-lockout and Montreal did two seasons for the 100th) and 4 have appear to have both counted and not counted the lockout because the post-lockout anniversaries don't line up (New Jersey, Islanders, Ottawa and Vancouver).

 

Spoiler

Anaheim – didn’t count lockout
Arizona – didn’t count lockout
Boston – did count lockout
Buffalo – did count lockout
Calgary – did count lockout
Carolina – didn’t count lockout (but the first anniversary they celebrated took place after lockout)
Chicago – unsure but appear to have not counted lockout (found article from team talking about 90th in 16-17), haven't celebrated anniversary season post-lockout
Colorado – didn’t count lockout
Columbus – didn’t count lockout
Dallas – did count lockout
Detroit – unsure, haven't had anniversary season post-lockout
Edmonton – did count lockout
Florida – didn’t count lockout
LA – did count lockout
Minnesota - didn’t count lockout (but the first anniversary they celebrated took place after lockout)
Montreal – unsure, did 100th anniversary over two seasons
Nashville – did count lockout
New Jersey – have appeared to have both counted and not counted
NYI - have appeared to have both counted and not counted
NYR – didn’t count lockout
Ottawa – have appeared to have both counted and not counted
Philadephia – did count lockout
Pittsburgh – did count lockout
San Jose – did count lockout
St. Louis – did count lockout
Tampa Bay – didn’t count lockout
Toronto – did count lockout
Vancouver - have appeared to have both counted and not counted
Washington – didn’t count lockout

 

I did not check if the teams did "anniversary", "years" and "seasons", just how the logos matched up with the seasons. I also obviously did not include Seattle, Winnipeg and Vegas.

 

I believe the confusion stems from teams and fans using "years" and "seasons" interchangeably for an anniversary when they shouldn't because they don't mean the same thing in a league where seasons span two years and one season didn't happen.

[monkeypower]

[ruttep]

13 hours ago, monkeypower said:

 

Just use the old colors already. This center ice will be a complete mismatch with their primary home uniforms.

[Ark]

This man killed the Mighty Ducks

 

[monkeypower]

17 hours ago, Ark said:

This man killed the Mighty Ducks

 

 

It's a bit of an oversimplification He, as been spread around, was involved in the colour choice, but the change was always a possibility and the ownership went through a process.

 

Quote

Samueli and his wife, Susan, purchased the team from the Walt Disney Company last year and said at that time they would consider making changes, including the team name.

 

Input from season ticket-holders was involved in the decision. "In selecting the name the Anaheim Ducks, we are respecting the heritage of a tremendous organization that has been a very important and visible part of the community, not to mention Western Conference champions and a Stanley Cup finalist," he said.

"The Mighty Ducks' organization very carefully considered the question of whether to change the team name, and spent many months evaluating various options," said David Paine, the CEO of PainePR, a public relations firm that coordinated the research effort for the Samuelis.

 

"The process included both qualitative research and a formal quantitative telephone survey of Mighty Ducks season ticket holders," Paine said. "While there was support for keeping the current name, the majority of those surveyed, nearly two-thirds, supported some sort of name change."

 

Ducks right wing Teemu Selanne said he's glad the team's name wasn't changed completely. "I'm very happy they kept the 'Ducks' because it's the original name," he said. "Taking the 'Mighty' away makes it more of a business. I think it's fine. With the new owners, I think they wanted a new identity.

 

"I think everybody's talking about it. I think the guys are happy about it."

 

[Morgan33]

The late 2000's was such a dark time for NHL jersey design...  It looked like things were heading in the right direction in 2004 with Minnesota's All Star jerseys, the Flames going back to red, the re-emergence of lace-up collars, the only "howler" jerseys worth remembering and the phasing out of the wackier 90's designs. 

 

Then the lockout arrives and the two big re-brands to emerge after are this and this...



And I can't think of a more appropriate jersey to sum up what came after than this...



 

[Chromatic]

22 minutes ago, Morgan33 said:

And I can't think of a more appropriate jersey to sum up what came after than this...



 

I'm always a little surprised by how bad that Flames 30th anniversary logo is whenever I see it. 

[ruttep]

19 hours ago, Morgan33 said:

The late 2000's was such a dark time for NHL jersey design...  It looked like things were heading in the right direction in 2004 with Minnesota's All Star jerseys, the Flames going back to red, the re-emergence of lace-up collars, the only "howler" jerseys worth remembering and the phasing out of the wackier 90's designs. 

 

Then the lockout arrives and the two big re-brands to emerge after are this and this...



And I can't think of a more appropriate jersey to sum up what came after than this...



 

That Sabres jersey was so bad that they were forced to bring back the original jersey as an alternate (with front numbers for some reason):

 

 

And they were even allowed to wear them in the 2007 playoffs for a select few (but not all) home games. Does anyone know why that is? The Canucks did the same thing that year.

[SFGiants58]

The Edge debacle would eventually lead to an outright throwback revolution in the '10s and '20s. The Oilers, Penguins, Flames, Sabres, and Flyers all adopted vintage designs, while the Stars and Lightning (and maybe the Panthers) went down the retro-inspired route. The only team that reintroduced a "modern" design after the Edge debacle were the Avs, who made the smart move to simplify the overall design and ditch black helmets/breezers/numbers. The Ducks could also count, but they just moved from a dreary design to pumpkin puke panels.

[Mr. Krabs]

2 hours ago, ruttep said:

That Sabres jersey was so bad that they were forced to bring back the original jersey as an alternate (with front numbers for some reason):

 

 

And they were even allowed to wear them in the 2007 playoffs for a select few (but not all) home games. Does anyone know why that is? The Canucks did the same thing that year.

I've always wondered why that was too. I was surprised when Buffalo and Vancouver switched to their alternates when the rules clearly say only one set of home/away uniforms can be used for the playoffs.

[ruttep]

5 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

The Edge debacle would eventually lead to an outright throwback revolution in the '10s and '20s. The Oilers, Penguins, Flames, Sabres, and Flyers all adopted vintage designs, while the Stars and Lightning (and maybe the Panthers) went down the retro-inspired route. The only team that reintroduced a "modern" design after the Edge debacle were the Avs, who made the smart move to simplify the overall design and ditch black helmets/breezers/numbers. The Ducks could also count, but they just moved from a dreary design to pumpkin puke panels.

 

I mean Vegas, Winnipeg, and Seattle could also count as modern, not to mention San Jose's look that is an evolution of their original design

[M4One]

7 hours ago, Mr. Krabs said:

I've always wondered why that was too. I was surprised when Buffalo and Vancouver switched to their alternates when the rules clearly say only one set of home/away uniforms can be used for the playoffs.

 

The Canucks did it because they blew a 3-1 series lead against Dallas and wanted to change things up.  I don't remember if they got fined or not for it, but it worked out.  They won game 7.  They probably didn't ask for permission and just did it.  Doubt the league would have made them change.

[monkeypower]

Was it even a rule back then?