Phoenix coyotes new logo

[mannloon]

well i'm glad everyone has agreed to disagree, but i will say i sterlings design is solid, at least as a whole, i think that shark reference was dead on.

[goalieboy82]

looks more like a fox than a coyote.   ???

[MonkeyWrench32]

Was that Higgy? The Long Lost Higgy?

I lurk like a professional lurker.  

[Puckguy14]

well i'm glad everyone has agreed to disagree

That can also be said about a poll by fans on azcentral.com.  Out of 4200 people who were polled about the new logo and unis, compared to the old ones, 68% prefer the now old logo of the Coyotes.  

BTW, here is the full uni from the unveiling

[Saintsfan]

I guiess the old stuff was more individual, more uniquely coyotes, the new stuff, at least at the moment, could almost be for anyone, maybe that changes once the yotes start to play in these!

[show off]

I like the Logo...the jersey could have used more black tho...at least to provide some continuity...

[NewYawkSeahawk]

The more i look at the new Coyotes Logo and Uniforms, the more i really hate it!

Im not saying the Picasso Logo was the best, but the colors were definitely vibrant of the Arizona Desert and atmosphere, now I look at the Coyotes and I think there are an alternate Detroit Red Wings.

I am sorry, but losing Arizona's color palette was just wrong!

[oilfaninvan]

i have fond memories of arizona and the dark red is definitely a good choice, but i'd love to see an amber colour in there like ASU sun devils. doesn't matter though, i love the new jerseys and colours and logo.

[Brian in Boston]

I'm baaaaaaaaccccccckkkkkkkkkk.

Okay... so I've seen the new logo and uniforms. I've pondered them while on vacation... given the Coyotes' makeover a good, long, unbiased three-week "think".

Bottom line? They are singularly uninspiring. We're talking "meh"... with a capital m, e and h. "MEH."

Was the original, so-called "Picasso Coyote" the long-term answer? I believe so. There was a decidedly Southwestern flair to the Hopi Kachina-inspired design of that logo. This new logo could have been designed for any team playing in any city in the country.

Oh, and enough with the retro uniform styling for EVERY SINGLE team. The Phoenix Coyotes franchise wasn't founded in the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s... well, you get the point. There's no reason that the team's uniforms need to reflect a heritage/history that just isn't there.

Brian in Boston

[JQK]

I'm baaaaaaaaccccccckkkkkkkkkk.

Okay... so I've seen the new logo and uniforms. I've pondered them while on vacation... given the Coyotes' makeover a good, long, unbiased three-week "think".

Bottom line? They are singularly uninspiring. We're talking "meh"... with a capital m, e and h. "MEH."

Was the original, so-called "Picasso Coyote" the long-term answer? I believe so. There was a decidedly Southwestern flair to the Hopi Kachina-inspired design of that logo. This new logo could have been designed for any team playing in any city in the country.

Oh, and enough with the retro uniform styling for EVERY SINGLE team. The Phoenix Coyotes franchise wasn't founded in the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s... well, you get the point. There's no reason that the team's uniforms need to reflect a heritage/history that just isn't there.

Brian in Boston

Ohhhh hoo hoo hoo Brian me and you are gonna have fuuuuuuuuun..........

Just because a team wasn't around 70-sun-odd years ago, dosn't mean they can't have a classical-type jersye. Where is it writtenthat if you were founded after 1970 that you have odd and ugly uniforms? Huh? I don't get it. The uniforms are beautiful, classy, they have an elegance aboutthem. they look like a hockey team not some Marketing directors's idea of what would look good in a vide game or on store shelves. You know who will buy the Coyotes merchandise, Coyotes fans, and i'll tell you what, alot of other people around the country will as well, i'll bet you. But in the end all that matters is the Phoneix Fan. And i have heard enough bellyaching about the picassoyote to know that most any design would be favored over what they had. And this design blows most other NHL teams out of the water.

[-kj]

No, it really doesn't blow most other teams out of the water.

The logo's just bad.  That's all there is to it.  The jerseys, not so horrible, but the logo and the jerseys don't match in any way, shape, or form.

[yh]

And i have heard enough bellyaching about the picassoyote to know that most any design would be favored over what they had.

PICASSOYOTE!  

Someone should be assembling a glossary of terms coined on this board.

Good one, King.

[Brian in Boston]

Hey, the bottom-line on the original logo is that it had NOTHING to do with Picasso... except in the minds of those too ignorant to recognize what it was a tribute to.

The original logo was inspired by the Kachina Dolls of the Hopi tribe of the American Southwest. It was a PERFECT logo for a team based in Phoenix. The new logo is simply a mediocre rendering of a coyote's head.

As for the new uniforms, I simply don't understand why so many professional teams are willing to take to the ice/field/court in outfits that look like they were designed for a local high school in the mid-1950s. I guess that I'm of the opinion that teams founded in the modern era should be trying to establish new traditions in logo and uniform design. I'm not advocating embracing outlandish design for the sake of doing so. Nor am I saying that modern teams should ignore the tried and true rules of design. I'm just saying that teams founded in the last 10 to 20 years have an easier opportunity to step to the forefront of modern design, simply because they don't have the "baggage" of incorporating 70 years of tradition into their identity package. So why not embrace that freedom? Why try to be something that they're not?

Here's a question JQK? Why have you come to the simplistic conclusion that any bold, new design utilized by a team "founded after 1970" is automatically "odd and ugly"?

Brian in Boston

[JQK]

Here's a question JQK? Why have you come to the simplistic conclusion that any bold, new design utilized by a team "founded after 1970" is automatically "odd and ugly"?

Brian in Boston

Good Question... because alot of designs of the modern era are odd and ugly. I would say about 5/8 of designs after 1970 have been outlandish and just...

What is so wrong with classy traditionalisim. Now the old Coyotes logo may have been southwestern (and i understand the design elements, i'm not as big of an idiot that you wished i was), but it was not appealing, even to the Coyotes fans. This logo has simplistic lines, and good colors, Adobe-hut type colors. It has a southwestern feel to it. Throw that all together, and the uniforms have a class and elegance about them. Like a Red Wings or Canadians or a Rangers. Instant class.

People won't be laughing at their uniforms now (like the once did to my Devils.. the skating christmas trees)

The Coyotes now look like a real hockey team, instead of looking like the dream of some Las Vegas Showgirl.......

[Brian in Boston]

How exactly do the new logo and uniforms have a "southwestern feel" to them?

Brian in Boston

[Roger Clemente]

There's a simple clean look, and then there is downright lazy.  This is very lazy.  And very boring.  And 100% COMPLETELY unoriginal (save for the unispiring, but okay logo).

The all brick just doesn't look right.  To me this says peewee hockey. (Actually it reminds me an awful lot of my high school hockey team, the Riverview Redmen) They could have at least tried an original striping pattern.  As is though, it needs another color in there, either the cream or the black, but only need them as accent colors.

--Roger "Time?" Clemente.

[Saintsfan]

The more I look at these the more I think that they just aren't a big league team uni. Both the uni and the logo just look under designed, and they don't fit together.

In some ways its a nice effort at a traditional look for a new team. But its like they stopped half way through the job.

[JQK]

The more I look at these the more I think that they just aren't a big league team uni. Both the uni and the logo just look under designed, and they don't fit together.

In some ways its a nice effort at a traditional look for a new team. But its like they stopped half way through the job.

So Big-League would be... what? Having 14 colors, a gradient, 2 alternates, 5 logos, outlandish swooshes smacked across a jersey (see: Ottawa Senators)....

The jersey is a simple, two color jersey.. Clean.. very nice looking.. the logo too has a graceful class to it. Simple lines, the two colors and the black trace. TheJersey/Logo combo i think is very well put together, and it is leaps and bounds better than what they had. This jersey and logo puts them in the upper third of the league as far as uniforms goes...

[Reaper98]

Simple lines, the two colors and the black trace. TheJersey/Logo combo i think is very well put together, and it is leaps and bounds better than what they had. This jersey and logo puts them in the upper third of the league as far as uniforms goes...

The colour black serves as more than a "trace colour."

It is used to show shadowing and lines of perspective so it is definitely a three colour logo.

Since the colour white is not used in the logo and it is used for the jerseys it makes the combo look unbalanced.  The logo uses three colours and the jersey only uses one of those colours?

They could at least have incorporated the missing two colours into the numbers and names on the jerseys to help balance the look.

They could have used three colour numbers (black, desert sand and brick red for the road jersey with desert sand, black and white for the home jersey) and two colour names (black and desert sand for the road jersey with white and desert sand for the home jersey).  This would have certainly helped even things out without having to change the Dark Red Wings jerseys.

[Saintsfan]

The more I look at these the more I think that they just aren't a big league team uni. Both the uni and the logo just look under designed, and they don't fit together.

In some ways its a nice effort at a traditional look for a new team. But its like they stopped half way through the job.

So Big-League would be... what? Having 14 colors, a gradient, 2 alternates, 5 logos, outlandish swooshes smacked across a jersey (see: Ottawa Senators)....

The jersey is a simple, two color jersey.. Clean.. very nice looking.. the logo too has a graceful class to it. Simple lines, the two colors and the black trace. TheJersey/Logo combo i think is very well put together, and it is leaps and bounds better than what they had. This jersey and logo puts them in the upper third of the league as far as uniforms goes...

All I am saying is I look at these and think how much better they could have been. And the logos and unis really don't fit together well IMO. I have nothing against going for a more classical look, and nothing against the simplicity of these outfits. There just seems a lack of thought in them.