2023-24 NHL Jersey Changes

[Klondyke]

23 hours ago, M4One said:

A ticket rep is not going to know what jersey the team might wear in the playoffs with half a season still left to play, so the doom and gloom over the return of the skate jersey is a little premature.

 

Any ways, here's Tampa Bay's Gasparilla jersey.  Kind of wish they used that logo for an alternate jersey.  Extra points for doing more than just slapping the logo on a practice jersey.

 

  

 

 

 

Worked for the Sharks. Marketing departments know well in advance what jerseys teams are going to wear in the playoffs. Playoff merch is the biggest sellers of the year and teams want their branding to figured out in advance.

 

People like you with no sources, who talk out of their ass is one of the most entertaining things I see on here. Like when you wake up each morning,  do you go "well its time for me to post on the internet as if I am an expert in a field I have no experience in".

 

 

[M4One]

38 minutes ago, Klondyke said:

Worked for the Sharks. Marketing departments know well in advance what jerseys teams are going to wear in the playoffs. Playoff merch is the biggest sellers of the year and teams want their branding to figured out in advance.

 

People like you with no sources, who talk out of their ass is one of the most entertaining things I see on here. Like when you wake up each morning,  do you go "well its time for me to post on the internet as if I am an expert in a field I have no experience in".

 

 

 

Well, talking out of my ass is the best part of my day besides coming here.  My apologizes to all ticket reps out there.  Does your ticket rep also know whether the Canucks are going to trade Kuzmenko for a second line centre?

[ruttep]

53 minutes ago, Klondyke said:

Worked for the Sharks. Marketing departments know well in advance what jerseys teams are going to wear in the playoffs. Playoff merch is the biggest sellers of the year and teams want their branding to figured out in advance.

 

People like you with no sources, who talk out of their ass is one of the most entertaining things I see on here. Like when you wake up each morning,  do you go "well its time for me to post on the internet as if I am an expert in a field I have no experience in".

 

 

 

Dude, no one takes what's being said here that seriously. We come on this site to bicker about sports logos and uniforms, none of this is gonna affect your life. 

[tBBP]

2 hours ago, HopewellJones said:

The Orca logo sucks solely because it uses the initial of the team name and not the locale. That's one of my biggest pet peeves, just drives me crazy. Imagine if Michigan used a 'W' as their primary logo. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Though the team says the B is not for "B"engals but for team owner Paul "B"rown)...

 

And depending on who you choose to listen to/believe...

 

 

(There's a hint of an implied E in that logo...whether that was intentional or not, I don't know.)

 

And then there was this from the past...

 

 

The point is...it's happened several times before. I get the logic behind the statement (I've made the same statement many times up in here), but sometimes I look beyond my own biases and just accept it if it's a good enough logo on its own.

[seasaltvanilla]

Imagine if a historical franchise like Montreal or something used the letter of the team name on their jersey.

[habsfan1]

On 1/19/2024 at 4:34 PM, M4One said:

A ticket rep is not going to know what jersey the team might wear in the playoffs with half a season still left to play, so the doom and gloom over the return of the skate jersey is a little premature.

 

Any ways, here's Tampa Bay's Gasparilla jersey.  Kind of wish they used that logo for an alternate jersey.  Extra points for doing more than just slapping the logo on a practice jersey.

 

  

 

 

 

 

That's a fun jersey that gives a nod to the Bucs.

[habsfan1]

16 hours ago, Morgan33 said:

Never said they did.

But if the team had stayed in Minnesota, they would have likely darkened their palette like just about every other team in the mid 90's...  The additions of Black and Metallic Gold happened gradually and well before the team moved.

 

Therefore, it would be disingenuous to call it a completely separate colour scheme.

 

I'm pretty sure Minnesota fans have a fondness for green and gold more than Dallas fans do.

 

The Wild are the ones that brought back a heritage jersey with a recolored version of their crest with the classic colors. A lot of fans still do love that scheme. I'm not against Minnesota having a green and gold full-time alternate that links back to their roots.

 

When the Stars were a part of the Winter Classic, what they decided to go with was a victory green and white jersey with brown gloves and beige pants.

[Morgan33]

1 hour ago, habsfan1 said:

 

I'm pretty sure Minnesota fans have a fondness for green and gold more than Dallas fans do.

You know this for a fact?  I've seen plenty of fans at Dallas Stars games wearing North Stars jerseys over the years. 

 

Quote

The Wild are the ones that brought back a heritage jersey with a recolored version of their crest with the classic colors. A lot of fans still do love that scheme. I'm not against Minnesota having a green and gold full-time alternate that links back to their roots.

The Wild having a Green, Yellow and White alternate doesn't prohibit the Stars from using  a Green, Yellow, Black and White one.  It's not like it's an overused colour combination.
 

Quote

When the Stars were a part of the Winter Classic, what they decided to go with was a victory green and white jersey with brown gloves and beige pants.

 

That questionable decision doesn't erase their history.  And those Winter Classic Jerseys were horrible.  The only interesting thing about them was the type of felt material they used...

[Ridleylash]

5 hours ago, Morgan33 said:

You know this for a fact?  I've seen plenty of fans at Dallas Stars games wearing North Stars jerseys over the years.

Sure, fans that moved south with the team from Minnesota or who bought North Stars jerseys long after the fact because they thought it looked nice; but let's not pretend like Dallas fans give too much of a about the Stars' time in Minnesota when they've won a Cup in Dallas and the North Stars didn't exactly have a lot of glamor on the ice.

 

Quote

The Wild having a Green, Yellow and White alternate doesn't prohibit the Stars from using  a Green, Yellow, Black and White one.  It's not like it's an overused colour combination.

No, but the fact that the only time Dallas ever considered a North Stars throwback design got scrapped while they've been perfectly OK with Minnesota making two different North Stars throwbacks with the Reverse Retros while they went all-in on their Dallas history kinda indicates that the Stars doesn't really seem to care too much about their Minnesota days anymore beyond the historical aspect.

 

Plus, Gaglardi doesn't seem interested in green and gold throwbacks, either, so it's not like it's any skin off his back to let the Wild have all of that fun when North Stars stuff would be mainly selling in Minnesota, anyways.

 

Quote

That questionable decision doesn't erase their history.  And those Winter Classic Jerseys were horrible.  The only interesting thing about them was the type of felt material they used...

And yet they deliberately chose to homage an old-school Texas team in their current colors over any kind of North Stars homage, which would've printed them money.

 

Seems to me like they just don't think they need the North Stars imagery; which makes sense, the Stars have been in Dallas longer than they were in Minnesota and won their only Cup in Texas, so why bother with making an homage to a team the majority of their own fanbase would only know from history videos, Wikipedia and video games?

[HopewellJones]

18 hours ago, seasaltvanilla said:

Imagine if a historical franchise like Montreal or something used the letter of the team name on their jersey.

"Club de Hockey Canadien." The official/original team name is French, and there is no 'M' in that name.  That makes it a little different for me, especially with how long they've been around. 

 

But yeah those other examples irk me. Especially the Falcons. The logo is literally a Falcon...does it really need to be shaped like an F? It'd be one thing if they were the Frankfurt Falcons or something, and the F was representing the locale name. In that case, the logo would represent the full team name - F for Frankfurt, and a depiction of a falcon for..Falcons. The way it is now just seems redundant and doesn't strike me as clever at all. 

 

For the record I actually like the Falcons logo. Just the whole "the falcon is shaped like an F because falcon starts with F" seems dumb. 

 

Same thing with that Grizzlies logo. I mean...the identifier is with the animal mascot. Do Memphis fans really brand themselves around the first letter of the word "grizzlies?" Do they ever refer to the team as the "Gs?" Make that an M to include the locale name, and I'd be into it. 

[monkeypower]

22 hours ago, Chromatic said:

The theory that gets promulgated all the time is that the Canucks changed to the Orca logo to “promote” Orca Bay. That’s not the case.

If you want to make the ‘synergism’ argument, which is still silly because it isn’t like Orca Bay is some separate entity from the Canucks, that’s fine, but then the Orca being a “corporate” logo makes no sense as a criticism either,

 

I never once said anything about promoting Orca Bay. I said the ownership based the logo after themselves, it's arguably braggadocious and self-important and is corporate synergy but none of those things have to equal promotion. It's like when the Saskatoon Blades switched to a bulldozer logo because the then-owner made his money in construction. He's not actively promoting his construction company, he just reflected himself in the logo.

 

It would be like if I owned a team and gave them a powerful monkey logo (because of a dumb name I accidentally made on this forum when I was 12)(why do I still have this name).

[tBBP]

1 hour ago, HopewellJones said:

But yeah those other examples irk me. Especially the Falcons. The logo is literally a Falcon...does it really need to be shaped like an F? It'd be one thing if they were the Frankfurt Falcons or something, and the F was representing the locale name. In that case, the logo would represent the full team name - F for Frankfurt, and a depiction of a falcon for..Falcons. The way it is now just seems redundant and doesn't strike me as clever at all. 

 

For the record I actually like the Falcons logo. Just the whole "the falcon is shaped like an F because falcon starts with F" seems dumb. 

 

Same thing with that Grizzlies logo. I mean...the identifier is with the animal mascot. Do Memphis fans really brand themselves around the first letter of the word "grizzlies?" Do they ever refer to the team as the "Gs?" Make that an M to include the locale name, and I'd be into it. 

 

Two things:

 

There was a much different approach to design in the 60s when the original Falcons logo debuted. I'm not sure if it was originally meant to imply an F or not, but the now-current logo certainly was intended to, well, "strongly imply" the F. Speaking of, I don't see a problem in "implying" certain elements, but there are instances where it becomes obvious and thus kinda ruins the whole thing. Like this:

 

 

It's the difference between connotative and denotative design. When it's connotative, it's nicely built in (and in the grand visual hierarchy, it may be one of the last things the eye picks up). When it denotative, it's done on purpose, often starting from that point and working backwards (which is what I believe happened with the above Wolves example; that tree in the fur is way too obvious. Matthew Wolff did a great job in fixing that with the current Wolves logo.) 

 

Now, for the second thing. That Grizzlies logo was originally designed while the club was still in Vancouver, so of course Memphis wouldn't have any kind connection to it. That said, their now-current and to me vastly inferior alternate logo does imply an M:

 

 

 

You'd have to look very hard to see it if you didn't already know it was there, but the top three claws are what imply the M. (Thus, it's connotative; it connotes, or projects the idea of, an M.) For reference, here's the preceding version(s) of that claw-ball mark:

 

 

This raises a whole other line of questioning, whether "sanitizing" that logo (my words, but pretty much the same thing Tampa did with the current Jolly Roger logo as compared to the pre-2013 version) just to be clever and imply the M was really worth sacrificing the superior dynamism of the previous version(s). But that's what they did, and that's what we got.

 

Design. Decisions, decisions....

[Morgan33]

15 hours ago, Ridleylash said:

Sure, fans that moved south with the team from Minnesota or who bought North Stars jerseys long after the fact because they thought it looked nice; but let's not pretend like Dallas fans give too much of a about the Stars' time in Minnesota when they've won a Cup in Dallas and the North Stars didn't exactly have a lot of glamor on the ice.

 

You've personally talked to all these fans and got their two cents on the issue?  Or are you just pulling it out of thin air to support your narrative?  If Dallas Stars fans don't care about their Northstars roots, why do articles from fans like this exist?  I guarantee  more Stars fans care about their Northstars history than anything to do with the Dallas Texans.

https://www.sbnation.com/2017/3/29/15106256/minnesota-wild-north-stars-jerseys-dallas-stars-nhl-mad-online-cut-it-out-dave-coulier

 

Quote

No, but the fact that the only time Dallas ever considered a North Stars throwback design got scrapped while they've been perfectly OK with Minnesota making two different North Stars throwbacks with the Reverse Retros while they went all-in on their Dallas history kinda indicates that the Stars doesn't really seem to care too much about their Minnesota days anymore beyond the historical aspect.

 

Their recent reverse retro was based off a uniform worn by both the Northstars and Stars. 

 

Quote

And yet they deliberately chose to homage an old-school Texas team in their current colors over any kind of North Stars homage, which would've printed them money.

 

You realize that during the design process for a Winter Classic, the two uniforms are not created independently of each other...   Nashville didn't have a rich history they could throwback to so they did a homage to an old Nashville team.  Dallas followed suit.  Their decision to not play up their actual history had nothing to do with wanting to disassociate from it.  

If they wanted to make a clean break from their past, there wouldn't be retired numbers from Northstar's players in the rafters and they would have ditched Green for a scheme based of the Texas flag.  

 

Quote

Seems to me like they just don't think they need the North Stars imagery; which makes sense, the Stars have been in Dallas longer than they were in Minnesota...

Their current uniforms have Northstars imagery in them.  The Italicized Star from the classic N-Star logo has been on the front of every single Dallas Stars uniform since their inception.  So has their main colour green.  Add some yellow trim to the current set and it's practically a direct throwback to what the Northstars were wearing in 1991.
 

Quote

and won their only Cup in Texas...

 

In darkened Northstars Colours.  Were the Oilers making a clean break from their past when they went from Royal, Orange and White to Midnight Blue, White and Copper?  No.
 

Quote

so why bother with making an homage to a team the majority of their own fanbase would only know from history videos, Wikipedia and video games?

 

Because they're the same team.  Acting like they aren't is revisionist history.  No matter how much you wish the team didn't move.

[HopewellJones]

1 hour ago, tBBP said:

 

Two things:

 

There was a much different approach to design in the 60s when the original Falcons logo debuted. I'm not sure if it was originally meant to imply an F or not, but the now-current logo certainly was intended to, well, "strongly imply" the F. Speaking of, I don't see a problem in "implying" certain elements, but there are instances where it becomes obvious and thus kinda ruins the whole thing. Like this:

 

 

It's the difference between connotative and denotative design. When it's connotative, it's nicely built in (and in the grand visual hierarchy, it may be one of the last things the eye picks up). When it denotative, it's done on purpose, often starting from that point and working backwards (which is what I believe happened with the above Wolves example; that tree in the fur is way too obvious. Matthew Wolff did a great job in fixing that with the current Wolves logo.) 

 

Now, for the second thing. That Grizzlies logo was originally designed while the club was still in Vancouver, so of course Memphis wouldn't have any kind connection to it. That said, their now-current and to me vastly inferior alternate logo does imply an M:

 

 

 

You'd have to look very hard to see it if you didn't already know it was there, but the top three claws are what imply the M. (Thus, it's connotative; it connotes, or projects the idea of, an M.) For reference, here's the preceding version(s) of that claw-ball mark:

 

 

This raises a whole other line of questioning, whether "sanitizing" that logo (my words, but pretty much the same thing Tampa did with the current Jolly Roger logo as compared to the pre-2013 version) just to be clever and imply the M was really worth sacrificing the superior dynamism of the previous version(s). But that's what they did, and that's what we got.

 

Design. Decisions, decisions....

Very insightful and interesting, thank you!

[henburg]

1 hour ago, tBBP said:

 

Two things:

 

There was a much different approach to design in the 60s when the original Falcons logo debuted. I'm not sure if it was originally meant to imply an F or not, but the now-current logo certainly was intended to, well, "strongly imply" the F. Speaking of, I don't see a problem in "implying" certain elements, but there are instances where it becomes obvious and thus kinda ruins the whole thing. Like this:

 

 

It's the difference between connotative and denotative design. When it's connotative, it's nicely built in (and in the grand visual hierarchy, it may be one of the last things the eye picks up). When it denotative, it's done on purpose, often starting from that point and working backwards (which is what I believe happened with the above Wolves example; that tree in the fur is way too obvious. Matthew Wolff did a great job in fixing that with the current Wolves logo.) 

 

Now, for the second thing. That Grizzlies logo was originally designed while the club was still in Vancouver, so of course Memphis wouldn't have any kind connection to it. That said, their now-current and to me vastly inferior alternate logo does imply an M:

 

 

 

You'd have to look very hard to see it if you didn't already know it was there, but the top three claws are what imply the M. (Thus, it's connotative; it connotes, or projects the idea of, an M.) For reference, here's the preceding version(s) of that claw-ball mark:

 

 

This raises a whole other line of questioning, whether "sanitizing" that logo (my words, but pretty much the same thing Tampa did with the current Jolly Roger logo as compared to the pre-2013 version) just to be clever and imply the M was really worth sacrificing the superior dynamism of the previous version(s). But that's what they did, and that's what we got.

 

Design. Decisions, decisions....

 

This is a great breakdown of something I think that can be seen a lot in new logo designs. I think that everybody loves meaning behind design decisions and wants great storytelling to help sell their ideas, but going too far with it can come at the cost of a better and simpler idea. The logo that the Browns ended up picking for the Dawg Pound is a great example of this problem I think. The design is mostly fine, but it has some odd visual aspects simply because the designer wanted to create something that had as much local symbolism in it as possible rather than something that simply portrays a dog well.

 

 

There are some instances that incorporate the symbolism pretty naturally, like the helmet stripe that nearly all of the concepts featured. However, did the dog really need an unnatural, lumpy highlight in its ear that can sort of be skewed to look like Ohio? Or the weird helmet shape over the right eye? We're losing sight of the point and making the form take a backseat to every idea of what Cleveland is that you could possibly think of.

 

For the Falcons and Eagles, I see those as sort of happy design coincidences. If you see an F or an E in those logos then that is like a fun easter egg for the viewer, but it's definitely not what the logo aims to depict. To compare them to something like the Bengals B logo that is literally just a letterform with a texture is not accurate. 

[BBTV]

Wow.  I hadn't paid much attention to that logo, but now that I see all that crap that was forced in there, it may be my least-favorite logo in the past 10-15 years.  If it was for the team and not just a fan section, I'd say it's worse than the Slug.

 

The really just slapped a slightly-modified Ohio in the ear for... reasons.

 

Speaking of the Slug, I think I see it to the right of the stripe!   It's like they knew this logo was as bad as the Slug so they paid homage to it.

[ruttep]

Saw this one in person. Cannot understate how much better these colors look than black, tan, and orange.

[wildwing64]

3 hours ago, ruttep said:

Saw this one in person. Cannot understate how much better these colors look than black, tan, and orange.

 

Choice of photo aside - yeah, those colours still look good. But they won't return to plum eggplant and jade full time as long as the Samuelis are committed to their Orange County orange shtick. I'm still debating on flying out there to see these in person.

[Nordiks_19]

Fans have been calling for the Ducks to return to those colors for like 15 years now. There is only 3 explanations as to why it never happened :

1 : The Samuellis are too stubborn to consider it

2 : The marketing team are complete morons to acknowledge the money value in those jerseys

3 : The Samuellis don't give an F of what the fans want.

[Morgan33]

43 minutes ago, Nordiks_19 said:

Fans have been calling for the Ducks to return to those colors for like 15 years now. There is only 3 explanations as to why it never happened :

1 : The Samuellis are too stubborn to consider it

2 : The marketing team are complete morons to acknowledge the money value in those jerseys

3 : The Samuellis don't give an F of what the fans want.

 

They also won a championship in those colours... not that I'm advocating they stick around.  If I had my way, their original jerseys would return unchanged.