NHL top 3 / bottom 3 logos

[Legend]

1. Devils

2. Islanders

3. Sharks

28. Flyers

29. Ducks

30. Lightning

[Bayne]

I think a general consensus can be that Minnesota are clearly have a great logo.

It seems most are in agreement that Anaheim's script logo is awful.

I agree with both. In hindsight I would probably put Anahiem at 28 instead of Carolina.

[Eye]

And the point is what? Yes, if the Boston Bruins were an early 2000s expansion team they wouldn't go with the logo they have now. They aren't, however, an early 2000s expansion team. So at the end of the day their logo works because of the history behind it. It doesn't fail because of the lack of history behind it in some hypothetical scenario.

I don't care about the history behind a logo when evaluating it, and it shouldn't come into play.

The Bruins have a great logo regardless of the history behind it.

[GMW79]

1. Detroit

2. Chicago

3. Montreal

On the bottom end of the spectrum there are so many to choose from, but for now I'll say:

28. Dallas

29. Los Angeles

30. Washington

(Carolina, Ottawa, and Tampa Bay, are the other three I considered for the worst. As for the Wings; not a homer pick. It's just a great logo.)

[Funky Bunky]

Regarding the Bruins logo, is there a meaning to the spoked wheel?

Oh, and:

From the Anaheim Ducks' Director of Publications & New Media (aka Website/Media Guide). I think the mothership is wrong.

[LAWeaver]

I really don't have a favorite logo or a logo I hate. If the ducks primary is the webbed D, then it's good. To me, I think the Caps logo is a good wordmark, but not a good primary. If the Eagle shoulder patch was the primary, then it would be one of my favorite logos. Same with Carolinas Hockey Stick shoulder patch.

[Lights Out]

Regarding the Bruins logo, is there a meaning to the spoked wheel?

I think it's supposed to represent that Boston is known as "The Hub of the Universe."

I honestly prefer their bear logo. That + brown instead of black = perfection.

[Lights Out]

I agree with all of that. I just don't get the "if they were an early 2000s expansion team" argument, because they weren't. The logo as we know it has history behind it. Hypothetical questions aside, you won't change that. So the logo needs to be judged with that history intact. Not without it.

Why exactly do they need to be judged with the history behind it? Wouldn't it be more fair to throw out all the history for lists like these and judge every team's logo on aesthetics alone? And under that criteria, at least in my opinion, most of the Original 6 logos are very dated and could use a modernization.

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

Ah man...so hard to do only 3.

I'm not going to put the Habs, even though they're my team, the logo itself isn't anything special, it's just a classic ala Green Bay Packers, New York Yankees etc.

TOP 3

1. Detroit Red Wings (perfectly reflects the team name, the city and is very well executed.

2. Chicago Blackhawks (just a beautiful, also classic logo)

3. Pittsburgh Penguins. I know I may be in the minority here, but I love this thing. A skating penguin.

HONORABLE MENTIONS- Minnesota Wild bear head, New Jersey Devils

BOTTOM 3:

1. Tampa Bay Lightning. It's really all they need, but it's too basic. No depth, nothing. Looks like clipart.

2. Washington Capitals. I hate wordmarks. Not a primary logo. Use the Eagle or something else as your primary.

3. Winnipeg Jets. This thing has never grown on me. It's not absolutely terrible, I just don't like it.

HONORABLE MENTIONS- L.A. Kings. The banner or whatever isn't as effective as just the crown. Ottawa. The 3d senator sucks.

[Sport]

1. Red Wings

2. Flyers

3. Blues

It's merely a coincidence that all 3 of those are winged logos.

28. Capitals

29. Oilers

30. Predators

[Kolbe]

^{1. Red Wings}

^{2. Flames}

^{3. Avalanche}

^{28. Canucks}

^{29. Senators}

^{30. Kings}

[lmh1194]

My Top 3:

1. Wild

2. Blackhawks

3. Canadians

I agree in that there are so many ways you can judge logos. Are you judging a logo based on the aesthetics alone? If so, than history should not be a factor.

On the other hand, logos are "brands" and history/tradition is a big part of an overall brand.

I think the Wild have one of the best logos in sports in my opinion. And for being an expansion team, its aged very well and remains a great logo to this day.

Of all of the expansion teams over the last 20 years, the Wild have had one of the best logos in sports. While they have updated their sweaters a few times, they have kept their primary logo and colors the same from day one.

Look at all of the other expansion teams throughout sports that have undergone complete overhauls and/or logo changes since their inaugural seasons... Devil Rays, Marlins, Bobcats, Hornets, D-Backs, Predators to name a few. Than you have franchises like the Texas Rangers and San Diego Padres than can never seem to settle on a brand and are changing every few years.

The Wild got it right the first time with their logo and colors and hopefully they keep this look for a long time. I also like how they used elements of the logo to make it look like a "bear". Similar to the "H" in the Hartford Whalers logo and the "MB" in the Milwaukee Brewers ball in glove logo. When you can get creative with your logo like these, it makes for some of the best logos in sports.

[IceCap]

I agree with all of that. I just don't get the "if they were an early 2000s expansion team" argument, because they weren't. The logo as we know it has history behind it. Hypothetical questions aside, you won't change that. So the logo needs to be judged with that history intact. Not without it.

Why exactly do they need to be judged with the history behind it? Wouldn't it be more fair to throw out all the history for lists like these and judge every team's logo on aesthetics alone?

Here's the thing, the history of these older teams informs the aesthetics. The Bruins use an updated version of their classic logo. Well they wouldn't have gone with the aesthetic of the classic logo in that update without the history. Or the Red Wings. They wear a variation of the logo worn by the very first Stanley Cup Champions because way back when their owner used to play for that club. So you can judge every logo based on aesthetics alone, but in my opinion separating the history of teams from that isn't really being honest about the evaluation.

[The_Admiral]

don't know what it is about the Devils' logo, but I've never been appealed to it at all.

What a strange inversion of subject and object.

[Eye]

I agree with all of that. I just don't get the "if they were an early 2000s expansion team" argument, because they weren't. The logo as we know it has history behind it. Hypothetical questions aside, you won't change that. So the logo needs to be judged with that history intact. Not without it.

Why exactly do they need to be judged with the history behind it? Wouldn't it be more fair to throw out all the history for lists like these and judge every team's logo on aesthetics alone?

Here's the thing, the history of these older teams informs the aesthetics. The Bruins use an updated version of their classic logo. Well they wouldn't have gone with the aesthetic of the classic logo in that update without the history. Or the Red Wings. They wear a variation of the logo worn by the very first Stanley Cup Champions because way back when their owner used to play for that club. So you can judge every logo based on aesthetics alone, but in my opinion separating the history of teams from that isn't really being honest about the evaluation.

Judging a logo based on its history isn't being honest. If you have to play up some historical element about a logo, then you aren't evaluating a logo, you're evaluating how you want to interpret its use from however long it's been around, which often gets mistaken for a logo being good or great, just because its been around a while.

Yes, the Bruins wouldn't have their current logo if their journey was different. It shouldn't matter how the Bruins have come to use their logo, and it should be evaluated on how it looks, not how it got there.

[BigBubba]

29. Anaheim (the wordmark logo)

The problem with that is the wordmark logo isn't the primary logo anymore. The webbed D is used in pretty much every official team thing, and it's even on the ice now. While the wordmark is still on the jerseys, that doesn't mean it's the primary logo (i.e. New York Rangers).

http://www.sportslogos.net/teams/list_by_league/1/National_Hockey_League/NHL/logos/

While this may be seen as a sacrilegous thing to say, the mothership isn't always right.

While the stand-alone "D" may be the de facto primary, the script is still the official one on paper. I get what you mean how the "D" is used in such a large capacity - the Raptors here do the same thing with their claw logo - but unless they formally announce a change, the status quo will remain.

Too hard to determine my favourites, so here'es 26-30:

-BigBubba

[BigShoop]

To be honest, while I may like some of the O6 logos, the only real reason they're so beloved is because they were around for a lot of great history. If the Bruins were an early 2000's expansion team, and they came out with that logo, they would be bombarded with hate.

I completely agree. The Original 6 logos have precedent, they have history, they're associated with legacy and greatness. Take that away, and for the most part they're pretty crappy-looking logos that would never work if introduced in the 21st century.

This.

[BigShoop]

Regarding the Bruins logo, is there a meaning to the spoked wheel?

I think it's supposed to represent that Boston is known as "The Hub of the Universe."

I honestly prefer their bear logo. That + brown instead of black = perfection.

Having moved here 3 years ago, trust me, that's exactly what they believe. I call it: "The Boston Bubble"

Top 3

1. Winnipeg

2. Ottawa

3. Arizona

Bottom 3....ish

28. Edmonton

29. Minnesota

30. New Jersey.....IslandersandKingsandSabresandDucksscript

[The_Admiral]

What the hell, if you'll pardon the expression, is with all these people hating the Devils' logo? Do you have a better way to convey the name "New Jersey Devils"? Care to share?

[Funky Bunky]

29. Anaheim (the wordmark logo)

The problem with that is the wordmark logo isn't the primary logo anymore. The webbed D is used in pretty much every official team thing, and it's even on the ice now. While the wordmark is still on the jerseys, that doesn't mean it's the primary logo (i.e. New York Rangers).

http://www.sportslogos.net/teams/list_by_league/1/National_Hockey_League/NHL/logos/

While this may be seen as a sacrilegous thing to say, the mothership isn't always right.

While the stand-alone "D" may be the de facto primary, the script is still the official one on paper. I get what you mean how the "D" is used in such a large capacity - the Raptors here do the same thing with their claw logo - but unless they formally announce a change, the status quo will remain.

What are you talking about? How is it still the official logo?