OchentaYOcho88

Winnipeg Jets Release Logo

Recommended Posts

Here's my update minus the red pointy thing at the bottom from the maple leaf.

WinnipegJetsPrimary5.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, a lot of teams have done these "paying tribute to military" fashions, such as the Padre's camo set, and even my own Blue Jackets who have essentially marketed the Civil War as a brand. Now that the Jets have continued this trend (perhaps a "fad"), its becoming more prevalent throughout the sports world. A lot of people would scowl the thought of a McDonald's-sponsored uniform set, yet overtly military-themed sports uniforms are praised. I feel military tributes are becoming a "Nobler than thou art" complex for franchises. Do you know how we can support our country through sport? During the Olympics, the IIHF Championships, the World Cup of Hockey. Remember, it's just a game; let's not over-politicize it.

*Que rebuttals explaining why I am an ingrate and unpatriotic.*

I don't think you're unpatriotic, but the Blue Jackets are patting the soldiers on the back as much as they are Ohio; and that's the point. Plus it's not a one time jersey or deal, they own up and keep it going while not hitting you over the head with imagery. I've only been to 4 CBJ games, but every game I've been to the most obvious "soldiers woo!" thing at the games is the cap alt logo.

I applaud the Jets' attempt to honor something true to their heritage. It's just what Columbus did and it's not distasteful in the slightest to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you're unpatriotic, but the Blue Jackets are patting the soldiers on the back as much as they are Ohio; and that's the point. Plus it's not a one time jersey or deal, they own up and keep it going while not hitting you over the head with imagery. I've only been to 4 CBJ games, but every game I've been to the most obvious "soldiers woo!" thing at the games is the cap alt logo.

I applaud the Jets' attempt to honor something true to their heritage. It's just what Columbus did and it's not distasteful in the slightest to me.

There's no better way to honor troops than volunteering, enlisting or participating in this -

Chills every time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted the sRGB versions of the new Jets' marks on my blog:

Winnipeg Jets 2011-2012 Marks

Take a careful look at how the two shades of Red play off of each other...this is a perfect example of how some designers don't give any thought as to how certain colors look on screen vs. how they will look when printed. When the true versions of those Reds are presented against one another, they look awful. I would expect them to tweak these colors in the near future.

(Chris or any of the mods can use these marks for the site if wanted.)

My only guess is that these may have been the best two red thread colors in stock and ready to go to production. The extremely short timetable forced the identity to only use fabrics and threads that were 1. already in use for hockey and 2. heavily in stock for production. Normal lead time is about 18 months, often even more than that. This identity is going from concept to on-ice in about 4 months.

That's a great point (thanks for the info BTW), and I would tend to agree...however, I will point out that the Dark Red is a color that isn't being used by anyone else in the NHL (think Washington Redskins Burgundy for those keeping score)...I do think they could have gone with Red Wings Red and Avalanche Burgundy and it would have worked a lot better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering how leagues are consolidating their palettes, that's unusual. Especially in the NHL, with so many teams using the same dark red.

Wonder if Reebok is really using the correct color in their merchandise, or if they reached for "Standard NHL Dark Red" and will eventually tweak the colors to match, as you suggest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, a lot of teams have done these "paying tribute to military" fashions, such as the Padre's camo set, and even my own Blue Jackets who have essentially marketed the Civil War as a brand. Now that the Jets have continued this trend (perhaps a "fad"), its becoming more prevalent throughout the sports world. A lot of people would scowl the thought of a McDonald's-sponsored uniform set, yet overtly military-themed sports uniforms are praised. I feel military tributes are becoming a "Nobler than thou art" complex for franchises. Do you know how we can support our country through sport? During the Olympics, the IIHF Championships, the World Cup of Hockey. Remember, it's just a game; let's not over-politicize it.

*Que rebuttals explaining why I am an ingrate and unpatriotic.*

As troy and Goth pointed out, this identity isn't quite the same as a military sponsorship.

Firstly the team decided to go with the RCAF theme and then asked the military for permission. The military didn't come to the team to suggest a military theme.

Secondly there's a strong RCAF connection in Winnipeg. And unlike the Padres the Jets incorporated the military theme from the start and are donating a significant amount of money to the armed forces, whereas the Padres shamelessly forced a military themed alternate into a uniform set that is otherwise free of military symbolism and then justify it by offering a percentage of the money made off sale of the gear, which I would have to think is smaller then the $1 million being given by the Jets.

Finally, as it's been pointed out before, an air force theme for a team named the Jets just kind of fits. Who uses jets these days? Passenger jets are mainstream, and not very agile. Fighter jets are agile and fast, qualities you would like to see associated with your hockey team. So if you're going to go with a fighter jet as the basis of the identity then the air force connection just fits. Going back to troy's example, it would be forced and shameless if the Avalanche came out with a military identity. When a team named after jet aircraft goes with an air force theme, though, it just seems like it fits.

As for supporting the military being a political issue, I don't see it. The missions/wars they're deployed in are certainly political in nature, and those are free to be debated. Simply honouring the men and women of our armed forces though? That should be something people of every political colour can agree on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, these are all good points. Certainly there is nothing wrong with using local heritage as a sports identity, and an Air Force Jet is a great compliment for a hockey team. I suppose my contest is that military themes alter history/ current events subjectively. The Blue Jackets' Union imagery is used in a way to commemorate the team--and hence the Civil War--as a morally righteous fight. Imagine the public outcry if Carolina, or Nashville, or (R.I.P.) Atlanta donned a Confederate motif (of course there was the short-lived Roanoake Valley Rebels in the ECHL) because of its historical presence in these places. Every nation, including the South, the North, and the U.S. and Canada today, has done something morally reprimanding. Regardless of what you think of the Civil War, you must admit that there are still Southerners proud of their heritage, just like Northerners in Columbus. Seems like a double-standard to me, but I don't expect everybody to understand.

Furthermore, in the case of "support the troops, not the wars", it is a bone fide stance, but nevertheless the two are realistically inseparable. We can wish the best for our men in uniform through debate and rhetoric, but it will not stop them getting maimed or killed in battle. In the case of military sports themes such as the Jets, the identity does not and can not distinguish a difference between basic compassion and blind faith in military decisions. In reality, such edifies national service, and the continuing flow of able bodied individuals into service only fuels the fire. Also, does anybody know where the Jets proceeds are exactly going in the military?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine the public outcry if Carolina, or Nashville, or (R.I.P.) Atlanta donned a Confederate motif (of course there was the short-lived Roanoake Valley Rebels in the ECHL) because of its historical presence in these places.

At the risk of raising this issue again, the CSA is in no way equivalent to the USA. The United States was founded on lofty ideals to which it has often failed to live up; the Confederacy was founded on a cornerstone of slavery and racial superiority. Just read their founding documents.

So there's a fairly significant difference between honoring the USA and the Confederacy, historical revisionism notwithstanding. Plus there's the whole "We live in the USA, not the CSA" thing.

Also, does anybody know where the Jets proceeds are exactly going in the military?

Reportedly, the donations are being split between three charities: the Air Force Heritage Fund, Soldier On and the Military Families Fund. I don't know anything about them other than what a quick Google search tells me (and in the case of the Air Force Heritage Fund that's almost nothing).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, these are all good points. Certainly there is nothing wrong with using local heritage as a sports identity, and an Air Force Jet is a great compliment for a hockey team. I suppose my contest is that military themes alter history/ current events subjectively. The Blue Jackets' Union imagery is used in a way to commemorate the team--and hence the Civil War--as a morally righteous fight. Imagine the public outcry if Carolina, or Nashville, or (R.I.P.) Atlanta donned a Confederate motif (of course there was the short-lived Roanoake Valley Rebels in the ECHL) because of its historical presence in these places. Every nation, including the South, the North, and the U.S. and Canada today, has done something morally reprimanding. Regardless of what you think of the Civil War, you must admit that there are still Southerners proud of their heritage, just like Northerners in Columbus. Seems like a double-standard to me, but I don't expect everybody to understand.

Southern Americans have a rich heritage as part of the United States. If they want to tie that into a military themed identity where appropriate (such as the AHL's Houston Areos) they're free to do that.

As was brought up in one of the flag concept threads in the General Design sub forum, the "every country has done something morally reprimanding" does not make the celebration of Confederate symbolism ok. The US hasn't always acted saintly, but they've moved past those morally reprimanding actions. Sure, the US was a country that condoned slavery for close to a hundred years, but through the Civil War, and later the Civil Rights movement, the United States took steps to rectify that mistake. The Confederacy, on the other hand, was specifically formed to protect the institution of slavery (there were other factors that cannot be ignored, but the slavery issue was the catalyst that led to the CSA's formation), and through its entire history it fought a war on the basis of protecting the right to hold African Americans in perpetual bondage (the CSA Constitution made it illegal for any state within the Confederacy to abolish slavery). The CSA, like the USA, condoned slavery, but unlike the USA it never moved past it. The CSA will forever, rightfully, be tainted by the institution of slavery, and because of that celebrating Confederate heritage is not the same as celebrating Civil War-era Union heritage. Sorry if that seems like a double standard, but that's just how it is. History isn't an exercise in making things fair.

Furthermore, in the case of "support the troops, not the wars", it is a bone fide stance, but nevertheless the two are realistically inseparable.

They're not, really.

"I support the armed forces, but I disagree with our military excursion into Afghanistan" is a reasonable, and common, position to hold.

In the case of military sports themes such as the Jets, the identity does not and can not distinguish a difference between basic compassion and blind faith in military decisions. In reality, such edifies national service, and the continuing flow of able bodied individuals into service only fuels the fire.

If you see simple appreciation/support for the armed forces as inseparable from blind faith in military decisions then I'm sad to say there's no helping you. You keep saying you can't differentiate the two, but people do all the time. You seem to view this Jets identity package as military sponsored propaganda, and I just don't see it. I think you're reaching for some sort of conspiracy that simply isn't there, honestly.

As for that "flow of able bodied individuals," well there are a lot of people for whom the armed forces is the only path to an education and a career.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So is there a PDF of these marks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So is there a PDF of these marks?

No. There isn't. Why do you need a PDF? I could make one up tonight if you really want but I'm at my job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand what you are saying about supporting the armed forces, and people often do claim to "support the armed forces", but not the "military excursion in Afghanistan" as the example you have given. But idealism does not change things; these are just words. We've heard millions of protests against the war, and where has it led us? Have we made progress whatsoever in persuading our commanders? We can talk out all of the problems in the world, but they do not go vanish simply because of that.

Insofar as the issue of slavery during the Civil War... well we could debate all day about it. Calling it the "basis of the war" completely negates the vast economical and political differences between the North and South, and the fact that less than 2% of the South owned slaves. Anti-slavery was a wartime tactic in the same way "bringing democracy to the Iraqis" is a facade. Saying that the CSA could not progress past the issue of slavery during its 4-year tenure means that the United States should have had it abolished by 1780. The Emancipation Proclamation was designed to destroy the southern economy, while slavery in the north was maintained until the end of the war. The British attempted the same thing during the Revolutionary War. As for the United States getting past slavery, the north had its own brutal forms of industrialized wage slavery. Read Upton Sinclair's The Jungle if you aren't sure what I mean.

Shifting gears back to the topic of military in sports (that was my fault), my real point is that we glorify selective parts of history and discard others. I feel this is seeping into the sports world, but this may just be another instance of "agree to disagree".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anti-slavery was a wartime tactic in the same way "bringing democracy to the Iraqis" is a facade.

Demonstrably false, unless you have any evidence that Iraq made that claim at the beginning of the war.

The United States didn't want to make the Civil War about slavery. But the CSA sure as hell did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anti-slavery was a wartime tactic in the same way "bringing democracy to the Iraqis" is a facade.

Demonstrably false, unless you have any evidence that Iraq made that claim at the beginning of the war.

The United States didn't want to make the Civil War about slavery. But the CSA sure as hell did.

Please elaborate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anti-slavery was a wartime tactic in the same way "bringing democracy to the Iraqis" is a facade.

Demonstrably false, unless you have any evidence that Iraq made that claim at the beginning of the war.

The United States didn't want to make the Civil War about slavery. But the CSA sure as hell did.

Please elaborate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anti-slavery was a wartime tactic in the same way "bringing democracy to the Iraqis" is a facade.

Demonstrably false, unless you have any evidence that Iraq made that claim at the beginning of the war.

The United States didn't want to make the Civil War about slavery. But the CSA sure as hell did.

Please elaborate.

Please stop making the Winnipeg Jets logo thread into a historical debate on the rights and wrongs of war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must say the roundel (is that what we're calling it now?) has grown on me though I think it looks a lot better in McCall's update once he removed the goofy stem and added the navy blue outline around the jet. Both measures go a long way to separate the plane from the leaf where right now I think they blend together, especially at small sizes, such as on the NHL.com banner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anti-slavery was a wartime tactic in the same way "bringing democracy to the Iraqis" is a facade.

Demonstrably false, unless you have any evidence that Iraq made that claim at the beginning of the war.

The United States didn't want to make the Civil War about slavery. But the CSA sure as hell did.

Please elaborate.

NM - not the place, this deserves its own thread in the General section.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the fact that they decided to update the look instead on using the original logo. Very nice set.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.