NHL 2012-2013: Possible Uniform Changes

[BigBubba]

I remember when the concepts for the Wild's red third initially leaked, they were considering a shoulder patch that was the state of Minnesota with an "M", and the "W" beneath it, styled as if it were the M's reflection in water. I was looking forward to that, since the Wild's secondary logos have always been awful. But then the red third came out with no shoulder patches at all.

EDIT - Like this:

/\/\

\/\/

This?

Those jerseys are pathetic, but that logo is fantastic.

[chriscj83]

I remember when the concepts for the Wild's red third initially leaked, they were considering a shoulder patch that was the state of Minnesota with an "M", and the "W" beneath it, styled as if it were the M's reflection in water. I was looking forward to that, since the Wild's secondary logos have always been awful. But then the red third came out with no shoulder patches at all.

EDIT - Like this:

/\/\

\/\/

This?

Booyah, that's the one, sir! Not a fan of the other parts of the concept, unfortunately, but I do like that state logo.

[nash61]

After much searching, I have come to the conclusion that is the only copy of that logo on the internet. Save it while you can.

[Mingjai]

"Lone Stars," however, still is incorrect because the word "Lone" states that there's only one of whatever it's quantifying. You can have a team of Maple Leafs. You can't have a team of Lone Stars.

I know some single ladies who would disagree...

[Sodboy13]

After much searching, I have come to the conclusion that is the only copy of that logo on the internet. Save it while you can.

Found five of the seven Wild alternate concepts posted in 2001 (!) via Wayback Machine. Preserved for posterity. You can see the "MW" logo in version 3, and an offset version placed inside the state in version 4.

[GFB]

Came across this today. Would have been fantastic as an Isles shoulder patch.

Curious how that logo would look as the main crest for the Islanders jersey?? somsone ought to mock up one and display in here if so.. I think that logo might be a good idea somehow...

That looks eerily familiar to something I've seen elsewhere... maybe on the concepts forum?

[Legend]

Came across this today. Would have been fantastic as an Isles shoulder patch.

Curious how that logo would look as the main crest for the Islanders jersey?? somsone ought to mock up one and display in here if so.. I think that logo might be a good idea somehow...

That looks eerily familiar to something I've seen elsewhere... maybe on the concepts forum?

Not that I'm why it looks familiar, but I own that patch.

Bought it a few years back at the Coliseum. Thought the same thing as the others, I really wish they'd use it in some way. It's really cool.

[29texan]

Could the same be said of "North Stars" since there's only one north star? I guess Minnesota would be stuck with a singular name if the Minnesota North Star ever hit the ice.

Actually there's more then one north star.

Besides, that misses the point. The problem with the name Lone Stars is due to the fact that "Lone" signifies there can only be one of whatever it's describing. Thus "Lone Stars" is not only incorrect, but it's a terrible name for a team.

Anyway the "why can't there be two teams with Stars in their name? We have the Red Sox and the White Sox after all" doesn't really work. The Red Sox and White Sox got their names before sports branding really came into its own. The fact that both of those teams in the same league have similar names is a relic of a bygone era. It wouldn't be permitted to happen in the 21st century.

Sorry, but Lone Stars is not a terrible name by any means. It actually makes a lot of sense. Even Minnesota fans who long for the North Stars any day over the Wild have suggested this. Texas is the Lone Star state and renaming the Stars as the "Lone Stars" would be another way of renaming them the "Texans". Because the club has used the Stars name and won a Cup with it, it's a way of keeping the Stars name while giving Minnesota back their true classic identity.

Lone Stars is no different than Red Wings or Blue Jackets.

Speaking as a Texan... NO. HEEEEEEEELLLL NO! NO NO NO!

[Morgan33]

Found five of the seven Wild alternate concepts posted in 2001 (!) via Wayback Machine. Preserved for posterity. You can see the "MW" logo in version 3, and an offset version placed inside the state in version 4.

If these were from 2001, why are the hemlines scooped? I remember seeing these before the current alternate was released.

[Sport]

Found five of the seven Wild alternate concepts posted in 2001 (!) via Wayback Machine. Preserved for posterity. You can see the "MW" logo in version 3, and an offset version placed inside the state in version 4.

If these were from 2001, why are the hemlines scooped? I remember seeing these before the current alternate was released.

The Canucks orca whale gradient third had a scooped hemline. Those predate the edge.

[Sodboy13]

Predators had the rounded hemline in the pre-Edge days, too.

[VancouverFan69]

Could the same be said of "North Stars" since there's only one north star? I guess Minnesota would be stuck with a singular name if the Minnesota North Star ever hit the ice.

Actually there's more then one north star.

Besides, that misses the point. The problem with the name Lone Stars is due to the fact that "Lone" signifies there can only be one of whatever it's describing. Thus "Lone Stars" is not only incorrect, but it's a terrible name for a team.

Anyway the "why can't there be two teams with Stars in their name? We have the Red Sox and the White Sox after all" doesn't really work. The Red Sox and White Sox got their names before sports branding really came into its own. The fact that both of those teams in the same league have similar names is a relic of a bygone era. It wouldn't be permitted to happen in the 21st century.

Sorry, but Lone Stars is not a terrible name by any means. It actually makes a lot of sense. Even Minnesota fans who long for the North Stars any day over the Wild have suggested this. Texas is the Lone Star state and renaming the Stars as the "Lone Stars" would be another way of renaming them the "Texans". Because the club has used the Stars name and won a Cup with it, it's a way of keeping the Stars name while giving Minnesota back their true classic identity.

Lone Stars is no different than Red Wings or Blue Jackets.

Speaking as a Texan... NO. HEEEEEEEELLLL NO! NO NO NO!

So, if "Lone Stars" isn't going to work, why not go with a name like the "Bullseyes"? Use a pair of stars for the bull's eyes but have its horns pointing upward, not downward. That's a concept that would go very well. Otherwise, it's the "Mooterus" all over again.

[Morgan33]

Two Pre-Edge jerseys had it, not like it was commonplace. Also the scripts on some of those concepts looks very similar to the one on the current. Not trying to argue just legimately curious what year those concepts are from. Anybody know for sure?

[evanmaldonado]

Could the same be said of "North Stars" since there's only one north star? I guess Minnesota would be stuck with a singular name if the Minnesota North Star ever hit the ice.

Actually there's more then one north star.

Besides, that misses the point. The problem with the name Lone Stars is due to the fact that "Lone" signifies there can only be one of whatever it's describing. Thus "Lone Stars" is not only incorrect, but it's a terrible name for a team.

Anyway the "why can't there be two teams with Stars in their name? We have the Red Sox and the White Sox after all" doesn't really work. The Red Sox and White Sox got their names before sports branding really came into its own. The fact that both of those teams in the same league have similar names is a relic of a bygone era. It wouldn't be permitted to happen in the 21st century.

Sorry, but Lone Stars is not a terrible name by any means. It actually makes a lot of sense. Even Minnesota fans who long for the North Stars any day over the Wild have suggested this. Texas is the Lone Star state and renaming the Stars as the "Lone Stars" would be another way of renaming them the "Texans". Because the club has used the Stars name and won a Cup with it, it's a way of keeping the Stars name while giving Minnesota back their true classic identity.

Lone Stars is no different than Red Wings or Blue Jackets.

Speaking as a Texan... NO. HEEEEEEEELLLL NO! NO NO NO!

So, if "Lone Stars" isn't going to work, why not go with a name like the "Bullseyes"? Use a pair of stars for the bull's eyes but have its horns pointing upward, not downward. That's a concept that would go very well. Otherwise, it's the "Mooterus" all over again.

Why not Stars? I really like that name for a Dallas hockey team

[Sport]

Could the same be said of "North Stars" since there's only one north star? I guess Minnesota would be stuck with a singular name if the Minnesota North Star ever hit the ice.

Actually there's more then one north star.

Besides, that misses the point. The problem with the name Lone Stars is due to the fact that "Lone" signifies there can only be one of whatever it's describing. Thus "Lone Stars" is not only incorrect, but it's a terrible name for a team.

Anyway the "why can't there be two teams with Stars in their name? We have the Red Sox and the White Sox after all" doesn't really work. The Red Sox and White Sox got their names before sports branding really came into its own. The fact that both of those teams in the same league have similar names is a relic of a bygone era. It wouldn't be permitted to happen in the 21st century.

Sorry, but Lone Stars is not a terrible name by any means. It actually makes a lot of sense. Even Minnesota fans who long for the North Stars any day over the Wild have suggested this. Texas is the Lone Star state and renaming the Stars as the "Lone Stars" would be another way of renaming them the "Texans". Because the club has used the Stars name and won a Cup with it, it's a way of keeping the Stars name while giving Minnesota back their true classic identity.

Lone Stars is no different than Red Wings or Blue Jackets.

Speaking as a Texan... NO. HEEEEEEEELLLL NO! NO NO NO!

So, if "Lone Stars" isn't going to work, why not go with a name like the "Bullseyes"? Use a pair of stars for the bull's eyes but have its horns pointing upward, not downward. That's a concept that would go very well. Otherwise, it's the "Mooterus" all over again.

Why not Stars? I really like that name for a Dallas hockey team

Because he has this silly notion that the Wild should change to the North Stars and that you can't have a league with one team named the Stars and one team named the North Stars, so the Stars, the team with the history of using "Stars", should change to "Lone Stars". It's roundabout logic that ignores the fact that "Lone Stars" would be 50X dumber than the nickname "Wild" ever will be.

[VancouverFan69]

Could the same be said of "North Stars" since there's only one north star? I guess Minnesota would be stuck with a singular name if the Minnesota North Star ever hit the ice.

Actually there's more then one north star.

Besides, that misses the point. The problem with the name Lone Stars is due to the fact that "Lone" signifies there can only be one of whatever it's describing. Thus "Lone Stars" is not only incorrect, but it's a terrible name for a team.

Anyway the "why can't there be two teams with Stars in their name? We have the Red Sox and the White Sox after all" doesn't really work. The Red Sox and White Sox got their names before sports branding really came into its own. The fact that both of those teams in the same league have similar names is a relic of a bygone era. It wouldn't be permitted to happen in the 21st century.

Sorry, but Lone Stars is not a terrible name by any means. It actually makes a lot of sense. Even Minnesota fans who long for the North Stars any day over the Wild have suggested this. Texas is the Lone Star state and renaming the Stars as the "Lone Stars" would be another way of renaming them the "Texans". Because the club has used the Stars name and won a Cup with it, it's a way of keeping the Stars name while giving Minnesota back their true classic identity.

Lone Stars is no different than Red Wings or Blue Jackets.

Speaking as a Texan... NO. HEEEEEEEELLLL NO! NO NO NO!

So, if "Lone Stars" isn't going to work, why not go with a name like the "Bullseyes"? Use a pair of stars for the bull's eyes but have its horns pointing upward, not downward. That's a concept that would go very well. Otherwise, it's the "Mooterus" all over again.

Why not Stars? I really like that name for a Dallas hockey team

It is a nice name, but it's too generic. What was a really nice name was North Stars, the team the Stars used to be when they were in Minnesota. And they had a much nicer crest and uniforms than anything Dallas has ever worn. The reason the North Stars are in Dallas today was because the former owner, Norm Green wouldn't face his sexual harassment charges in the State of Minnesota.

[RedSox44]

Could the same be said of "North Stars" since there's only one north star? I guess Minnesota would be stuck with a singular name if the Minnesota North Star ever hit the ice.

Actually there's more then one north star.

Besides, that misses the point. The problem with the name Lone Stars is due to the fact that "Lone" signifies there can only be one of whatever it's describing. Thus "Lone Stars" is not only incorrect, but it's a terrible name for a team.

Anyway the "why can't there be two teams with Stars in their name? We have the Red Sox and the White Sox after all" doesn't really work. The Red Sox and White Sox got their names before sports branding really came into its own. The fact that both of those teams in the same league have similar names is a relic of a bygone era. It wouldn't be permitted to happen in the 21st century.

Sorry, but Lone Stars is not a terrible name by any means. It actually makes a lot of sense. Even Minnesota fans who long for the North Stars any day over the Wild have suggested this. Texas is the Lone Star state and renaming the Stars as the "Lone Stars" would be another way of renaming them the "Texans". Because the club has used the Stars name and won a Cup with it, it's a way of keeping the Stars name while giving Minnesota back their true classic identity.

Lone Stars is no different than Red Wings or Blue Jackets.

Speaking as a Texan... NO. HEEEEEEEELLLL NO! NO NO NO!

So, if "Lone Stars" isn't going to work, why not go with a name like the "Bullseyes"? Use a pair of stars for the bull's eyes but have its horns pointing upward, not downward. That's a concept that would go very well. Otherwise, it's the "Mooterus" all over again.

Why not Stars? I really like that name for a Dallas hockey team

Because he has this silly notion that the Wild should change to the North Stars and that you can't have a league with one team named the Stars and one team named the North Stars, so the Stars, the team with the history of using "Stars", should change to "Lone Stars". It's roundabout logic that ignores the fact that "Lone Stars" would be 50X dumber than the nickname "Wild" ever will be.

I mean, he has "69" in his username. He's clearly not the brightest bulb in the box.

[VancouverFan69]

Because he has this silly notion that the Wild should change to the North Stars and that you can't have a league with one team named the Stars and one team named the North Stars, so the Stars, the team with the history of using "Stars", should change to "Lone Stars". It's roundabout logic that ignores the fact that "Lone Stars" would be 50X dumber than the nickname "Wild" ever will be.

Do you really think that having the Wild change their name back to North Stars is a silly thing? For your information, I am more than okay with having the North Stars back and having the Stars, not the LONE Stars, exist at the same time. The idea of "Lone Stars" was just an idea - a Texas concept of the North Stars because Texas is the Lone Star State and Minnesota is the North Star State.

[evanmaldonado]

Do you really think that having the Wild change their name back to North Stars is a silly thing? For your information, I am more than okay with having the North Stars back and having the Stars, not the LONE Stars, exist at the same time. The idea of "Lone Stars" was just an idea - a Texas concept of the North Stars because Texas is the Lone Star State and Minnesota is the North Star State.

I do. It's the same to me as Winnipeg naming the Thrashers the Jets. It's not the same team. Throw out a vintage jersey every now and then, but the North Stars are the Dallas Stars, just as the original Jets are the Coyotes. Gotta move on from the past.

[VancouverFan69]

Speaking as a Texan... NO. HEEEEEEEELLLL NO! NO NO NO!

So, if "Lone Stars" isn't going to work, why not go with a name like the "Bullseyes"? Use a pair of stars for the bull's eyes but have its horns pointing upward, not downward. That's a concept that would go very well. Otherwise, it's the "Mooterus" all over again.

Why not Stars? I really like that name for a Dallas hockey team

Because he has this silly notion that the Wild should change to the North Stars and that you can't have a league with one team named the Stars and one team named the North Stars, so the Stars, the team with the history of using "Stars", should change to "Lone Stars". It's roundabout logic that ignores the fact that "Lone Stars" would be 50X dumber than the nickname "Wild" ever will be.

I mean, he has "69" in his username. He's clearly not the brightest bulb in the box.

For your information, "69" just happens to be my birth year buddy. And to insult me just because you disagree with my ideas regarding the North Stars, Wild, Stars, whatever, just shows absolutely no class. Disagree with me - fine. Come across like a troll and insult me?? Not very bright on your part. I'm not the "brightest bulb"? I think you better "lighten up" my friend.