NHL 2011-2012: Possible Uniform Changes

[Still MIGHTY]

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.

Add cowboy hats for Texas imagery, but yeah I don't mind if the symbol in question (stars/stripes/eagles or maple leafs) is ingrained into the design in a clever or creative way.

The thing that bugs me about things like that is when it's just slapped on i.e. the maple leaf on the Jet*s wordmark. Like on the primary roundel it makes sense, because that's the RCAF's logo. But when it's just slapped on like the corporate examples or in the wordmark, it's just hokey and uninspired.

[IceCap]

I get what you're saying, and partly I blame the current Canadian flag for the situation we find ourselves in. Diefenbaker remarked that the flag would make an excellent logo for a business, but was lacking as a national symbol. We adopted it anyway and now look. The previous flag features leaves as well (they are the national symbol after all) but in a much more limited manner. When you stick the leaf front and centre on the flag it's like a get out of jail free card for designers.

That being said, it's gotten better. Shaw Media, a western Canadian media conglomerate, recently redesigned their logo that saw them drop the maple leaf. CBC, which being a subsidy of the Canadian government could get a free pass on using the leaf, doesn't. Neither does CTV or Global. Rogers, Bell, and Telus don't use leaves. So leaf saturation isn't as bad as it once was. Now Molson and Labatt still use the leaf, but Canadian beer companies promote themselves as the bastion of silly, contrived, commercialized nationalism, so that won't change.

You won't get any argument from me on that point. On the whole the Canadian business community needs to reduce the use of the leaf. Several large companies don't use it, so there's hope.

With the Jets though, I really don't see the problem. If the wordmark was the primary logo (which isn't an out there idea, given the first WHA Jets sweater), then I'd agree, the leaf was forced. For a team named the Jets, though, a RCAF/CFAC theme just fits. They're named after planes, the air force roundel seems like a good starting point for a logo. The leaf in the new Jets wordmark is forced. The leaf in the Manitoba Moose logo was forced (sorry Sterling), the leaf in the Victoria Royals logo is forced. In a logo that's emulating the central emblem of the RCAF? It makes sense for it to be there.

As for the alternate logo? Well...

[Lee.]

This board does love to overreact, Must be the heat.

It's not the worst logo of all time, it's certainly not the best. The point has been made by Brian, who is far more politic and verbose than I: It just doesn't feel finished.

Pressure from the fans led to the Moose brand not making the jump, and MORE fan (and league and licensing partners) pressure forced them to rush a logo set out in around 1/3 of the time that most teams likely have.

I'm sure that if not for deadlines from the league and, yes, EA, another two weeks would have made this thing what we all wanted it to be, and not some :censored:ty rehash of the 1996 logos. A little spit and polish is all this needs. That and a better wordmark.

And just for the people who keep wanting that hockey stick jet puck logo back, I hope they go right back to 1972 for a Heritage Classic, just piss you off. Contrasting rounded nameplate and weird striping. YEAH.

[CubsFanBudMan]

I think if you want to count maple leafs for Canadian teams, you should limit it to the four major sports leagues, as those are the leagues that get the most national (or international) exposure.

Three teams of seven now use it in the NHL, and one of them is actually called the Maple Leafs. The Blue Jays use it on their shoulder, so MLB is one for one. Same with the Raptors, who have/had the TR leaf. Can't remember if the Bills use a patch with a leaf for Toronto games.

So you can add as many junior teams as you want to dilutethe numbers, but I'd say Texas and its use of stars is a better comparison to Canada that the U.S. and American imagery. But that's not even the point, because there are so many more American teams.

I'm a little surprised, IceCap, that after seeing so many references to the "85 years" in the Lightning thread, that you are so willing to let the Jets slide on this. You'd think a team whose new logo set is centered on a modified version of your team's logo -- national symbol or not -- would generate more outrage than a simple color scheme.

I said it in the other thread (and I see Old Roman had posted the same thing here earlier), but you could go simple and still evoke the RCAF by just replacing the leaf with a red jet. Could have been iconic. This is stacked clipart.

[IceCap]

The Jets get a pass on the leaf because its use is tied to the RCAF roundel homage. The leaf isn't there just fur the sake of having a leaf. It's appropriate given the homage they were going for. It's unreasonable to expect a RCAF based identify to forego the central emblem if the RCAF roundel.

As to my survey of Canadian teams, I didn't look at minor league teams to "dilute the numbers." twi specifically stated that Canadian teams "across all levels of hockey" made wide-spread use of the leaf. That's why I looked at minor and junior league teams, and confined my survey to hockey.

Now I'll let you get back to telling me what I'm thinking.

[CubsFanBudMan]

The Jets get a pass on the leaf because its use is tied to the RCAF roundel homage. The leaf isn't there just fur the sake of having a leaf. It's appropriate given the homage they were going for. It's unreasonable to expect a RCAF based identify to forego the central emblem if the RCAF roundel.

As to my survey of Canadian teams, I didn't look at minor league teams to "dilute the numbers." twi specifically stated that Canadian teams "across all levels of hockey" made wide-spread use of the leaf. That's why I looked at minor and junior league teams, and confined my survey to hockey.

Now I'll let you get back to telling me what to think.

Telling you what to think? That's rich coming from a guy who stacks quotes upon quotes trying to convince everyone that you're right and they're wrong.

You did research skewed to get the desired outcome. That's fine. But you've been trotting it out as proof all over the place. It's not. The stars are moot. The juniors are moot. The maple leaves are everywhere in the highest profile leagues in the world that Canadian teams are a part of. Deal.

And yes, when the main mark of another team in the NHL is a maple leaf, I do expect an homage to the RCAF to forgo the central imagery in the roundel. Because it's another team's central imagery. Or at least do better than bevel the existing logo and slap a clipart jet over it. Would it be okay for an NFL team to slap a plane over a star in a circle because it was inspired by the USAF? My answer is no, but I won't presume to answer for you.

The concept is flawed, but the execution is worse.

To paraphrase Common: "If I don't like it, I don't like it. It don't mean that I'm hatin' (Canadians or logos)."

Have the last word. I know it's inevitable here and in the other thread. I'm done. Then go badger someone else.

[IceCap]

Have the last word.

Ok.

Then go badger someone else.

You've made it a habit of yours to badger me as of late. First the Angels throwbacks, now this. I'm glad you're done.

[Corvus]

I like the logo package the Jets have unveiled. Claiming that the Maple Leaf is overused in Canadian sports logos is a rather weak criticism, especially in light of the history of the RCAF imagery that the Jets logo package is admittedly, from their own brand identity slideshow, drawing on.

The main logo is solid, but could have been done a little better. The jet itself seems a little less detailed than it could be, but as an actual image on a sweater, those details aren't going to be visible on the players on the ice anyways. Something about the area where the nose of the jet obscures part of the top of the leaf bothers me, but I can't quite tell why. These are all minor quibbles though.

Overall, I like the colour selection and it gives me optimism for a solid looking jersey and on ice identity.

[Eye]

I like the logo package the Jets have unveiled. Claiming that the Maple Leaf is overused in Canadian sports logos is a rather weak criticism, especially in light of the history of the RCAF imagery that the Jets logo package is admittedly, from their own brand identity slideshow, drawing on.

The main logo is solid, but could have been done a little better. The jet itself seems a little less detailed than it could be, but as an actual image on a sweater, those details aren't going to be visible on the players on the ice anyways. Something about the area where the nose of the jet obscures part of the top of the leaf bothers me, but I can't quite tell why. These are all minor quibbles though.

Overall, I like the colour selection and it gives me optimism for a solid looking jersey and on ice identity.

I don't have an issue with a maple leaf being used on its own, but when another team uses a maple leaf as its logo (and of course, obviously, is called the Maple Leafs) I think it is an awful way to go, having a maple leaf being an integral part of your logo.

The primary logo is bad, the secondary is the best of the bunch, but mediocre at best. The wordmark is nothing special either.

[Bayne]

I'm okay with the design. It's not outstanding, but it's not bad. I can get used to it quite easily.

I do wish the jet itself popped out a little bit more though..

[dbackdiehard17]

The primary is really uninspired compared to most of the other NHL primaries, which seem to have a lot more pizazz. Look at Boston's logo for example: it pops out at you! This one has too much going on, and not enough excitement.

I don't get how this could have been a rushed job: you're True North, you expect to buy a team, and you can't have designers work on a concept to be ready should you land that team? Even if they wanted Moose, to not have a Jets concept ready seems odd to me.

But lastly, I'm saddened that this logo replaces what I always thought was a very exciting and interesting logo package: The Atlanta Thrashers. The Thrashers identity had personality and zing. Their unis were all over the place, but I always loved their logos.

[Old School Fool]

So I look at the logo, I like it but something is missing...

It's missing text in the blue part of the circle saying "Winnipeg Jets Hockey" or any variation of name you want to use. I'd whip it up myself but I can't image edit for crap.

[BJ Sands]

So I look at the logo, I like it but something is missing...

It's missing text in the blue part of the circle saying "Winnipeg Jets Hockey" or any variation of name you want to use. I'd whip it up myself but I can't image edit for crap.

I posted the same idea in the other thread not five minutes ago. Add a dark blue outline to the jet and then this is much improved.

[NYYNYR]

I'm going to try to stay reasonable here:

I'm a little disappointed ONLY BECAUSE the people who were closest to the situation gave some pretty high praise to the intricacy of the logo package.

However, this is light years beyond the original one and will shortly put the old stuff to SHAME.

I also think this main logo will be dynamite on the jersey. The jersey is going to wow us, I believe. However, I do feel like the crossed-sticks logo would make a better primary only because it pops and brands pretty well. If you go on NHL.com, the logo looks small and insignificant, along with unrecognizable, against all the others...

*Talking powder blue* I also wanted to bring up a point that I hadn't seen made: Who's to say that the jersey won't be powder blue??? The jersey that they've obviously been inspired by is on Image 2 of the Jets' photo gallery online. Can they do that? I don't know. It's clear that that jersey (is that the Air Force team's squad???) is powder blue. Who's to say that they won't be powder blue -- instead of navy, as most believe -- to play up the Air Force jersey connection ... and give a shout-out to Blue Land down in ATL, from whence this team comes???

For all the trashing the color gets, I think the Panthers are going to be ditching their 3rds (at least soon), and Pitt has dropped their powder alts. ATL is done. Why not have the Jets pick up the baton and go for it??? The precedent is there. I don't know how else to utilize that color. To have a red or navy jersey with powder stripes I think is going to seem odd and slopped together.

[jgiff17]

Being from Houston and growing up during the oilers...light blue is great when used correctly

[IceCap]

I'm a little disappointed ONLY BECAUSE the people who were closest to the situation gave some pretty high praise to the intricacy of the logo package.

I think we sometimes get lost in our own madness, if that makes any sense. We often forget that the people who see logos in advance and comment on them aren't as interested in sports logo/uniform design as we are. To a lot of people who saw the Jets logo ahead of time they probably thought "wow, it's a jet AND a RCAF roundel! It works on two levels, it's so intricate! What's that? There's a hint to the TNSE compass too? Wow, move over ball and glove!"

To us, we see the same thing and say "that's a good idea/starting point, but it can be refined." That's because we think of things like this in a way most people don't.

Anyway there's this, with Mark Chipman explaining the process behind the new logo.

http://video.jets.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=121191&navid=DL|WPG|home

For those (well one guy) wondering why I'm ok with a team using the maple leaf as a central emblem to their mark while I'm not ok with the lightning aping the Leafs' colour scheme (while rejecting my previously stated reasons), here's another explanation. According to Chipman the Maple Leafs gave the ok to the Jets to use the leaf. As far as I know the Stevie Yzerman Florida Hockey Experience Tampa Bay Lightning didn't ask for MLSE's permission to use what had been their exclusive colour scheme.

[NYYNYR]

I think we sometimes get lost in our own madness, if that makes any sense. We often forget that the people who see logos in advance and comment on them aren't as interested in sports logo/uniform design as we are. To a lot of people who saw the Jets logo ahead of time they probably thought "wow, it's a jet AND a RCAF roundel! It works on two levels, it's so intricate! What's that? There's a hint to the TNSE compass too? Wow, move over ball and glove!"

To us, we see the same thing and say "that's a good idea/starting point, but it can be refined." That's because we think of things like this in a way most people don't.

Very true. I was thinking the same thing.

[Mongoose]

Being from Houston and growing up during the oilers...light blue is great when used correctly

I agree. The Jets could have a unique look going for them if they use a powder blue jersey with red and navy trim. I also fear that if they do go the navy jersey route that they will end up looking too similar to Columbus.

[SCL]

The top of the leaf/nose of the plane is where the primary logo got it wrong, the red should have been extended to outline the nose of the plane. In terms of the wordmark, they could improve the cursive flow and replace the maple leaf with a jet which would follow the upward path of the e.

[IceCap]

Being from Houston and growing up during the oilers...light blue is great when used correctly

I agree. The Jets could have a unique look going for them if they use a powder blue jersey with red and navy trim. I also fear that if they do go the navy jersey route that they will end up looking too similar to Columbus.

If the website is any indication the only red we'll see will be on the logos. It's looking like we'll get a royal blue sweater with powder blue and silver striping. Which could create for a unique twist on the red, white, and blue colour scheme. If Florida and Pittsburgh are dropping their double sweaters, there's room for Winnipeg to pick up the colour scheme.