Jump to content

Latest Rumor: NHL Team Expected to Announce Rebranding in 2012


Mac the Knife

Recommended Posts

Not sure if this is addressed at my previous post or not, but it deserves comment. My point was never that franchises that have won championships have identities that are "untouchable." My point was simply that those franchises would need an incredibly good (read: financially unassailable) reason to do a complete overhaul of their brand. Based on what we've heard, we aren't talking about changing the shade of a particular color and redoing the color hierarchy and uniforms (a la the Lightning) or reducing the use of a particular team color (a la the Stars). We're talking about a fundamental change in the franchise's brand identity.

If you've won a championship (Stanley Cup), then you've developed an insane amount of public capital based on the recognition of that particular identity. Want to tweak the logo or the colors? Want to redo the uniforms? Fine. But I can't see the financial reasoning behind uprooting your established brand in such an unprecedented fashion. It doesn't make sense.

I don't know; the sports world has had a few championship teams who did more than just "tweak" the logo or colors:

How about the Houston Rockets? Win 2 consecutive NBA championships in red and yellow (okay they were the NBA's answer to Penn State but they had an identity as a hard working team in plain uniforms) then go completely off the reservation with navy blue pinstriped pajamas and a logo that was at best an update of the ABA's Denver Rockets "rocket with teeth" from the early 70s.

Maybe it's a stretch, but the Penguins really did more than a tweak after winning 2 straight cups when they went with the "modern Penguin" and away from the skating penguin. I would consider their current penguin to be a "tweak" of the one used during the 2 cup wins; the 90s penguin was pretty radically different.

How about the Baltimore Orioles? Several World Series wins with the cartoon oriole but they still went to an "accurate" oriole when they moved to Camden Yards.

I don't think it would be a huge stretch for the Dallas Stars to become the Dallas Lone Stars and move to a navy/silver/royal/white color scheme to fit in with the Cowboys and the Mavericks. I always kind of wondered why they didn't become the Lone Stars (instead of just "Stars") when they moved from Minneapolis. Plus didn't they have shoulder patches of the state of Texas that were silver and blue? I guess they could have been just white and black; I don't think I've ever seen a photo of an authentic Dallas Stars game jersey from their original set.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 320
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I wonder if the "something that's never been done in the NHL before" refers to merely the act of changing the team's nickname without a relocation being involved? Yes, I know most of the Original Six teams renamed themselves frequently during the NHL's formative years, but enough time has passed since then that a similar move today would still be considered a radical new idea by most people. [The (Mighty) Ducks don't count; they're still the Ducks.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PuckDaddy introduced the idea when the Predators were slated to moved of having the Predators Hockey Club and letting them play their 40 home games at various locations on the continent. Could a regionalized version of that be ahead of us?

After giving it some thought, I think this scenario is highly possible. But I disagree that it's Nashville. I fully expect it to be Phoenix. I think the 2011/12 season in Glendale is going to be a lame-duck season as the NHL gears up to run the Coyotes as a "floating" franchise playing out their season in several neutral sites. Call them the "NHL Voyagers" or "NHL HC" have them play 7-14 home dates in places such as Quebec City, Hartford, Hamilton, Kansas City, Portland, maybe even Atlanta.

In my mind, it's not too dissimilar to when the Montreal Expos played "home" games in San Juan, or more acurately, when the Florida Bobcats of the Arena League played all of their games on the road back in 1997 or 1998.

Russian Penguins FTL!

I was thinking the Glendale Globetrotters...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PuckDaddy introduced the idea when the Predators were slated to moved of having the Predators Hockey Club and letting them play their 40 home games at various locations on the continent. Could a regionalized version of that be ahead of us?

After giving it some thought, I think this scenario is highly possible. But I disagree that it's Nashville. I fully expect it to be Phoenix. I think the 2011/12 season in Glendale is going to be a lame-duck season as the NHL gears up to run the Coyotes as a "floating" franchise playing out their season in several neutral sites. Call them the "NHL Voyagers" or "NHL HC" have them play 7-14 home dates in places such as Quebec City, Hartford, Hamilton, Kansas City, Portland, maybe even Atlanta.

In my mind, it's not too dissimilar to when the Montreal Expos played "home" games in San Juan, or more acurately, when the Florida Bobcats of the Arena League played all of their games on the road back in 1997 or 1998.

They cannot be named the Predators if they drive around the continent showing up for a day or so and leaving. It just sounds WRONG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PuckDaddy introduced the idea when the Predators were slated to moved of having the Predators Hockey Club and letting them play their 40 home games at various locations on the continent. Could a regionalized version of that be ahead of us?

After giving it some thought, I think this scenario is highly possible. But I disagree that it's Nashville. I fully expect it to be Phoenix. I think the 2011/12 season in Glendale is going to be a lame-duck season as the NHL gears up to run the Coyotes as a "floating" franchise playing out their season in several neutral sites. Call them the "NHL Voyagers" or "NHL HC" have them play 7-14 home dates in places such as Quebec City, Hartford, Hamilton, Kansas City, Portland, maybe even Atlanta.

In my mind, it's not too dissimilar to when the Montreal Expos played "home" games in San Juan, or more acurately, when the Florida Bobcats of the Arena League played all of their games on the road back in 1997 or 1998.

They cannot be named the Predators if they drive around the continent showing up for a day or so and leaving. It just sounds WRONG.

Herbert.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it is the nickname, my vote would be Dallas. Lonestars anyone?

How can "Lone Star" be pluralized? That would be akin to calling the team the "Lone Rangers".

Same way "Maple Leaf" is pluralized! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if the Cowboys bought the Stars, and they became the Dallas Cowboys (Hockey)? Would that be possible? I cna see it being something that would appeal to the NHL, in terms of raising the NHLs profile?

You have to go 'waaay back, but it's not unique. The Toronto Maple Leafs AAA baseball team (admittedly, the minor leagues, unlike the 'Boys) date back to 1896, long before the hockey Leafs or even the NHL was thought of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it is the nickname, my vote would be Dallas. Lonestars anyone?

How can "Lone Star" be pluralized? That would be akin to calling the team the "Lone Rangers".

Same way "Maple Leaf" is pluralized! :)

You mean with an s?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plus didn't they have shoulder patches of the state of Texas that were silver and blue? I guess they could have been just white and black; I don't think I've ever seen a photo of an authentic Dallas Stars game jersey from their original set.

Those patches were just white and black. No blue to be found.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know; the sports world has had a few championship teams who did more than just "tweak" the logo or colors:

How about the Houston Rockets? Win 2 consecutive NBA championships in red and yellow (okay they were the NBA's answer to Penn State but they had an identity as a hard working team in plain uniforms) then go completely off the reservation with navy blue pinstriped pajamas and a logo that was at best an update of the ABA's Denver Rockets "rocket with teeth" from the early 70s.

Maybe it's a stretch, but the Penguins really did more than a tweak after winning 2 straight cups when they went with the "modern Penguin" and away from the skating penguin. I would consider their current penguin to be a "tweak" of the one used during the 2 cup wins; the 90s penguin was pretty radically different.

How about the Baltimore Orioles? Several World Series wins with the cartoon oriole but they still went to an "accurate" oriole when they moved to Camden Yards.

I don't think it would be a huge stretch for the Dallas Stars to become the Dallas Lone Stars and move to a navy/silver/royal/white color scheme to fit in with the Cowboys and the Mavericks. I always kind of wondered why they didn't become the Lone Stars (instead of just "Stars") when they moved from Minneapolis. Plus didn't they have shoulder patches of the state of Texas that were silver and blue? I guess they could have been just white and black; I don't think I've ever seen a photo of an authentic Dallas Stars game jersey from their original set.

I probably didn't make clear what I was talking about when I said "a fundamental change in the franchise's brand identity" and "uprooting your established brand in such an unprecedented fashion". I don't think any of the historic examples you provided even come close to the kind of change we are talking about: the possibility of a team using corporate sponsorship of their name and brand or the possibility of a single franchise becoming a "regional" team, playing "home" games in multiple towns.

I'll grant you that the Rockets' rebrand after their titles was a drastic change. But it's still not nearly as drastic a change as it would have been if they had become the "Coca-Cola Rockets" or the "Southeast Texas Rockets", splitting their home games between Houston, Galveston, Corpus Christi, etc. (The Pens' and Orioles' changes you mentioned aren't even in the same league as this, imo. They were minor to moderate logo and style changes, not an overhaul of the brand.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it is the nickname, my vote would be Dallas. Lonestars anyone?

How can "Lone Star" be pluralized? That would be akin to calling the team the "Lone Rangers".

Same way "Maple Leaf" is pluralized! :)

Ah yes, the Maple Leaves.

Let's just face it, proper rules of pluralization just do not apply to sports teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it is the nickname, my vote would be Dallas. Lonestars anyone?

How can "Lone Star" be pluralized? That would be akin to calling the team the "Lone Rangers".

Same way "Maple Leaf" is pluralized! :)

Ah yes, the Maple Leaves.

Let's just face it, proper rules of pluralization just do not apply to sports teams.

uh, hello, proper noun?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tampa Bay: No, they just rebranded.

Florida: No, they have the red thing

Carolina: Maybe........

Nashville:No, they are getting new unis next year

Dallas: Probably not, they are getting new alts this year.

Phoenix: Maybe if the city of Glendale pays for them............

LA: No, they are doing the black thing.

Anaheim: Maybe a return to the Disney era?

Just a point of geography, Anaheim, LA and Phoenix are not in the "south" or "southern" US so it's not going to be any of those. The "south" ends at Texas moving west.

Also someone brought up LA Ducks of Anaheim earlier, which cannot happen. The arena lease with the city expressly forbids it after the Angels fiasco a few years back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone is overlooking Columbus, I could totally see them renaming them self's the "Ohio _____" and playing games in Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati. All three have arena's with 14,000+, and all have had some sort of pro hockey teams play in there. Pending these rumors are true of course.

Because Columbus also isn't in the south. You guys are adding in teams to the discussion that don't meet the criteria of the original rumor. The southern teams are limited to the Stars, Panthers, Predators, Hurricanes, Lightning, and for a few more days the Thrashers.

My money is on it being the Hurricanes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those patches were just white and black. No blue to be found.

Thanks; I wasn't sure if they were white and black or silver and navy. Of course white and black fits the Stars white/black/green colors.

I probably didn't make clear what I was talking about when I said "a fundamental change in the franchise's brand identity" and "uprooting your established brand in such an unprecedented fashion". I don't think any of the historic examples you provided even come close to the kind of change we are talking about: the possibility of a team using corporate sponsorship of their name and brand or the possibility of a single franchise becoming a "regional" team, playing "home" games in multiple towns.

I'll grant you that the Rockets' rebrand after their titles was a drastic change. But it's still not nearly as drastic a change as it would have been if they had become the "Coca-Cola Rockets" or the "Southeast Texas Rockets", splitting their home games between Houston, Galveston, Corpus Christi, etc. (The Pens' and Orioles' changes you mentioned aren't even in the same league as this, imo. They were minor to moderate logo and style changes, not an overhaul of the brand.)

No, you were clear; I just didn't take it as far as you intended. However, didn't someone (maybe the OP) say it definitely won't corporate sponsorship rebrand? I sincerly hope this is the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two flags signifies a hurricane warning. One flag denotes only a storm warning.

I always thought the Hurricanes were missing out by not playing "Storm Front" by Billy Joel prior to each period.

You would be correct. What do they play instead, "Rock You Like a Hurricane" by Scorpions?

Yep. At deafening levels so you can't understand the lyrics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a team was truly planning on going regional, I think it would almost certainly leak from somewhere other than a sports logos message board. That would be huge news in the hockey world and someone high up in the media would probably know before a guy working on a name/uniform rebrand would know (and tell his friend). No offense to Mac or his friend, I just doubt we'd all first be hearing about a story like that in this context.

Did Mac confirm that the "something that's never been done in the NHL before" will not include a possible corporate tie-in (either in the name of the team or in ads on the sweater)? I thought I read someone say that earlier in the thread, but then people kept talking about it. That seems like the most obvious possibility to me.

Again I have to question the source of this "information." If an NHL team were to rebrand themselves with a corporate emphasis (a la "New York Red Bulls"), I think it would have become bigger news from a larger, more certifiable source.

I simply cannot imagine the Stanley-Cup-winning Stars, Lightning, or Hurricanes (or the Ducks, less emphatically because of their previous nickname and corporate connection as the Mighty Ducks) doing a complete overhaul of their brand. As a local Hurricane fan for their entire existence, the logistical nightmare involved with rebranding the franchise as a local/multiple-city team or corporate-sponsored team boggles my mind. The Hurricanes have spent the last 10+ years establishing their brand, logos, colors, etc. with fans, media, corporate sponsors, local radio and TV, etc. From a purely business standpoint (not to mention the design/branding issues), why throw that all away?

How do you handle season ticket holders logistically when you're playing "home games" in multiple cities? How do you handle the local corporate sponsorship? What is the nature of the agreement with multiple arenas and their holding companies? What is the business sense in dividing the brand loyalty among local markets, when each market's local sponsors don't get full exposure and each market's local ticket holders can only purchase so many tickets? It just doesn't make sense, and I cannot fathom how it could fit the NHL's business model.

Maybe I could see the "Florida" Panthers attempting to rebrand as the "Miami" Panthers. Maybe. Not likely. But I reiterate that until we have more to go on than hearsay and anecdotal evidence, no credence should be lended to this claim.

Can I ask a question here? Why is it that so many people seem to have it stuck in their craniums that just because a team happens to win a championship, their logos/uniforms/identity suddenly becomes "untouchable"? Let's face reality here--this ain't the '50s, '60s, or '70s here--hell even the '80s and shieet, even the early '90s. Social/media/brand awareness is higher than its ever been, and if a franchise's front office/ownership feels like an identity overhaul, to whatever extent, will drive up merchandising revenue and/or fan interest, that's just what they gon' do, championship or not. (Case in point: the aforementioned Tampa Bay Lightning just won a Cup several seasons ago, and they're rebranding their identity. Hell the daggone Stars won Lord Stanley, then proceeded to virtually eradicate the green from their sweaters.)

Not sure if this is addressed at my previous post or not, but it deserves comment. My point was never that franchises that have won championships have identities that are "untouchable." My point was simply that those franchises would need an incredibly good (read: financially unassailable) reason to do a complete overhaul of their brand. Based on what we've heard, we aren't talking about changing the shade of a particular color and redoing the color hierarchy and uniforms (a la the Lightning) or reducing the use of a particular team color (a la the Stars). We're talking about a fundamental change in the franchise's brand identity.

If you've won a championship (Stanley Cup), then you've developed an insane amount of public capital based on the recognition of that particular identity. Want to tweak the logo or the colors? Want to redo the uniforms? Fine. But I can't see the financial reasoning behind uprooting your established brand in such an unprecedented fashion. It doesn't make sense.

I don't know; the sports world has had a few championship teams who did more than just "tweak" the logo or colors:

How about the Houston Rockets? Win 2 consecutive NBA championships in red and yellow (okay they were the NBA's answer to Penn State but they had an identity as a hard working team in plain uniforms) then go completely off the reservation with navy blue pinstriped pajamas and a logo that was at best an update of the ABA's Denver Rockets "rocket with teeth" from the early 70s.

Maybe it's a stretch, but the Penguins really did more than a tweak after winning 2 straight cups when they went with the "modern Penguin" and away from the skating penguin. I would consider their current penguin to be a "tweak" of the one used during the 2 cup wins; the 90s penguin was pretty radically different.

How about the Baltimore Orioles? Several World Series wins with the cartoon oriole but they still went to an "accurate" oriole when they moved to Camden Yards.

I don't think it would be a huge stretch for the Dallas Stars to become the Dallas Lone Stars and move to a navy/silver/royal/white color scheme to fit in with the Cowboys and the Mavericks. I always kind of wondered why they didn't become the Lone Stars (instead of just "Stars") when they moved from Minneapolis. Plus didn't they have shoulder patches of the state of Texas that were silver and blue? I guess they could have been just white and black; I don't think I've ever seen a photo of an authentic Dallas Stars game jersey from their original set.

I probably didn't make clear what I was talking about when I said "a fundamental change in the franchise's brand identity" and "uprooting your established brand in such an unprecedented fashion". I don't think any of the historic examples you provided even come close to the kind of change we are talking about: the possibility of a team using corporate sponsorship of their name and brand or the possibility of a single franchise becoming a "regional" team, playing "home" games in multiple towns.

I'll grant you that the Rockets' rebrand after their titles was a drastic change. But it's still not nearly as drastic a change as it would have been if they had become the "Coca-Cola Rockets" or the "Southeast Texas Rockets", splitting their home games between Houston, Galveston, Corpus Christi, etc. (The Pens' and Orioles' changes you mentioned aren't even in the same league as this, imo. They were minor to moderate logo and style changes, not an overhaul of the brand.)

As a Canes fan who's been there from the start (the Greensboro years), I couldn't agree more with what dgnmrwrw has said.

The only reason I can fathom why the Hurricanes would think about making any kind of change would be that someone in the organization is concerned about the team's usage of a natural disaster nickname. Yeah, I know its a stretch, but with all the natural disasters that have occurred lately (tsunami, tornadoes, wildfires, and flooding), the team might have considered the PR complications what would arise if a bad hurricane hit the area, and therefore thought it would be best to change the team's nickname.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once more, kids...

(1) Corporate involvement is NOT part of the rebranding that I was advised of. That implies, at least to me, no sponsors on uniforms, no renaming of team to show affilation with a sponsor, etc., etc.

(2) A relocation is NOT part of the rebranding that I was advised of. To me, that implies no franchise "going regional" so to speak.

And also...

(3) I've posted here all the information I have at this time. If and when I'm able to get more information, I'll post it here.

(4) Some of you question my source on the basis that "you'd have heard something from somewhere else," or "this wouldn't be where it would be revealed." Publicly, you're right. But as I mentioned almost from the get-go, if my source for what little information I did glean were even remotely unreliable, I wouldn't have bothered with it.

(5) My source does have the same anal attitude toward logos and team branding and so forth that you guys do (but which, I frankly, don't), so if he tells me it's something that's never been done before, odds are it's not something as minor as a font change or using bigger uniform numbers on a sweater.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.