NHL 2010-2011

[Morgan33]

I think I chose the wrong wording. What I mean is that there is more to a logo than just pure aesthetics.

Absolutely but aesthetics still play a huge role, maybe even the most important. Aesthetically I dont think the "=O=" can touch the original Forward Facing Centurion.

Even though it is technically a different team they are still playing in the same league in the same city under the same name.

I don't believe the NHL was even established when the original Senators were active. I might be wrong though, can anybody confirm or deny?

To me the =O= represents the name Ottawa Senators better than the gladiator logo. I have lived in Ottawa my whole life and I have never seen any gladiators walking around.

The "=O=" represents the city but it doesn't represent the team name any more than the Sabres red and black buffalo head. Its just an "O" with two stripes. They could be called the Ottawa Prostitutes and not need to change the logo. With the Centurion head you at least had something that could be interpreted as a Senator. While its true there aren't any Roman Gladiators roaming Ottawa the motiff works nicely because nobody wants to see a depiction of an actual Senator on a jersey.

I mean when Cleveland got an NFL expansion team they didn't try and come up with a new "cool looking" logo, they brought back the uniforms worn by the original Browns (and I don't buy the argument that the Browns are the same franchise simply because the NFL says so).

I dont know or care about the Browns situation so I wont comment. I doubt it was exactly the same deal though.

[IceCap]

I think I chose the wrong wording. What I mean is that there is more to a logo than just pure aesthetics.

Absolutely but aesthetics still play a huge role, maybe even the most important. Aesthetically I dont think the "=O=" can touch the original Forward Facing Centurion.

The Ottawa Senators' obsession with the centurion theme always struck me as odd. The team is named after the Senators nickname of the original club. The Senators nickname came about because the team played in the Canadian capital and the upper house of Parliament is the Senate. The connection between the Canadian Senate and Roman centurions is, well, non-existent.

The team's attempt to tie their identity to the Senate of ancient Rome also falls up short. Yes there was a Roman Senate, but Senators were not centurions. Some (not all, but some) Roman senators may have lead centurions in battle, but the connection still isn't that strong. The Roman theme for the Senators, even when it looked good, never really fit.

Even though it is technically a different team they are still playing in the same league in the same city under the same name.

I don't believe the NHL was even established when the original Senators were active. I might be wrong though, can anybody confirm or deny?

The original Ottawa Senators team was a founding member of the NHL in 1917.

To me the =O= represents the name Ottawa Senators better than the gladiator logo. I have lived in Ottawa my whole life and I have never seen any gladiators walking around.

The "=O=" represents the city but it doesn't represent the team name any more than the Sabres red and black buffalo head. Its just an "O" with two stripes. They could be called the Ottawa Prostitutes and not need to change the logo. With the Centurion head you at least had something that could be interpreted as a Senator. While its true there aren't any Roman Gladiators roaming Ottawa the motiff works nicely because nobody wants to see a depiction of an actual Senator on a jersey.

The centurion connection has always been weak.

Seeing as the team DOES draw on the original Senators team as the source of their identity (same colours, same name) I think using the =O= logo is fitting. This isn't a case of the Lightning ditching what history they have to pretend they're an older team. This is a team drawing on the rich history of hockey in the area, and that's fine.

Personally I would like to see the NHL officially declare the current Senators team a continuation of the original Ottawa Senators. The original Senators died after their move to St. Louis failed, so it's not like the legacy of the team belongs to any one franchise still in existence. So why not? Grant the Senators the old team's history and embrace the =O= logo as a part of Ottawa hockey history.

I mean when Cleveland got an NFL expansion team they didn't try and come up with a new "cool looking" logo, they brought back the uniforms worn by the original Browns (and I don't buy the argument that the Browns are the same franchise simply because the NFL says so).

I dont know or care about the Browns situation so I wont comment. I doubt it was exactly the same deal though.

Indeed, the Browns deal was worse.

With the Browns they wanted to move, but the NFL forced them to keep the name and history of the Browns in Cleveland. The actual team, now located in Baltimore, had to adopt a whole new identity and pretend they were an expansion team with no connections to the Browns. Then a real expansion team was granted to Cleveland, which took the Browns' identity and history.

In this case no existing team owns the original Senators' history. The team, which was a founding member of the NHL, moved to St. Louis and then folded after a season. The legacy is just sort of "out there." So it wouldn't be robbing any existing team of its history to grant the original Senators' legacy to the current Senators.

[The Giant Pacific Octopus]

Personally I would like to see the NHL officially declare the current Senators team a continuation of the original Ottawa Senators. The original Senators died after their move to St. Louis failed, so it's not like the legacy of the team belongs to any one franchise still in existence. So why not?

While the NHL gave the history of the original "Senators" (1883-1934) to the modern Senators when the team was born in 1992 (which is why they have retired numbers and Stanley Cup banners from the original team up in the rafters), the fact is the original franchise is a dead/defunct entity. The franchise became dormant in 1935 and was officially cancelled in 1936 (and they were in St.Louis at that time via relocation.) So they couldn't revive the Eagles and move them back to Ottawa 56 years later. They had to start with a new franchise. That's why they did the next best thing by giving the new team the old teams legacy. The new team keeps their own history seperate from the original's though. If the modern Sens win a Stanley Cup (chuckle) it would be considered Cup #1 NOT Cup #12*.

*The original Ottawa team won 11 cups.

[spartacat_12]

I think I chose the wrong wording. What I mean is that there is more to a logo than just pure aesthetics.

Absolutely but aesthetics still play a huge role, maybe even the most important. Aesthetically I dont think the "=O=" can touch the original Forward Facing Centurion.

The Ottawa Senators' obsession with the centurion theme always struck me as odd. The team is named after the Senators nickname of the original club. The Senators nickname came about because the team played in the Canadian capital and the upper house of Parliament is the Senate. The connection between the Canadian Senate and Roman centurions is, well, non-existent.

The team's attempt to tie their identity to the Senate of ancient Rome also falls up short. Yes there was a Roman Senate, but Senators were not centurions. Some (not all, but some) Roman senators may have lead centurions in battle, but the connection still isn't that strong. The Roman theme for the Senators, even when it looked good, never really fit.

Exactly. While the =O= doesn't exactly repesent a Senator, it at least represents Ottawa. The centurion does not represent Ottawa or Senators.

[ksupilot]

It's interesting how conditions affect people's judgement. If there were no movies, no Disney, and the Ducks came into the league with the exact same old logo and jade and eggplant colors, they'd be accepted fine. I never see anyone complain that the Penguins' logo is too cartoonish, or that old Orioles logo that people seem to like, and that's much worse.

I agree. There's nothing more cartoonish or less "intimidating" than the other. They're both just silly birds.

EDIT: I just had to

This would make a good concept series..."Logo Mashups". Take two teams and miz their logo into something new.

[Morgan33]

The Ottawa Senators' obsession with the centurion theme always struck me as odd. The team is named after the Senators nickname of the original club. The Senators nickname came about because the team played in the Canadian capital and the upper house of Parliament is the Senate. The connection between the Canadian Senate and Roman centurions is, well, non-existent. The team's attempt to tie their identity to the Senate of ancient Rome also falls up short. Yes there was a Roman Senate, but Senators were not centurions. Some (not all, but some) Roman senators may have lead centurions in battle, but the connection still isn't that strong. The Roman theme for the Senators, even when it looked good, never really fit.

Welcome to design school of Ice Cap... where every team has to be represented by boring static logos with no artistic merits simply because they've been around for a long time. Whether said logos belong to a completely different team is irrelevant because as long as they've been around longer, they are automatically better. The hypocracy of this post is baffling. You cr@p over the Sabres Red and Black logo because it only plays up the civic aspect and praise the Senators logo for doing the same. I thought the only good logos had to depict both the city and nickname?

The original Centurian logo represents the teamname and the city. The Centurian is set in an "O" and can at least loosely be interpreted as a Senator. The roman motiff is needed to make it visually appealing because putting an actual Senator on the jersey, Roman or Modern Day, would look ridiculous.

The original Ottawa Senators team was a founding member of the NHL in 1917.

Still a completely different team six decades apart from the current and therefore has no business using those logos.

Seeing as the team DOES draw on the original Senators team as the source of their identity (same colours, same name) I think using the =O= logo is fitting. This isn't a case of the Lightning ditching what history they have to pretend they're an older team. This is a team drawing on the rich history of hockey in the area, and that's fine. Personally I would like to see the NHL officially declare the current Senators team a continuation of the original Ottawa Senators. The original Senators died after their move to St. Louis failed, so it's not like the legacy of the team belongs to any one franchise still in existence. So why not? Grant the Senators the old team's history and embrace the =O= logo as a part of Ottawa hockey history.

It would be exactly the same as what the Lightning did. Because the team came into the league in 1992 with the Roman Centurian theme and has kept it more or less the same for 19 years. Also I think the six decade absence from the league should automatically negate any continuity between those two teams. Not only are they completely different teams, they are completely different eras. If the connection was allowed to happen the current Senators team, a 1993 expansion team no less, could say they have 11 Stanley Cups! Should Stanley cup victories that happened when there were only 4 teams apply to a team that entered the league when there were 24 teams?

[SenatorJake]

It would be exactly the same as what the Lightning did. Because the team came into the league in 1992 with the Roman Centurian theme and has kept it more or less the same for 19 years. Also I think the six decade absence from the league should automatically negate any continuity between those two teams. Not only are they completely different teams, they are completely different eras. If the connection was allowed to happen the current Senators team, a 1993 expansion team no less, could say they have 11 Stanley Cups! Should Stanley cup victories that happened when there were only 4 teams apply to a team that entered the league when there were 24 teams?

It all comes down to what the fanbase wants.

The Fanbase in Ottawa is proud of the rich hockey tradition in their city and want this to be reflected in the uniforms like neighbouring Montreal and Toronto do. The Roman logo may be nice, but it doesn't mean anything to Ottawans. The expansion team was not named the Senators because Bruce Firestone thought it would be cool to have a Roman themed NHL franchise, it was named the Ottawa Senators because of Firestone's campaign to "Bring back the Ottawa Senators" that took place in the late 80's/early 90's. Let's remember that original Ottawa Senator Frank Finnigan was also a key part in securing an NHL franchise in Ottawa.

Still a completely different team six decades apart from the current and therefore has no business using those logos.

While any Sens fan will gladly admit that these 2 teams are clearly different franchises, I don't see any harm in being proud of the fact that Ottawa is the home to the NHL's first dynasty. Celebrating this was the whole point of bringing back the Senators in the first place.

In fact, the only reason the Roman logo was ever used in the first place was in reaction to the commercial success of the expansion San Jose Sharks jerseys from the previous year. The Ottawa Senators ownership wanted to cash in on the early 90's fad of cartoonish sports logos and therefore released the gold and red roman we've become accustomed to. Having lived in Ottawa for as long as I have, I can tell you for a fact that many adult hockey fans in the region were quite disappointed by this decision to ignore the tradition of barber-pole clad teams in the nation's capital. To me, bringing in the =O= logo is simply righting a 20 year-old wrong.

[Morgan33]

In fact, the only reason the Roman logo was ever used in the first place was in reaction to the commercial success of the expansion San Jose Sharks jerseys from the previous year. The Ottawa Senators ownership wanted to cash in on the early 90's fad of cartoonish sports logos and therefore released the gold and red roman we've become accustomed to. Having lived in Ottawa for as long as I have, I can tell you for a fact that many adult hockey fans in the region were quite disappointed by this decision to ignore the tradition of barber-pole clad teams in the nation's capital. To me, bringing in the =O= logo is simply righting a 20 year-old wrong.

Wow a dynasty in a league with four teams! Theres a real accomplishment for you!

Sarcasm aside you could not be more wrong about the Senators trying to cash on cartoonish 90's logo. The original logo is not cartoonish at all in fact its quite understated. It has a 3 colour palette (White doesn't count) and no highlights what so ever. Compare it to the third profile logo used on the red toga jersey. Now THAT was an attempt to cash in on the cartoonish logo trend, which by the way started with the Mighty Ducks and Florida Panthers the next year. In fact the only thing that could be considered trendy about those logos and uniforms is the use of a metallic shade but so what? They and there expansion cousins needed a design element to help them stand out.

[SenatorJake]

In fact, the only reason the Roman logo was ever used in the first place was in reaction to the commercial success of the expansion San Jose Sharks jerseys from the previous year. The Ottawa Senators ownership wanted to cash in on the early 90's fad of cartoonish sports logos and therefore released the gold and red roman we've become accustomed to. Having lived in Ottawa for as long as I have, I can tell you for a fact that many adult hockey fans in the region were quite disappointed by this decision to ignore the tradition of barber-pole clad teams in the nation's capital. To me, bringing in the =O= logo is simply righting a 20 year-old wrong.

Wow a dynasty in a league with four teams! Theres a real accomplishment for you!

Sarcasm aside you could not be more wrong about the Senators trying to cash on cartoonish 90's logo. The original logo is not cartoonish at all in fact its quite understated. It has a 3 colour palette (White doesn't count) and no highlights what so ever. Compare it to the third profile logo used on the red toga jersey. Now THAT was an attempt to cash in on the cartoonish logo trend, which by the way started with the Mighty Ducks and Florida Panthers the next year. In fact the only thing that could be considered trendy about those logos and uniforms is the use of a metallic shade but so what? They and there expansion cousins needed a design element to help them stand out.

I'm sorry, were you actually in Ottawa in 1990-91, following this story closely? No?!? Then I suggest you cease talking out of your ass.

What you're saying right now is based on which jerseys you prefer and how you interpret them. However, what I'm saying is based on what the Senators ownership was saying through the local media at the time. They said that the success of the San Jose Sharks jerseys led them to adopt the Roman look because it would appeal to children (much like those original Sharks jerseys did). The execution of the 1992 Ottawa Senators logo simply wasn't good enough and it never did end up becoming the succesful merchandising tool the franchise was hoping it would become. But I can assure you that this was the idea behind the 1992 logo. If I can find the quote to prove it, I'll be more than happy to post it.

[Morgan33]

What you're saying right now is based on which jerseys you prefer. What I'm saying is based on what the Senators ownership was saying through the local media at the time. They said that the success of the San Jose Sharks jerseys led them to adopt the Roman look because it would appeal to children (much like those original Sharks jerseys did). The execution of the 1992 Ottawa Senators logo simply wasn't good enough and it never did end up becoming the succesful merchandising tool the franchise was hoping it would become. But I can assure you that this was the idea behind the 1992 logo. If I can find the quote to prove it, I'll be more than happy to post it.

Yeah I'll be waiting for the sources... won't be holding breath though.

[friarcanuck]

In fact, the only reason the Roman logo was ever used in the first place was in reaction to the commercial success of the expansion San Jose Sharks jerseys from the previous year. The Ottawa Senators ownership wanted to cash in on the early 90's fad of cartoonish sports logos and therefore released the gold and red roman we've become accustomed to. Having lived in Ottawa for as long as I have, I can tell you for a fact that many adult hockey fans in the region were quite disappointed by this decision to ignore the tradition of barber-pole clad teams in the nation's capital. To me, bringing in the =O= logo is simply righting a 20 year-old wrong.

Wow a dynasty in a league with four teams! Theres a real accomplishment for you!

Sarcasm aside you could not be more wrong about the Senators trying to cash on cartoonish 90's logo. The original logo is not cartoonish at all in fact its quite understated. It has a 3 colour palette (White doesn't count) and no highlights what so ever. Compare it to the third profile logo used on the red toga jersey. Now THAT was an attempt to cash in on the cartoonish logo trend, which by the way started with the Mighty Ducks and Florida Panthers the next year. In fact the only thing that could be considered trendy about those logos and uniforms is the use of a metallic shade but so what? They and there expansion cousins needed a design element to help them stand out.

Morgo, please continue talking hockey logos, but I'm putting you in "hockey talk time out" until you read up on some history of the NHL. Anger and headaches are starting to become too much.

FWIW, I've heard the whole Ottawa Senators history connection debate may times and have been included in many of them. So here goes:

History - Current Ottawa NHL team IS a continuation of the original Ottawa NHL team (no sources needed, deal with it). Ottawa moved to St. Louis, NHL bought the team and placed it on the shelf because of The Depression and WWII (just like the Americans and Maroons). In the early 90s, they went to the shelf, dusted off and said "here you go".

Logo - Nicknames meant nothing in the early 1900s. Nicknames mean a lot now. Firestone took the Senators name and decided on a Roman warrior theme because modern Senates (boring) link to Roman Senates (boring) link to Roman Centurions (really cool). If it makes you any happier, start calling them the Ottawa Senturions to like the name to the logo.

.....and I'm done. Continue everyone!

[SenatorJake]

What you're saying right now is based on which jerseys you prefer. What I'm saying is based on what the Senators ownership was saying through the local media at the time. They said that the success of the San Jose Sharks jerseys led them to adopt the Roman look because it would appeal to children (much like those original Sharks jerseys did). The execution of the 1992 Ottawa Senators logo simply wasn't good enough and it never did end up becoming the succesful merchandising tool the franchise was hoping it would become. But I can assure you that this was the idea behind the 1992 logo. If I can find the quote to prove it, I'll be more than happy to post it.

Yeah I'll be waiting for the sources... won't be holding breath though.

I don't see why anyone would listen to a guy who didn't even know the original Senators were a charter member of the NHL rather than a guy who's been following the team since day one.

As for finding a newspaper article from 1991, I'm sorry but I just can't find it. You'll just have to take my word for it, and trust me, that was the original intention with that logo.

[IceCap]

To me the =O= represents the name Ottawa Senators better than the gladiator logo.

Not to sound anal but the "O" simply meant "Ottawa" not Ottawa Senators. The Ottawa Senators never had an official name. They were simply the Ottawa Hockey Club (aka Ottawa Athletic Club aka Ottawa Professional Hockey Team). The "Senators" name was simply casual and unoffical (heck if you read newspapers on microfilm from that time period alot of the time they were simply called "The Ottawas".). At least with this team they use "Senators" as an offical name and I have no qualms about them trying to create an identity with it.

The original team, while perhaps not officially the Ottawa Senators, was widely known as such, and today that's how the older team is commonly known. Trying to split hairs on the matter is, well, just that. Splitting hairs. They were the Senators.

I have lived in Ottawa my whole life and I have never seen any gladiators walking around.

I wonder if people in Detroit see tigers walking around, or if people in Los Angeles actually go to any local lakes.

The Detroit baseball team is known as the Tigers, though. The Ottawa hockey team's not the Ottawa Centurions, or the Ottawa Gladiators. They're the Ottawa Senators.

When it comes to representing the team name both the =O= and the various Roman themed marks fail. That's the problem with the name Senators though, it's hard to create a logo for it. So that being said I think the =O= is the superior mark because it represents the city's rich hockey history.

[IceCap]

The Ottawa Senators' obsession with the centurion theme always struck me as odd. The team is named after the Senators nickname of the original club. The Senators nickname came about because the team played in the Canadian capital and the upper house of Parliament is the Senate. The connection between the Canadian Senate and Roman centurions is, well, non-existent. The team's attempt to tie their identity to the Senate of ancient Rome also falls up short. Yes there was a Roman Senate, but Senators were not centurions. Some (not all, but some) Roman senators may have lead centurions in battle, but the connection still isn't that strong. The Roman theme for the Senators, even when it looked good, never really fit.

Welcome to design school of Ice Cap... where every team has to be represented by boring static logos with no artistic merits simply because they've been around for a long time. Whether said logos belong to a completely different team is irrelevant because as long as they've been around longer, they are automatically better. The hypocracy of this post is baffling. You cr@p over the Sabres Red and Black logo because it only plays up the civic aspect and praise the Senators logo for doing the same. I thought the only good logos had to depict both the city and nickname?

You're needlessly bitter. Check out McCarthy's sig some time. Uniform design is subjective. We come here to discuss said designs, and sometimes we disagree. If you cannot accept a different opinion then your own being voiced I suggest you step away from this whole internet thing.

I don't think only "old" logos are better. You and Lights Out really need to stop assuming that just because I dislike the gaudy stuff you gush over.

Like I said I don't think only older logos are better. I don't think every logo has to represent the city and the nickname. It's a case by case basis. Having a static set of rules that ALL logos must follow is kind of silly. What works for one team may not work for another.

I like the =O= because it plays up the history of the original Senators team, and hockey in the era when the team was the sport's first dynasty. And yes, that is more impressive then it sounds. The Senators dynasty came about before the NHL was formed, when the Cup was challenged for by teams all across Canada, across different leagues.

The original Centurian logo represents the teamname and the city.

How a Roman centurion represents Ottawa escapes me. In fact you're stretching to try and connect it to the name "Senators" at all. In fact there is no connection when you realize the team is named after the Canadian Senate, which is known for its better overall attendance then the House of Commons and its lack of Roman centurions

The Centurian is set in an "O" and can at least loosely be interpreted as a Senator. The roman motiff is needed to make it visually appealing because putting an actual Senator on the jersey, Roman or Modern Day, would look ridiculous.

A circle does not automatically equate to an O.

Anyway the inability to represent a senator is my point. It's hard to do, so just ignore it and focus on the city. The =O= does that while no Roman themed logo does.

The original Ottawa Senators team was a founding member of the NHL in 1917.

Still a completely different team six decades apart from the current and therefore has no business using those logos.

Hey, you asked. Sorry if those pesky "facts" are screwing up your argument.

Seeing as the team DOES draw on the original Senators team as the source of their identity (same colours, same name) I think using the =O= logo is fitting. This isn't a case of the Lightning ditching what history they have to pretend they're an older team. This is a team drawing on the rich history of hockey in the area, and that's fine. Personally I would like to see the NHL officially declare the current Senators team a continuation of the original Ottawa Senators. The original Senators died after their move to St. Louis failed, so it's not like the legacy of the team belongs to any one franchise still in existence. So why not? Grant the Senators the old team's history and embrace the =O= logo as a part of Ottawa hockey history.

It would be exactly the same as what the Lightning did. Because the team came into the league in 1992 with the Roman Centurian theme and has kept it more or less the same for 19 years. Also I think the six decade absence from the league should automatically negate any continuity between those two teams. Not only are they completely different teams, they are completely different eras. If the connection was allowed to happen the current Senators team, a 1993 expansion team no less, could say they have 11 Stanley Cups! Should Stanley cup victories that happened when there were only 4 teams apply to a team that entered the league when there were 24 teams?

We'll deal with this Stanley Cup nonsense first. Lets assume that the connection between the original Senators and the new Senators was made official, and the team officially goes on record having 11 Cups. So what? As I mentioned above most of those Cups came from the "challenge" era of the Cup's history, when the champions had to defend the Cup against teams from many different leagues across Canada. The Cup wasn't the property of any one league at that point. Also, your notion that the Cups are somehow worth less because they come from a different era is moronic. Should we strip most of the Montreal Canadiens' Cups from them?

Ok. Onto the team. This is nothing like what the Lightning did. The Lightning started up in a market without any previous hockey history and built their own traditions up from nothing. Then they threw it all away to play Original Six.

The Senators started up in a market with a deep and rich hockey history, and embraced that with their new team, using the name and colours of the original Senators. The Lightning started their own tradition from scratch, the Senators were building on a tradition that was already there. That's why I think it's ok for the Senators to go with a more old school look that emphasis the =O=. It's part of what the team is. The fans just want the Senators to embrace their city's rich hockey traditions, much like the Leafs do in Toronto and the Habs do in Montreal. The NHL needs to do the classy thing and make the continuation official.

They also need to grant the Sharks the history of the Seals/Barons, but that's a different discussion.

[docrocket]

How a Roman centurion represents Ottawa escapes me. In fact you're stretching to try and connect it to the name "Senators" at all. In fact there is no connection when you realize the team is named after the Canadian Senate, which is known for its better overall attendance then the House of Commons and its lack of Roman centurions

The legislators have been showing up more often than the hockey team of late...

[IceCap]

Indeed

[SHaMROCK]

The Ottawa Senators' obsession with the centurion theme always struck me as odd. The team is named after the Senators nickname of the original club. The Senators nickname came about because the team played in the Canadian capital and the upper house of Parliament is the Senate. The connection between the Canadian Senate and Roman centurions is, well, non-existent. The team's attempt to tie their identity to the Senate of ancient Rome also falls up short. Yes there was a Roman Senate, but Senators were not centurions. Some (not all, but some) Roman senators may have lead centurions in battle, but the connection still isn't that strong. The Roman theme for the Senators, even when it looked good, never really fit.

Welcome to design school of Ice Cap... where every team has to be represented by boring static logos with no artistic merits simply because they've been around for a long time. Whether said logos belong to a completely different team is irrelevant because as long as they've been around longer, they are automatically better. The hypocracy of this post is baffling. You cr@p over the Sabres Red and Black logo because it only plays up the civic aspect and praise the Senators logo for doing the same. I thought the only good logos had to depict both the city and nickname?

You're needlessly bitter. Check out McCarthy's sig some time. Uniform design is subjective. We come here to discuss said designs, and sometimes we disagree. If you cannot accept a different opinion then your own being voiced I suggest you step away from this whole internet thing.

I don't think only "old" logos are better. You and Lights Out really need to stop assuming that just because I dislike the gaudy stuff you gush over.

Like I said I don't think only older logos are better. I don't think every logo has to represent the city and the nickname. It's a case by case basis. Having a static set of rules that ALL logos must follow is kind of silly. What works for one team may not work for another.

I like the =O= because it plays up the history of the original Senators team, and hockey in the era when the team was the sport's first dynasty. And yes, that is more impressive then it sounds. The Senators dynasty came about before the NHL was formed, when the Cup was challenged for by teams all across Canada, across different leagues.

The original Centurian logo represents the teamname and the city.

How a Roman centurion represents Ottawa escapes me. In fact you're stretching to try and connect it to the name "Senators" at all. In fact there is no connection when you realize the team is named after the Canadian Senate, which is known for its better overall attendance then the House of Commons and its lack of Roman centurions

The Centurian is set in an "O" and can at least loosely be interpreted as a Senator. The roman motiff is needed to make it visually appealing because putting an actual Senator on the jersey, Roman or Modern Day, would look ridiculous.

A circle does not automatically equate to an O.

Anyway the inability to represent a senator is my point. It's hard to do, so just ignore it and focus on the city. The =O= does that while no Roman themed logo does.

The original Ottawa Senators team was a founding member of the NHL in 1917.

Still a completely different team six decades apart from the current and therefore has no business using those logos.

Hey, you asked. Sorry if those pesky "facts" are screwing up your argument.

Seeing as the team DOES draw on the original Senators team as the source of their identity (same colours, same name) I think using the =O= logo is fitting. This isn't a case of the Lightning ditching what history they have to pretend they're an older team. This is a team drawing on the rich history of hockey in the area, and that's fine. Personally I would like to see the NHL officially declare the current Senators team a continuation of the original Ottawa Senators. The original Senators died after their move to St. Louis failed, so it's not like the legacy of the team belongs to any one franchise still in existence. So why not? Grant the Senators the old team's history and embrace the =O= logo as a part of Ottawa hockey history.

It would be exactly the same as what the Lightning did. Because the team came into the league in 1992 with the Roman Centurian theme and has kept it more or less the same for 19 years. Also I think the six decade absence from the league should automatically negate any continuity between those two teams. Not only are they completely different teams, they are completely different eras. If the connection was allowed to happen the current Senators team, a 1993 expansion team no less, could say they have 11 Stanley Cups! Should Stanley cup victories that happened when there were only 4 teams apply to a team that entered the league when there were 24 teams?

We'll deal with this Stanley Cup nonsense first. Lets assume that the connection between the original Senators and the new Senators was made official, and the team officially goes on record having 11 Cups. So what? As I mentioned above most of those Cups came from the "challenge" era of the Cup's history, when the champions had to challenge teams from many different leagues across Canada. The Cup wasn't the property of any one league at that point. Also, your notion that the Cups are somehow worth less because they come from a different era is moronic. Should we strip most of the Montreal Canadiens' Cups from them?

Ok. Onto the team. This is nothing like what the Lightning did. The Lightning started up in a market without any previous hockey history and built their own traditions up from nothing. Then they threw it all away to play Original Six.

The Senators started up in a market with a deep and rich hockey history, and embraced that with their new team, using the name and colours of the original Senators. The Lightning started their own tradition from scratch, the Senators were building on a tradition that was already there. That's why I think it's ok for the Senators to go with a more old school look that emphasis the =O=. It's part of what the team is. The fans just want the Senators to embrace their city's rich hockey traditions, much like the Leafs do in Toronto and the Habs do in Montreal. The NHL needs to do the classy thing and make the continuation official.

They also need to grant the Sharks the history of the Seals/Barons, but that's a different discussion.

I don't know how there can be any debate about the Seals/Barons/Sharks history.

1967 - California Seals begin play as one of the "Next Six"

1967 - renamed Oakland Seals (November)

1970 - renamed California Golden Seals

1976 - relocated to Cleveland, renamed Cleveland Barons

1978 - franchise merges with Minnesota North Stars

1991 - franchise disolves merger with Minnesota North Stars, relocates to San Jose, renamed San Jose Sharks

[IceCap]

I hear ya man. The connection's clear as day.

[charger77]

The Ottawa Senators' obsession with the centurion theme always struck me as odd. The team is named after the Senators nickname of the original club. The Senators nickname came about because the team played in the Canadian capital and the upper house of Parliament is the Senate. The connection between the Canadian Senate and Roman centurions is, well, non-existent. The team's attempt to tie their identity to the Senate of ancient Rome also falls up short. Yes there was a Roman Senate, but Senators were not centurions. Some (not all, but some) Roman senators may have lead centurions in battle, but the connection still isn't that strong. The Roman theme for the Senators, even when it looked good, never really fit.

Welcome to design school of Ice Cap... where every team has to be represented by boring static logos with no artistic merits simply because they've been around for a long time. Whether said logos belong to a completely different team is irrelevant because as long as they've been around longer, they are automatically better. The hypocracy of this post is baffling. You cr@p over the Sabres Red and Black logo because it only plays up the civic aspect and praise the Senators logo for doing the same. I thought the only good logos had to depict both the city and nickname?

You're needlessly bitter. Check out McCarthy's sig some time. Uniform design is subjective. We come here to discuss said designs, and sometimes we disagree. If you cannot accept a different opinion then your own being voiced I suggest you step away from this whole internet thing.

I don't think only "old" logos are better. You and Lights Out really need to stop assuming that just because I dislike the gaudy stuff you gush over.

Like I said I don't think only older logos are better. I don't think every logo has to represent the city and the nickname. It's a case by case basis. Having a static set of rules that ALL logos must follow is kind of silly. What works for one team may not work for another.

I like the =O= because it plays up the history of the original Senators team, and hockey in the era when the team was the sport's first dynasty. And yes, that is more impressive then it sounds. The Senators dynasty came about before the NHL was formed, when the Cup was challenged for by teams all across Canada, across different leagues.

The original Centurian logo represents the teamname and the city.

How a Roman centurion represents Ottawa escapes me. In fact you're stretching to try and connect it to the name "Senators" at all. In fact there is no connection when you realize the team is named after the Canadian Senate, which is known for its better overall attendance then the House of Commons and its lack of Roman centurions

The Centurian is set in an "O" and can at least loosely be interpreted as a Senator. The roman motiff is needed to make it visually appealing because putting an actual Senator on the jersey, Roman or Modern Day, would look ridiculous.

A circle does not automatically equate to an O.

Anyway the inability to represent a senator is my point. It's hard to do, so just ignore it and focus on the city. The =O= does that while no Roman themed logo does.

The original Ottawa Senators team was a founding member of the NHL in 1917.

Still a completely different team six decades apart from the current and therefore has no business using those logos.

Hey, you asked. Sorry if those pesky "facts" are screwing up your argument.

Seeing as the team DOES draw on the original Senators team as the source of their identity (same colours, same name) I think using the =O= logo is fitting. This isn't a case of the Lightning ditching what history they have to pretend they're an older team. This is a team drawing on the rich history of hockey in the area, and that's fine. Personally I would like to see the NHL officially declare the current Senators team a continuation of the original Ottawa Senators. The original Senators died after their move to St. Louis failed, so it's not like the legacy of the team belongs to any one franchise still in existence. So why not? Grant the Senators the old team's history and embrace the =O= logo as a part of Ottawa hockey history.

It would be exactly the same as what the Lightning did. Because the team came into the league in 1992 with the Roman Centurian theme and has kept it more or less the same for 19 years. Also I think the six decade absence from the league should automatically negate any continuity between those two teams. Not only are they completely different teams, they are completely different eras. If the connection was allowed to happen the current Senators team, a 1993 expansion team no less, could say they have 11 Stanley Cups! Should Stanley cup victories that happened when there were only 4 teams apply to a team that entered the league when there were 24 teams?

We'll deal with this Stanley Cup nonsense first. Lets assume that the connection between the original Senators and the new Senators was made official, and the team officially goes on record having 11 Cups. So what? As I mentioned above most of those Cups came from the "challenge" era of the Cup's history, when the champions had to challenge teams from many different leagues across Canada. The Cup wasn't the property of any one league at that point. Also, your notion that the Cups are somehow worth less because they come from a different era is moronic. Should we strip most of the Montreal Canadiens' Cups from them?

Ok. Onto the team. This is nothing like what the Lightning did. The Lightning started up in a market without any previous hockey history and built their own traditions up from nothing. Then they threw it all away to play Original Six.

The Senators started up in a market with a deep and rich hockey history, and embraced that with their new team, using the name and colours of the original Senators. The Lightning started their own tradition from scratch, the Senators were building on a tradition that was already there. That's why I think it's ok for the Senators to go with a more old school look that emphasis the =O=. It's part of what the team is. The fans just want the Senators to embrace their city's rich hockey traditions, much like the Leafs do in Toronto and the Habs do in Montreal. The NHL needs to do the classy thing and make the continuation official.

They also need to grant the Sharks the history of the Seals/Barons, but that's a different discussion.

I don't know how there can be any debate about the Seals/Barons/Sharks history.

1967 - California Seals begin play as one of the "Next Six"

1967 - renamed Oakland Seals (November)

1970 - renamed California Golden Seals

1976 - relocated to Cleveland, renamed Cleveland Barons

1978 - franchise merges with Minnesota North Stars

1991 - franchise disolves merger with Minnesota North Stars, relocates to San Jose, renamed San Jose Sharks

So if the Seals can go home why can't the Jets?

[IceCap]

Ask one Mr. Bettman.