2023-24 NHL Jersey Changes

[Kevin W.]

18 hours ago, ruttep said:

 

Uh oh, I seem to have touched off the "should the Flames have black?" debate again.

They should. The pre-Edge jerseys were the best they've ever had and they're far superior to the retro jerseys.

[ruttep]

11 minutes ago, Kevin W. said:

They should. The pre-Edge jerseys were the best they've ever had and they're far superior to the retro jerseys.

 

Again, disagree on the second point, but the 2003-2007 jerseys are unfairly hated because of those Edge jerseys. They're far better than the unnecessary side panels, piping, and provincial/national flags that Reebok introduced. They very well could've gained the "modern classic" status that we apply to jerseys like the original Mighty Ducks, original Avalanche, or Dallas "star" jerseys if they stuck around longer.

[chcarlson23]

On 3/1/2024 at 9:00 PM, Morgan33 said:

Here's the thing people tend to overlook about black on sports uniforms...  Neither black nor white are technically colours.  They are neutral shades.  Putting the black equipment in the colour hierarchy of this uniform is like doing the same with the white uniform base.  The actual colour hierarchy of this perfectly balanced uniform is Burgundy > Blue > Silver*.  Just like on the home version.

*although silver could technically be classified as a shade as well,
 

 

This doesn’t make any sense. Black and white are not neutral colors or neutral shades. Unless planned, they can really stick out. White breezers and gloves have a tendency to do that. But black would too if paired with a team that doesn’t have that in their color scheme. The Habs aren’t out there rocking black breezers,  because they’ve never had black in their color scheme. 

 

And you absolutely have to include them into the color scheme, because it does add to the visual weight and/or effect of the look. You would probably say something like “Team A has ____ on their dark jerseys, but not their white jerseys.” So white is literally included in the color hierarchy of a white jersey. 
 

I also don’t know how you can say that 90’s look is perfectly balanced. You’ll have to explain that more, because what I see, (and obviously this could all just be a difference in opinion) is a set that has a lot of burgundy and white up top, and then really random black gear in the middle, and then socks that emphasize more blue than anywhere else in the set. (I know there is both blue and black across the set, but at a distance, such as watching the game from the stands, all I can see of black is the gear, and of blue is the socks.) It feels a little bottom heavy, and that two colors that are featured below the waist aren’t really present on the jersey. 

 

The Avs probably used black gear, because burgundy or steel blue breezers and gloves were probably too hard to come by in the 90’s. So they chose black, and then shoehorned it into the rest of the sweaters, forever making their color scheme ridiculous complicated. 

[monkeypower]

17 minutes ago, chcarlson23 said:

The Avs probably used black gear, because burgundy or steel blue breezers and gloves were probably too hard to come by in the 90’s. So they chose black, and then shoehorned it into the rest of the sweaters, forever making their color scheme ridiculous complicated. 

 

I just looked to see if there was any crossover when the Ducks switched to the black equipment for a short period, which has been explained away as issues getting the purple equipment (though I don't know if I've ever seen an "official" explanation), but they had the black equipment for 97-98 and 98-99 which is after the Avs came in.

 

However, I do wonder how much, if any, of the Rocky Mountain Extreme made it through to the the Avalanche.

[Morgan33]

44 minutes ago, chcarlson23 said:

This doesn’t make any sense. Black and white are not neutral colors or neutral shades. Unless planned, they can really stick out. White breezers and gloves have a tendency to do that. But black would too if paired with a team that doesn’t have that in their color scheme. The Habs aren’t out there rocking black breezers,  because they’ve never had black in their color scheme. And you absolutely have to include them into the color scheme, because it does add to the visual weight and/or effect of the look.

 

You are right that black and white can stick out on a uniform.  I don't think I ever made the argument that they didn't.  But from a technical standpoint, they are still not colours.  They are shades that augment colours.  Black and White are nowhere visible on a colour spectrum and are therefore neutral.  That doesn't mean they don't effect the visual weight of the uniform.  The Avalanche made the creative decision, from day one, to use 3 neutral shades. 

 

Quote

I also don’t know how you can say that 90’s look is perfectly balanced. You’ll have to explain that more, because what I see, (and obviously this could all just be a difference in opinion) is a set that has a lot of burgundy and white up top, and then really random black gear in the middle, and then socks that emphasize more blue than anywhere else in the set. (I know there is both blue and black across the set, but at a distance, such as watching the game from the stands, all I can see of black is the gear, and of blue is the socks.) It feels a little bottom heavy, and that two colors that are featured below the waist aren’t really present on the jersey. 

There's black on the numbers and black on the front crest so I don't see the issue with black breezers.  The jersey striping is Burgundy > Silver > Blue and that's repeated on the sock striping.  I see no issue with balance on that road jersey.  The only balance issue I see on the entire set is the discrepancy between the home striping and home socks.

 

Quote

The Avs probably used black gear, because burgundy or steel blue breezers and gloves were probably too hard to come by in the 90’s. So they chose black, and then shoehorned it into the rest of the sweaters, forever making their color scheme ridiculous complicated. 

 

If the Ducks could get Eggplant gear in 1994, there is no reason to think the Avalanche couldn't get Burgundy gear in 1996.  It was a creative decision on the part of the team, likely because they didn't want any instance of Burgundy and Blue to touch directly (because it looks terrible).  Burgundy breezers would have broken this rule at home and blue breezers would have broken it on both uniforms.

 Why would they go out of their way to wear black helmets on the road, their first year, if this wasn't a intentional decision?  It wasn't until the completely closed-minded and cringe inducing term; "Black for Black's Sake" was coined that anybody started taking issue with it.

 

[ruttep]

2 hours ago, monkeypower said:

However, I do wonder how much, if any, of the Rocky Mountain Extreme made it through to the the Avalanche.

 

Do we know what the color scheme for the Rocky Mountain Extreme would've been?

[spartacat_12]

On 3/1/2024 at 10:00 PM, Morgan33 said:

Here's the thing people tend to overlook about black on sports uniforms...  Neither black nor white are technically colours.  They are neutral shades.  Putting the black equipment in the colour hierarchy of this uniform is like doing the same with the white uniform base. 

 

Wearing black equipment with a uniform that doesn't have any black in it looks amateur. It's like seeing a minor hockey team where every kid just has basic black pants regardless of what colour their jersey is. If the Red Wings or Canadiens started wearing black pants would that not clash with their uniforms?

 

If they were going to keep the black equipment, it would have worked better if they eliminated silver altogether, like they did with this alternate.

 

[Bmac]

Just last week I learned that the Avs were originally supposed to wear burgundy and forest green!

[Morgan33]

3 hours ago, spartacat_12 said:

Wearing black equipment with a uniform that doesn't have any black in it looks amateur.

 

Both Avalanche original home and roads contain black so this point holds no water.  Primary logo does too.

 

Quote

It's like seeing a minor hockey team where every kid just has basic black pants regardless of what colour their jersey is. If the Red Wings or Canadiens started wearing black pants would that not clash with their uniforms?

 

Who's advocating the Red Wings or Canadiens start wearing black pants?  Neither of them use it on their uniforms or logos so of course it would clash.

 

Quote

If they were going to keep the black equipment, it would have worked better if they eliminated silver altogether, like they did with this alternate.

 

 Notice how this alternate doesn't have a single instance of burgundy and blue touching directly?  There was a very good reason for the use of black equipment with their original uniforms.  Which is something the team has forgotten since 2007...

 

 

 

[Ridleylash]

Black is completely and utterly unnecessary as an Avs uniform color when they already have a pretty dark color in their palette (burgundy) to contrast the blue and silver with. It's one of the purest examples of BFBS in the NHL, especially since they barely used it for anything anyways.

 

The dark jersey only has it as an accent color for a single stripe on the hem and sleeves, and they didn't even bother putting black on anything but the NoB and numbers on their white jerseys; making the black equipment feel even less cohesive on what was their home jersey at the time.

 

I'd rather they bring out burgundy pants if there must be a different pants color for the road jersey, because at least it keeps within the color hierarchy of the jersey.

[charger77]

Preds jerseys from a charity event:

 

 

[Morgan33]

1 hour ago, Ridleylash said:

Black is completely and utterly unnecessary as an Avs uniform color when they already have a pretty dark color in their palette (burgundy) to contrast the blue and silver with. It's one of the purest examples of BFBS in the NHL, especially since they barely used it for anything anyways.

 

 

It's not Black for Black's sake if Black is a part of their scheme and has been for all 28 years of the franchise's existence.  This comment perfectly illustrates why this cringe term has lost all meaning in 2024.
 

Quote

The dark jersey only has it as an accent color for a single stripe on the hem and sleeves, and they didn't even bother putting black on anything but the NoB and numbers on their white jerseys; making the black equipment feel even less cohesive on what was their home jersey at the time.

It doesn't need to be anywhere else.  It's on the primary logo, numbers and equipment.  It can be seen no matter what angle you're looking at the uniform from.  Why must it arbitrarily be shoehorned onto the striping?

 

Quote

I'd rather they bring out burgundy pants if there must be a different pants color for the road jersey, because at least it keeps within the color hierarchy of the jersey.

 

You know you've got a cohesive and well thought out uniform set when it requires two sets of breezers to not look like a dogs dinner...

[spartacat_12]

2 hours ago, Morgan33 said:

Both Avalanche original home and roads contain black so this point holds no water.  Primary logo does too.

 

Where do you see any black on this jersey? The black names & numbers never made sense on the white jersey, and were basically thrown on there to justify the black equipment. And about a third of the teams in the league have a colour in their logo that doesn't appear anywhere else in their uniforms, so wearing black pants because of a tiny black puck covered in snow seems like a stretch.

 

 

Quote

Who's advocating the Red Wings or Canadiens start wearing black pants?  Neither of them use it on their uniforms or logos so of course it would clash.

 

You yourself said that black is neutral, and that black equipment shouldn't factor into a team's colour hierarchy.

[chcarlson23]

2 hours ago, Morgan33 said:

It doesn't need to be anywhere else.  It's on the primary logo, numbers and equipment.  It can be seen no matter what angle you're looking at the uniform from.  Why must it arbitrarily be shoehorned onto the striping?

Why does it have to be arbitrarily shoehorned into the numbers and gear then? The striping on a hockey jersey should carry the weight of the colors. If your striping doesn’t have the colors that you included into the numbers, there’s something off about the design. 

[tBBP]

I don't know whether to call this thread Avjacked or blackjacked at this point...

[Morgan33]

4 hours ago, chcarlson23 said:

If your striping doesn’t have the colors that you included into the numbers, there’s something off about the design. 

 

You mean like this?  I see blue on the numbers but not on the striping.

 

5 hours ago, spartacat_12 said:

Where do you see any black on this jersey? The black names & numbers never made sense on the white jersey, and were basically thrown on there to justify the black equipment. And about a third of the teams in the league have a colour in their logo that doesn't appear anywhere else in their uniforms, so wearing black pants because of a tiny black puck covered in snow seems like a stretch.

 

4 hours ago, chcarlson23 said:

Why does it have to be arbitrarily shoehorned into the numbers and gear then?

 

I've explained ad-nauseam on this thread why they went with black equipment and why it was necessary.  To eliminate any instances of burgundy and blue touching on the uniform.  Look at how awful these colours look side by side.  No contrast or definition what so ever. 

 

[chcarlson23]

10 minutes ago, Morgan33 said:

 

 

You mean like this?  I see blue on the numbers but not on the striping.

 

 

 

 

I've explained ad-nauseam on this thread why they went with black equipment and why it was necessary.  To eliminate any instances of burgundy and blue touching on the uniform.  Look at how awful these colours look side by side.  No contrast or definition what so ever. 

 

Yeah that’s a huge flaw with the current Avs road jersey. The silver on burgundy striping is really awful on its own, without the fact that blue is now much more predominant in the set. 
 

Honestly the burgundy and blue touching is whatever for me. Maybe it’s just a difference of opinion, but I guess I don’t see the 90’s set as so much better than the current set. Maybe a little better? But the home set works well with the blue breezers and gloves. 

And the Avs could have gone with so many different options to keep the burgundy and blue separate, over adding black to the set. 
 

Pretty much every jersey the Avs have worn have had major flaws when it comes to using their colors and distributing them in a pleasant way. 

[ruttep]

 

The Avs just released this graphic of Cale Makar, and the editing they used made the white jersey's shoulders blue. I . . . don't hate making the shoulders/hem blue if they insist on keeping blue pants and making blue the primary color.

[maz]

Uniform have more than two color. Uniform doesn't look like from 1975. Uniform make me mad.

 

Depth? Contrast? Pssh. ALL THE BRIGHT COLORS! If you can't find it in the default MS Paint color palette, don't use it. Change your TV's settings and cope if you don't like it, b*tch.

 

Am I doing this right?

 

[Lights Out]

11 hours ago, Morgan33 said:

I've explained ad-nauseam on this thread why they went with black equipment and why it was necessary.  To eliminate any instances of burgundy and blue touching on the uniform.  Look at how awful these colours look side by side.  No contrast or definition what so ever. 

 

Those colors absolutely do contrast. Maybe they're not the absolute best colors to have touching each other, but it's not the end of the world like you're making it out to be either.