2013-2014 NHL Uniform & Logo Changes

[maz]

The new Dallas Stars jerseys look absolutely stunning on television, and in the new well-lit photos from the draft.

I adore that shade of green.

"But but but original six dress up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" - dumb people

The Stars jerseys look great and they couldn't have chosen a better shade of green. I can't wait to see the full team in full uniform under arena lights.

Actually, this is the one and only case "original six dress up" is a legitimate claim since it's exactly the same as the Blackhawks except in green and minus a black stripe on the sleeves. Not saying I don't think it looks good, but then again I already regard the Hawks as having the best look in the league so take that for what it's worth. I will agree with you that this is miles ahead of the crap they had before it.

(I'll admit I will never not lament the Canes and Bolts for their redesigns. But that's because they both ditched anything unique about their looks for the sake of looking "timeless" and instead just being bland as effff, not because of "original six dress up")

All that said, if sex was a shade of green, it would be that one. Still wish they would have kept the gold, though.

[BigBubba]

Actually, this is the one and only case "original six dress up" is a legitimate claim since it's exactly the same as the Blackhawks except in green and minus a black stripe on the sleeves. Not saying I don't think it looks good, but then again I already regard the Hawks as having the best look in the league so take that for what it's worth. I will agree with you that this is miles ahead of the crap they had before it.

So the Stars using almost the same template as the Hawks in their own colours is somehow different than the Lightning using almost the same template as the Red Wings (minus the pants stripe, but even that was the same when they were released) in Toronto's colours?

Please explain.

[hockey week]

why is the d-star appearing 3 times (twice in a modified form inside a roundel) a tragedy, when the north stars 91 cup run sweaters are universally beloved while having the EXACT same logo appear 3 times?

i don't get most of the hate, honestly.

It's not the repetition of the D/star logo I have a problem with (much like I don't have a problem with the North Stars' '91 Cup sweaters). The problem I have is that the Texas state logo is simply superior to the roundel logo.

I don't think the Texas logo would look right on green yokes that have those strange angular shapes. The roundel, although unpopular, is a much smoother choice. I actually think their choices are dead on: roundel on shoulders, Texas logo on pants. At least the team was smart enough to keep it, they could of been dumb and ditched it altogether.

Also, I must be one of the few people who really love that Stars roundel logo very much.

I still think the Texas State logo is the worst part of this rebrand. It's too unbalanced and awkwardly executed. I hated the roundel at first but the more I look at it as a shoulder patch on the actual jersey, the more I like it. And it's far better for that purpose than the state outline.

And this is why the old logo should have been kept, albeit updated to at least silver, for the shoulders. It was a great logo, it was just getting old. It's still perfect as a nice bland secondary.

[bcdevil]

The lockout screwed this up for everybody.

The lockout actually simplified things for everyone. For any team that marks its inaugural season before the lockout (I think Winnipeg 2.0 uses 2011-12), the anniversary is the same as the season now. That's why it is so baffling that anyone gets it wrong.

[BigBubba]

The lockout allowed the Habs to drag on their 100th anniversary from 08-09 (100th year) to 09-10 (100th year) to 10-11 (100th season).

[sportstar1212]

The lockout allowed the Habs to drag on their 100th anniversary from 08-09 (100th year) to 09-10 (100th year) to 10-11 (100th season).

They didn't celebrate the anniversary in 2010-11. Here's their uniforms that year, sans the patch:

[bcdevil]

The lockout allowed the Habs to drag on their 100th anniversary from 08-09 (100th year) to 09-10 (100th year) to 10-11 (100th season).

The Habs actually got it right. They celebrated 2 different things:

1) The Centennial of the club's founding (1909) was celebrated in calendar year 2009 with the ASG, Draft, and other events all leading up to the centennial game on 12/4/09

2) The team's 100th season in 2009-2010

If the Bruins were planning on wearing the patch just in calendar year 2014, I would give them a pass.

[GFB]

Actually, this is the one and only case "original six dress up" is a legitimate claim since it's exactly the same as the Blackhawks except in green and minus a black stripe on the sleeves. Not saying I don't think it looks good, but then again I already regard the Hawks as having the best look in the league so take that for what it's worth. I will agree with you that this is miles ahead of the crap they had before it.

So the Stars using almost the same template as the Hawks in their own colours is somehow different than the Lightning using almost the same template as the Red Wings (minus the pants stripe, but even that was the same when they were released) in Toronto's colours?

Please explain.

Unique color scheme >>> jersey striping pattern.

[Morgan33]

Nobodies going to confuse the Stars for the Blackhawks and many teams have shared striping patterns in the past... Just look at 1990/1991 season. Striping wise, most of the teams look similar but stand apart due to their bright, unique colours. The use of metallic silver excludes them from O6 dressup, same with the modern looking logo. I've said it many times and I will say it again. The Stars knocked it straight out the park with their redesign. It's difficult to imagine them looking better.

[Bayne]

I don't understand why teams in an 'anniversary' year always have to wear a patch on their jerseys. Not only is the celebration of the landmark year of existence often a seemingly negligible year (15, 20, 40, 85 Rangers? 90? I mean, why?) they feel the need to slap a huge patch on the front of their sweaters for a whole year. If you feel you need to design a patch that's fine, but leave it off the jersey IMO. It's completely unnecessary, unless it's your teams 25th, 50th, 75th, 100th etc year in the league. And what's wrong with just using the patch on centre ice and on t-shirts and hats and any other memorabilia? Get it off the jersey! We get it!

[dbadefense1990]

The lockout screwed this up for everybody.

Which one of the three?

/sarcastic tone

[Chromatic]

The new Dallas Stars jerseys look absolutely stunning on television, and in the new well-lit photos from the draft.

I adore that shade of green.

"But but but original six dress up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" - dumb people

The Stars jerseys look great and they couldn't have chosen a better shade of green. I can't wait to see the full team in full uniform under arena lights.

Actually, this is the one and only case "original six dress up" is a legitimate claim since it's exactly the same as the Blackhawks except in green and minus a black stripe on the sleeves. Not saying I don't think it looks good, but then again I already regard the Hawks as having the best look in the league so take that for what it's worth. I will agree with you that this is miles ahead of the crap they had before it.

(I'll admit I will never not lament the Canes and Bolts for their redesigns. But that's because they both ditched anything unique about their looks for the sake of looking "timeless" and instead just being bland as effff, not because of "original six dress up")

All that said, if sex was a shade of green, it would be that one. Still wish they would have kept the gold, though.

I'm not sure you know what the term 'exactly' means. If it must be followed immediately by 'except' then it isn't 'exactly' like anything. Besides, its closer to the Rangers jerseys than the Blackhawks, and I challenge you to find me the jersey their white is copying.

[oddball]

I don't understand why teams in an 'anniversary' year always have to wear a patch on their jerseys. Not only is the celebration of the landmark year of existence often a seemingly negligible year (15, 20, 40, 85 Rangers? 90? I mean, why?) they feel the need to slap a huge patch on the front of their sweaters for a whole year. If you feel you need to design a patch that's fine, but leave it off the jersey IMO. It's completely unnecessary, unless it's your teams 25th, 50th, 75th, 100th etc year in the league. And what's wrong with just using the patch on centre ice and on t-shirts and hats and any other memorabilia? Get it off the jersey! We get it!

Because it means something. How many hockey franchises/teams have been around for 90 years? The Atlanta Thrashers, nope. I get if you're questioning a 5 or 15 year anniversary, but if a team wants to celebrate 65 years, they can do it, because it's their franchise and it's always good for the fans to celebrate the good times. That's what these are about, the fans of the team remembering the good times.

[BigBubba]

Actually, this is the one and only case "original six dress up" is a legitimate claim since it's exactly the same as the Blackhawks except in green and minus a black stripe on the sleeves. Not saying I don't think it looks good, but then again I already regard the Hawks as having the best look in the league so take that for what it's worth. I will agree with you that this is miles ahead of the crap they had before it.

So the Stars using almost the same template as the Hawks in their own colours is somehow different than the Lightning using almost the same template as the Red Wings (minus the pants stripe, but even that was the same when they were released) in Toronto's colours?

Please explain.

Unique color scheme >>> jersey striping pattern.

I don't think you understand what I was saying.

Maz said that the Stars are the only case of ripping off an Original Six team because they used the Hawks' striping pattern. He said that the Lightning didn't, even though they ripped off a striping pattern AND a colour scheme. That doesn't make sense.

[Kevin W.]

Maz said that the Stars are the only case of ripping off an Original Six team because they used the Hawks' striping pattern.

As has been said before, wrong Original Six team. Their greens match the Rangers' striping pattern, not the Blackhawks'.

[BigBubba]

Maz said that the Stars are the only case of ripping off an Original Six team because they used the Hawks' striping pattern.

As has been said before, wrong Original Six team. Their greens match the Rangers' striping pattern, not the Blackhawks'.

Again though, that doesn't take away from my point: how is ripping off a striping pattern OSDU but ripping off a striping pattern and colour scheme not?

[Bayne]

I don't understand why teams in an 'anniversary' year always have to wear a patch on their jerseys. Not only is the celebration of the landmark year of existence often a seemingly negligible year (15, 20, 40, 85 Rangers? 90? I mean, why?) they feel the need to slap a huge patch on the front of their sweaters for a whole year. If you feel you need to design a patch that's fine, but leave it off the jersey IMO. It's completely unnecessary, unless it's your teams 25th, 50th, 75th, 100th etc year in the league. And what's wrong with just using the patch on centre ice and on t-shirts and hats and any other memorabilia? Get it off the jersey! We get it!

Because it means something. How many hockey franchises/teams have been around for 90 years? The Atlanta Thrashers, nope. I get if you're questioning a 5 or 15 year anniversary, but if a team wants to celebrate 65 years, they can do it, because it's their franchise and it's always good for the fans to celebrate the good times. That's what these are about, the fans of the team remembering the good times.

Why does a 65 year anniversary mean something? It means nothing. Why not celebrate 67 years? Its pointless and another cashgrab to get fans to buy things with an anniversary patch on it. My main point though is to keep these things off the jerseys. Unless it's a big one, ie 25, 50 etc like I said, there's no need for it.

[oddball]

I don't understand why teams in an 'anniversary' year always have to wear a patch on their jerseys. Not only is the celebration of the landmark year of existence often a seemingly negligible year (15, 20, 40, 85 Rangers? 90? I mean, why?) they feel the need to slap a huge patch on the front of their sweaters for a whole year. If you feel you need to design a patch that's fine, but leave it off the jersey IMO. It's completely unnecessary, unless it's your teams 25th, 50th, 75th, 100th etc year in the league. And what's wrong with just using the patch on centre ice and on t-shirts and hats and any other memorabilia? Get it off the jersey! We get it!

Because it means something. How many hockey franchises/teams have been around for 90 years? The Atlanta Thrashers, nope. I get if you're questioning a 5 or 15 year anniversary, but if a team wants to celebrate 65 years, they can do it, because it's their franchise and it's always good for the fans to celebrate the good times. That's what these are about, the fans of the team remembering the good times.

Why does a 65 year anniversary mean something? It means nothing. Why not celebrate 67 years? Its pointless and another cashgrab to get fans to buy things with an anniversary patch on it. My main point though is to keep these things off the jerseys. Unless it's a big one, ie 25, 50 etc like I said, there's no need for it.

Well smarty-pants you just answered your own question. So here's a question for you, if you knew the answer, why did you ask it? And there is a need for it, they want to do it. If you don't like it, buy a team and make your own rules as far as aniversary patches.

[Bayne]

To be honest I only came to that conclusion during my second post. It's obviously a money thing....it stills annoys the heck out of me. I wouldn't and I haven't ever bought anything related to an anniversary celebration that wasn't a proper milestone year.

[nash61]

To be honest I only came to that conclusion during my second post. It's obviously a money thing....it stills annoys the heck out of me. I wouldn't and I haven't ever bought anything related to an anniversary celebration that wasn't a proper milestone year.

10, 25, 50, 75, 100, etc.