NHL 2011-2012: Possible Uniform Changes

[jkrdevil]

Meh. I find the identity package underwhelming. The secondary mark is the "best" of a rather uninspired bunch.

Frankly, I feel badly for the folks at True North. I don't think they honestly wanted to resurrect the Jets name, but ultimately succumbed to fan pressure. With fans clamoring for a logo package to accompany the Jets name as soon as possible, True North was then forced to have their design partners rush a logo package to completion. And it shows.

I don't. A second year marketing student could have seen the overwhelming fan pressure to resurrect the Jets identity coming long ago. It's your own fault if you ignore your market THAT badly.

Especially since one of the teams they were negotiating to buy was the Coyotes (the old Jets). Had Glendale not agreed to cover the losses for the upcoming season again it would have been in Winnipeg and not the Thrashers.

Given that possibility, True North should have had a "Jets" plan in place. Then when pressure mounted to the Thrashers the Jets they could have just went to that plan even if it wasn't plan A for a non-Coyotes team moving to Winnipeg.

[Sodboy13]

Hello everyone. This is the roundel of the Royal Canadian Air Force/Canadian Forces Air Command.

...

I know people all need a reason to bitch, but do some research so your bitching doesn't look like bitching for bitching's sake.

Hello Cap, this is the guy you're calling out as ignorant who posted the Moose's RCAF 2008 tribute jersey, in this thread, freaking yesterday, to debunk the Photoshopped "leak" that surfaced on a Twitter account.

I fully understand, and even really, really like, the concept of adapting the RCAF roundel (even if the execution is lacking in several respects here). But the standalone leaf in the wordmark has nothing to do with RCAF imagery. It's like they took a look at the wordmark on its own, realized it was a clunker, and knowing they were under the gun, said, it, put a maple leaf on there, that'll do. And then they placed it in a way that makes it look like we're welcoming the Winnipeg Jet's back into the NHL.

Furthermore, accusing me of bitching for the sake of bitching after I gave a fairly reasoned, point-by-point explanation for my bitching, leaves me wondering if you even read my post, or if you simply went GRRR DOES NOT LIKE LEAF MUST ASSERT NATIONALISM, as has been your kick as of late. Besides, as I said in my criticism initially, the red spiny bits in the Jet*s' roundel don't look enough like a leaf for my tastes.

Fisk at leisure.

[IceCap]

And once again (while I completely get the connection to the RCAF), the over emphasis on the maple leaf remains a problem.

Does it?

http://boards.sportslogos.net/index.php?showtopic=78011&view=findpost&p=1590894

It's like facts just fly over people's heads if it doesn't conform to their version of reality.

As someone who's been doing brand identity work for more than a decade, I feel fairly confident about my sense of reality in this matter. And since I actually posted a Winnipeg Jets concept a few months ago that used the freakin' RCAF roundel as an alternate logo, I'm pretty sure this one hasn't gone over my head. (And since you posted in that thread, it's especially hilarious that you're telling people like me to "do some research".)

I'm aware of that concept. It was good. Which is why I think it'd odd that you choose to rip the actual Jets set apart. They're drawing from the same imagery that you did. Is the leaf not over used only when you deem it not to be in a concept of yours?

I'm still not sure why you've got such a stick up your butt about trying to convince everyone that the maple leaf is just as viable a connotation-less symbol as a star.

Two things.

Simply posting hard numbers, ie facts, to examine the truth behind a widely held assumption does mean I have a "stick up my butt." It's simply research. Research doesn't bend to any one opinion, it's impartial. If what it proves goes against your previously held assumptions, then your assumptions need to change. Don't get pissy at me because I happened to be the one to do the research that shattered your "most Canadian teams use the leaf" assumption.

Also, I didn't look at teams with stars in their logos. Go back and read my post again. I looked at teams with logos that specifically used American imagery. Stars-and-stripes and eagles. That sort of thing. I didn't include teams that used stars just because they used stars. The Texas Stars, for example, were not included in my survey because their identity doesn't use the star as part of a patriotic USA identity package.

(The numbers you posted so confidently only show the ratio of star-to-maple-leaf usage; they do not take into account the gross difference between the recognizable connotations associated with each symbol.) Let's all just forget for a moment that a star is a generic, geometric symbol that literally scores of states/nations use as a symbol on flags and other devices, while the maple leaf is a symbol that's used by precisely... (um... how many was it again?? oh, yes...) one nation. My point, if you had paused for a moment and looked at the actual post, was that the OVERUSE of the maple leaf was the problem. If they were the "Winnipeg Royal Canadian Air Force" then I wouldn't have a problem with this imagery. But slapping the maple leaf on every single mark, especially (as I and other posters have pointed out) as an unnecessary, almost apostrophe-like afterthought on the wordmark makes the entire implementation of the maple leaf seem like a shallow, knee-jerk association.

Again, I didn't lump every team that used stars into the American imagery camp. In fact stars weren't even the basis of the American imagery portion of the survey. It was just American imagery. If a team used a star in a way that wasn't part of a patriot American identity I didn't count it. Furthermore my survey wasn't looking at any ratio. Not really. It was originally just a survey to see how prevalent the maple leaf was among Canadian hockey teams across all levels of hockey, as twi had made the statement that it was quite a common element in design. Well I looked through every worthwhile minor and junior league out there and discovered that less then 5% of Canadian hockey clubs below the NHL level use a maple leaf. So it's obviously not a design element that's overused by any definition of the word.

The counting of teams that used American imagery (not stars, specifically patriotic American imagery) was just a fun little "while I'm at it" exercise. I never presented the two surveys as a "ratio."

If you feel compelled to attack a survey actually stop to read it. As you've shown here your understanding of my survey is lacking.

If they had implemented the jet/roundel logo as an alternate mark to make a nice, subtle reference to the RCAF and used the maple leaf there, then that would make more sense from a complete brand standpoint than to simply reproduce such a loaded symbol everywhere, even when it seemingly has no association.

Air force. Jets. That's all the association needed. If they had shoehorned a maple leaf into an update of the 1996 Jets logo, then yes, I would agree with you, the leaf would be forced. When the logo set is specifically calling out to the RCAF (which makes sense given the name) then the use of the leaf roundel isn't forced at all. Heck, you used it (in a very well put together concept).

Really, I don't know why you're so defensive about this. You just stated something that I feel I have conclusively proven to be untrue. I didn't mean it to call you out, or attack you, I was just correcting a factual mistake on your part. Then you respond by attacking my survey on points that don't even hold up once you actually read the survey in question. Chill out, no harm meant.

[IceCap]

Hello everyone. This is the roundel of the Royal Canadian Air Force/Canadian Forces Air Command.

...

I know people all need a reason to bitch, but do some research so your bitching doesn't look like bitching for bitching's sake.

Hello Cap, this is the guy you're calling out as ignorant who posted the Moose's RCAF 2008 tribute jersey, in this thread, freaking yesterday, to debunk the Photoshopped "leak" that surfaced on a Twitter account.

I fully understand, and even really, really like, the concept of adapting the RCAF roundel (even if the execution is lacking in several respects here). But the standalone leaf in the wordmark has nothing to do with RCAF imagery. It's like they took a look at the wordmark on its own, realized it was a clunker, and knowing they were under the gun, said, it, put a maple leaf on there, that'll do. And then they placed it in a way that makes it look like we're welcoming the Winnipeg Jet's back into the NHL.

My mistake. I assumed you were critiquing the primary.

Yeah, the placement of the leaf in the wordmark leaves a lot to be desired.

Furthermore, accusing me of bitching for the sake of bitching after I gave a fairly reasoned, point-by-point explanation for my bitching, leaves me wondering if you even read my post, or if you simply went GRRR DOES NOT LIKE LEAF MUST ASSERT NATIONALISM, as has been your kick as of late. Besides, as I said in my criticism initially, the red spiny bits in the Jet*s' roundel don't look enough like a leaf for my tastes.

I REALLY need some clarification on this.

All I did was go through each minor and junior league and compare the number of Canadian teams that used leaves with the number of Canadian teams overall. I did this because I was curious to see how many Canadian hockey teams used the leaf, after another posted stated that a large number do. I went in, counted the teams, and found the number of Canadian teams that use the leaf to be very small. How this makes me a rabid nationalist Canadian or someone with a stick up my butt is beyond me. I simply crunched the numbers to see if a widely held assumption was true. It wasn't. That's all I posted. How does this make me unreasonable?

[wildwing64]

I'll admit, with the rumours of something playing on the Canadian Air Force imagery going around, I wasn't expecting much. The primary is for the most part something I was expecting to see. That said I think it's a pretty nice identity all around.

[dgnmrwrw]

I'm aware of that concept. It was good. Which is why I think it'd odd that you choose to rip the actual Jets set apart. They're drawing from the same imagery that you did. Is the leaf not over used only when you deem it not to be in a concept of yours?

Again, you have completely missed the point. In my concept I didn't use the maple leaf in every single logo and in the wordmark. I used it once, as a supporting logo on an alternate jersey. When I say they overused it, I mean they OVERused it. Not one single time as a shoulder patch on an alternate jersey. It's everywhere. I don't know how else to help you understand this.

Two things. Simply posting hard numbers, ie facts, to examine the truth behind a widely held assumption does mean I have a "stick up my butt." It's simply research. Research doesn't bend to any one opinion, it's impartial. If what it proves goes against your previously held assumptions, then your assumptions need to change. Don't get pissy at me because I happened to be the one to do the research that shattered your "most Canadian teams use the leaf" assumption.

Wow. Quite the Straw Man there. Not only have I never claimed that "most Canadian teams use the leaf", but your so-called "research" is nothing more than elementary data collection (i.e. you counted things) that no third-rate community college or "scientific" journal being printed out of some nutter's basement would consider worth anything. For a full discussion of this disaster of a claim, see here. Count them as many times as you like, the symbols are not equitable. (Yet you continue to miss the point. I don't care if you didn't count the Texas Stars. That's not the point. The point is that one image, the Maple Leaf, is much more loaded than the other, the Star, is.)

Once again, it's not a terrible logo set. But it does have a ton of problems. Most notable among them is the apparent necessity to include such a context-heavy symbol as the maple leaf IN EVERY MARK, including the wordmark, where it's dreadfully forced and out of place. The connection to the RCAF (and thus the blatant overuse of the maple leaf) is not a bad one, but it's cheap and weak to rely on it as the entire crux of conceptual identity. It's not terrible. It's okay. But for a franchise that has so much (visual) history and had so much anticipation behind this new identity, they could have done much better.

[Sodboy13]

I REALLY need some clarification on this.

All I did was go through each minor and junior league and compare the number of Canadian teams that used leaves with the number of Canadian teams overall. I did this because I was curious to see how many Canadian hockey teams used the leaf, after another posted stated that a large number do. I went in, counted the teams, and found the number of Canadian teams that use the leaf to be very small. How this makes me a rabid nationalist Canadian or someone with a stick up my butt is beyond me. I simply crunched the numbers to see if a widely held assumption was true. It wasn't. That's all I posted. How does this make me unreasonable?

And this is where I am mistaken, as I now realize you only made a couple of posts on the matter, but ones of sizable length that I've scrolled past several times, to a point where I read your most recent post and my knee-jerk reaction was "Oh, jeez, here he goes with the leaf again."

Also, I just realized (because now I'm looking at it on a monitor instead of my phone) that the Jet*s use a significantly different leaf behind the roundel than they do in the secondary and the wordmark. Both are custom leaves (leafs?) done in the same style, but different enough to be noticeable. That is sloppy. I wonder if TNSE was presented with several different branding concepts, looked them over, and said, "Okay, we'll take the primary from this one, the secondary from that one, um, give us the wordmark from this one over here, but take the leaf from that other one and put it in that."

They could really cap it off by putting the secondary on one shoulder and the Canadian flag on the other, but what kind of idiot franchise would even think of

EDIT: Wife came in and saw the primary logo. Said, "What the hell is that supposed to be, a plane on top of a maple leaf? Oh, that's stupid."

[capitalcanuck]

Was this posted yet?

that was a concept from here that a counterfeit chinese company made

(concept by PHIlADELPHIAFLYERS)

[IceCap]

I'm aware of that concept. It was good. Which is why I think it'd odd that you choose to rip the actual Jets set apart. They're drawing from the same imagery that you did. Is the leaf not over used only when you deem it not to be in a concept of yours?

Again, you have completely missed the point. In my concept I didn't use the maple leaf in every single logo and in the wordmark. I used it once, as a supporting logo on an alternate jersey. When I say they overused it, I mean they OVERused it. Not one single time as a shoulder patch on an alternate jersey. It's everywhere. I don't know how else to help you understand this.

Some would call that brand unity. You use one design element in one logo, it's expected to carry over elsewhere. I agree, the positioning of the leaf is off on the wordmark in that it looks like an apostrophe. Had they left the leaf out of the wordmark completely (which they did in the alternate wordmark by the way) people would be complaining about the lack of brand unity. I'm not saying you would, but the complaint "they use the leaf in the primary and alternate, why not in the wordmark?" would exist.

Two things. Simply posting hard numbers, ie facts, to examine the truth behind a widely held assumption does mean I have a "stick up my butt." It's simply research. Research doesn't bend to any one opinion, it's impartial. If what it proves goes against your previously held assumptions, then your assumptions need to change. Don't get pissy at me because I happened to be the one to do the research that shattered your "most Canadian teams use the leaf" assumption.

Wow. Quite the Straw Man there. Not only have I never claimed that "most Canadian teams use the leaf", but your so-called "research" is nothing more than elementary data collection (i.e. you counted things) that no third-rate community college or "scientific" journal being printed out of some nutter's basement would consider worth anything.

At the risk of throwing out an incredibly simplistic term, now you're just being mean for the sake of it.

Have I ever said that what I did was top an example of top level data collection? Of course I just counted things, that was bloody point. That's all it was ever supposed to be, a simple comparison between the total number of Canadian teams vs the number that used the maple leaf.

For a full discussion of this disaster of a claim, see here. Count them as many times as you like, the symbols are not equitable. (Yet you continue to miss the point. I don't care if you didn't count the Texas Stars. That's not the point. The point is that one image, the Maple Leaf, is much more loaded than the other, the Star, is.)

Once again, you missed my rebuttal completely. I did not just lump every American team that used a star into the "patriotic American imagery" camp. The teams I counted as using patriotic American imagery specifically utilized red, white and blue stars and stripes patterns, American eagles, and American military imagery. That is to say that the teams I counted as using American imagery were using imagery as potently American as the maple leaf is potently Canadian. The Tri-City Americans' use of stars and stripes is just as "loaded" as the Victoria Royals' use of the leaf. I do not know how much clearer I can make this.

Now I'm going to appeal to you here, because this pissing match has consumed way to much of my G-ddamn birthday already. I did not mean to attack you. I did not mean to insult you. I simply wanted to correct what I thought was a factually incorrect statement on your part. Your claims attacking my collection of numbers/survey/whatever disparaging term you have ready to go next are based on a simple misunderstanding on your part. The American teams I counted were only those that used imagery as potently American as the leaf is Canadian. Further, regardless of how loaded the leaf is as a symbol, it's no where close to being overused by Canadian clubs. That's the point I was trying to make. So please, read my survey again. I'm not saying that to be insulting. It just really seems like you're not getting the point behind the American portion of it.

Once again, it's not a terrible logo set. But it does have a ton of problems. Most notable among them is the apparent necessity to include such a context-heavy symbol as the maple leaf IN EVERY MARK, including the wordmark, where it's dreadfully forced and out of place. The connection to the RCAF (and thus the blatant overuse of the maple leaf) is not a bad one, but it's cheap and weak to rely on it as the entire crux of conceptual identity. It's not terrible. It's okay. But for a franchise that has so much (visual) history and had so much anticipation behind this new identity, they could have done much better.

Again, I would call it brand unity. You have the leaf in the roundel logo, it would look odd to not use it elsewhere. Yeah, its use in the wordmark is troublesome, because it makes it look like Jet's rather then Jets, but I maintain that people would be complaining about the lack of the leaf had they left it out of the wordmark.

Given the background of the Jets' website, I expect the leaf-less alternate script to get more use anyway.

[IceCap]

I REALLY need some clarification on this.

All I did was go through each minor and junior league and compare the number of Canadian teams that used leaves with the number of Canadian teams overall. I did this because I was curious to see how many Canadian hockey teams used the leaf, after another posted stated that a large number do. I went in, counted the teams, and found the number of Canadian teams that use the leaf to be very small. How this makes me a rabid nationalist Canadian or someone with a stick up my butt is beyond me. I simply crunched the numbers to see if a widely held assumption was true. It wasn't. That's all I posted. How does this make me unreasonable?

And this is where I am mistaken, as I now realize you only made a couple of posts on the matter, but ones of sizable length that I've scrolled past several times, to a point where I read your most recent post and my knee-jerk reaction was "Oh, jeez, here he goes with the leaf again."

Also, I just realized (because now I'm looking at it on a monitor instead of my phone) that the Jet*s use a significantly different leaf behind the roundel than they do in the secondary and the wordmark. Both are custom leaves (leafs?) done in the same style, but different enough to be noticeable. That is sloppy. I wonder if TNSE was presented with several different branding concepts, looked them over, and said, "Okay, we'll take the primary from this one, the secondary from that one, um, give us the wordmark from this one over here, but take the leaf from that other one and put it in that."

They could really cap it off by putting the secondary on one shoulder and the Canadian flag on the other, but what kind of idiot franchise would even think of

EDIT: Wife came in and saw the primary logo. Said, "What the hell is that supposed to be, a plane on top of a maple leaf? Oh, that's stupid."

Yeah, the whole package does reek of "we did this in three days." hence the different styles of leaves. I like the idea of the primary a lot, but I admit it could have been executed better. It wouldn't shock me if they updated it in the next off season.

Anyway TNSE has no one to blame but themselves for the rushed nature of this. Chipman may have longed for the Moose, but they should have had a polished Jets identity ready to go. They should have been aware that the fans wanted the Jets name back.

Actually I think the current package they unveiled today could be great if it was refined a few more times.

[Sodboy13]

Actually I think the current package they unveiled today could be great if it was refined a few more times.

Completely agree. It was mentioned earlier in this thread that if this was a rush job, perhaps there could be some refinements down the road for '12-'13, much like the Lightning will be doing. As it stands now, the theme of NHL changes in '11-'12 appears to be, "Ooh, so close..."

[ksupilot]

I like it. It is simple, and classy. It's the type of logo that if it were around for the last 60 years, people would be hailing it as one of the classics.

If they had gone with something sleek and modern, I know people would be criticizing it for being modern for modern's sake.

[Still MIGHTY]

I just want to weigh in on this maple leaf situation for a second.

Ice_Cap, We see that you did the research in sports teams regarding the maple leaf vs stars, but I think people crying out "Canadians put a maple leaf on everthing" stems from Canadian corporate as a whole as Sodboy pointed out in his initial post. It's engrained into people that if you want it to be Canadian, just throw a leaf on it in terms of things like McDonalds, Subway, etc and most American corporations that open up a Canadian division, even some Canadian businesses do it. It's overplayed in the entire scope of Canadiandom. In sports it may be smaller, the Maple Leafs obviously, the Blue Jays did it, the Raptors did at one point. In a vacuum, sure your point is correct, but in a full scope, there is more attribution to the leaf than I think you are letting on.

In terms of the Jets, on the roundel, yes it works because it's for the RCAF. That's great and makes a ton of sense. But just slapping it onto the wordmark (odd Jet*s placement non-withstatnding) in very much the same fashion as it's done with Canadian corporate is what I think draws the ire here. And casual American Joe Fan may not know what the RCAF logo looks like.

Really, I think they should have played up the actual jet a little more. It's small. It's clip arty. It's just kinda there. I would have appreciated a bigger jet and a little more action in the Jet. I mean they are the Winnipeg JETS. Not the Winnipeg RCAF division team.

[ksupilot]

I don't know, I think anyone with a sense of history knows that the roundel is some type of Air Force symbol. Whether it be RAF, RCAF, or USAF, if you've seen images from WWII, you've seen a roundel on a plane.

[kw11333]

I refuse to judge the Jets new look, until I see their jerseys. A great jersey template, can save an OK logo. I hate people who are criticizing them for not using the old Jets logo. It's not the same team! All those players numbers who are retired belong to Phoenix, not Winnipeg.

[IceCap]

I just want to weigh in on this maple leaf situation for a second.

Ice_Cap, We see that you did the research in sports teams regarding the maple leaf vs stars, but I think people crying out "Canadians put a maple leaf on everthing" stems from Canadian corporate as a whole as Sodboy pointed out in his initial post. It's engrained into people that if you want it to be Canadian, just throw a leaf on it in terms of things like McDonalds, Subway, etc and most American corporations that open up a Canadian division, even some Canadian businesses do it. It's overplayed in the entire scope of Canadiandom. In sports it may be smaller, the Maple Leafs obviously, the Blue Jays did it, the Raptors did at one point. In a vacuum, sure your point is correct, but in a full scope, there is more attribution to the leaf than I think you are letting on.

It wasn't maple leaf vs stars, it was maple leaf vs patriotic American imagery. That's a key distinction. In fact no where in my original survey post did I say stars were the benchmark of patriotic American symbolism. Is it so much to ask that people actually read what I posted before they decide to weigh in on it?

As to the full scope of Canadian business, so what? McDonalds of Canada does not field a NHL team.

I'm not talking about the Jets' identity in a vacuum, I'm talking about it in the only context that it can fairly be assessed in, that of Canadian hockey logo design. Within that context the use of the leaf is limited. Comparing the Jets logo to that of McDonalds and Subway of Canada is just, well, unfair. The logos of those businesses don't exist within the same context of that of the Jets.

Sure the leaf is overused in the Canadian corporate world. If we were talking about this in the general design sub-forum you'd have a very solid point. We aren't though. Within the world of Canadian ice hockey logos it's a rarely used design element.

[habsfan1]

Well thank goodness for no black and steel blue, aka ripping off the now dufunct Predators alternate!

Now onto the new logos. Now I do agree about the clutteryness about a logo having a two color shaded jet over a two color shaded maple leaf, all within a circle. But does this newly unveiling logo enter the hall of shame, which features all of the epic failures that we've all ripped to shreads for so long? No it doesn't. The logo is not that bad. Actually, the logo is pretty neat even if it has it's flaws. The idea is a great one and despite TNSE's time restraints, I even have to applaud them for making something this decent within the little time they've had. I like that they've adopted the RCAF Flyers theme and I hope the future jerseys that will be unveiled (hopefully leaked in advance because I have zero patience) pay tribute to those old uniforms as well.

[Still MIGHTY]

I just want to weigh in on this maple leaf situation for a second.

Ice_Cap, We see that you did the research in sports teams regarding the maple leaf vs stars, but I think people crying out "Canadians put a maple leaf on everthing" stems from Canadian corporate as a whole as Sodboy pointed out in his initial post. It's engrained into people that if you want it to be Canadian, just throw a leaf on it in terms of things like McDonalds, Subway, etc and most American corporations that open up a Canadian division, even some Canadian businesses do it. It's overplayed in the entire scope of Canadiandom. In sports it may be smaller, the Maple Leafs obviously, the Blue Jays did it, the Raptors did at one point. In a vacuum, sure your point is correct, but in a full scope, there is more attribution to the leaf than I think you are letting on.

It wasn't maple leaf vs stars, it was maple leaf vs patriotic American imagery. That's a key distinction. In fact no where in my original survey post did I say stars were the benchmark of patriotic American symbolism. Is it so much to ask that people actually read what I posted before they decide to weigh in on it?

As to the full scope of Canadian business, so what? McDonalds of Canada does not field a NHL team.

I'm not talking about the Jets' identity in a vacuum, I'm talking about it in the only context that it can fairly be assessed in, that of Canadian hockey logo design. Within that context the use of the leaf is limited. Comparing the Jets logo to that of McDonalds and Subway of Canada is just, well, unfair. The logos of those businesses don't exist within the same context of that of the Jets.

Sure the leaf is overused in the Canadian corporate world. If we were talking about this in the general design sub-forum you'd have a very solid point. We aren't though. Within the world of Canadian ice hockey logos it's a rarely used design element.

First, my apologies for the maple leafs vs stars thing. That's just the most recent way it was referred to. Your original post was just one of those huge blocks that I glossed over to get to you final point.

Second, I understand all of that, but I think what I'm more trying to get at is the thoughts of the general public.

If you want to break things down and cut them up, then yes, you are correct in your assertion. Also when I said vacuum, I should have specified as a sports vacuum shut off from all other areas. What I'm saying though is that the average person is going to look at the whole of things in the north and say, "Another damn maple leaf on a Canadian entity. Get some originality, ya eskimos." If someone when to Average Joe Fan, and asked/explained about the maple leaf in pro sports, they wouldn't get much farther than the Maple Leafs or the old Blue Jays in their complaint, sure. But to someone that's not harping on all the details of it as people in this forum and further those not examining it in a hockey sense, all they see is just another Canadian maple leaf.

In sports, no, the maple leaf isn't overused. In the broad scope, the maple leaf imagery needs to slow it's roll a little.

[Gothamite]

Ah, we say that about Texas all the time - stop with the stars, you dolts, it's long since past clever - but doesn't seem to slow them down.

[Coast2CoastAM2006]

the more i look at this the more i like it. one thing i do expect is this to be put on a traditional style of jersey. Which i do think would look really good.

this is far from "Epic phailz guyzz!!!1!!!@! . I like it and i'm sure the jerseys they put this on will be nice.