THN TOP 10: EX­PAN­SION LO­GOS

The Hockey News - - Buzz -

VE­GAS GOLDEN KNIGHTS 2017-18

LIKES: It’s a sim­ple, clean im­age. The gla­di­a­tor-style hel­met ex­udes ca­ma­raderie. Not only does the black shadow cre­ate the ef­fect of an in­tim­i­dat­ing pres­ence wear­ing it, but it also forms a ‘V’ for Ve­gas. The gold in ‘Golden Knights’ rep­re­sents Ne­vada, which pro­duces more gold than any other U.S. state. DIS­LIKES: The only neg­a­tive is a lack of orig­i­nal­ity. Thou­sands of teams from the beer leagues to ma­jor ju­nior have knights for lo­gos.

NASHVILLE PREDA­TORS 1998-99

LIKES: The saber-toothed cat looked mean, sleek and aero­dy­namic. While the ‘Preda­tor’ moniker felt a bit forced, the im­age was not. It re­ferred to a

smilodon flori­danus skele­ton dis­cov­ered in Nashville in 1971.

DIS­LIKES: Too many col­ors. Too busy. It wasn’t built to tran­scend its era. The cat al­most looked ex­hausted, like it had bags un­der its eyes, and its ap­pear­ance is rather metal­lic, al­most like a robo-fos­sil. That style of logo has aged quite poorly.

SAN JOSE SHARKS 1991-92

LIKES: San Jose couldn’t go wrong with a shark logo. The fan vote win­ner was the Blades, but own­er­ship over­ruled it be­cause it had gang con­no­ta­tions. A shark bit­ing through a hockey stick was a fun idea. For any­one won­der­ing if the shark ac­tu­ally fits San Jose: sharks fre­quent the Bay Area’s Red Tri­an­gle. DIS­LIKES: We aren’t rank­ing the Sharks’ cur­rent logo. The old one is crudely drawn. The de­sign­ers avoided re­al­ism as they didn’t want to frighten chil­dren.

MIGHTY DUCKS OF ANA­HEIM 1993-94

LIKES: There was a nice syn­ergy be­tween the duck-billed logo and team mas­cot Wild Wing. The duck’s car­toon­ish ap­pear­ance tied in nicely to Dis­ney own­er­ship at the time, and the tri­an­gu­lar back­ground was fash­ion-ap­pro­pri­ate for trends in the early 1990s. The duck it­self looked fierce. DIS­LIKES: It was just so loud and cheesy, seem­ingly aimed at sell­ing mer­chan­dise to kids. The ven­ti­la­tion holes in the mask looked like bul­let holes, too.

MIN­NESOTA WILD 2000-01

LIKES: It re­mains one of the league’s most beau­ti­ful de­signs, fea­tur­ing ev­ery­thing that em­bod­ies the con­cept of “wild,” in­clud­ing Min­nesota’s North Star, a for­est, a sunset and a stream. The en­tire na­ture scene also forms the head of a wild beast. DIS­LIKES: The knock is the beast it­self, as no one knows what it is. Why not com­mit to an ex­ist­ing earthly crea­ture? The team did not, invit­ing crit­i­cism over the years.

TAMPA BAY LIGHT­NING 1992-93

LIKES: Tampa had the ma­jor ad­van­tage of, you know, a light­ning bolt for a logo.

DIS­LIKES: The Bolts have learned in re­cent years “show, don’t tell” is the best way to fea­ture some­thing so awe­some and ele­men­tal. Scrawl­ing ‘Tampa Bay’ in cur­sive and ‘Light­ning’ in block let­ters on the in­au­gu­ral de­sign soft­ened the logo’s im­pact sig­nif­i­cantly. It’s likely own­er­ship felt the need to spell out the team name to es­tab­lish eq­uity in a non-hockey mar­ket.

OT­TAWA SEN­A­TORS 1992-93

LIKES: It was an el­e­gant crest with a Cen­tu­rion-like solider, com­plete with a red cape. It was the type of stoic fig­ure one could pic­ture guard­ing a cap­i­tal city like Ot­tawa in an al­ter­nate uni­verse. The color scheme of red, gold, black and white was classy. DIS­LIKES: Did it re­ally de­pict a Sen­a­tor? It was a Cen­tu­rion or Ro­man gen­eral, which only loosely con­nected to the term Sen­a­tor. Did that make the logo a cheat? Why not just be the Ot­tawa Cen­tu­ri­ons?

AT­LANTA THRASH­ERS 1999-00

LIKES: It may sound like a tacky “x-treme” late-mil­len­nium nick­name, but the brown thrasher is ac­tu­ally Ge­or­gia’s state bird.

DIS­LIKES: I used to re­fer to the logo as the But­ter­scotch Pud­ding Bird. It looked like some poor thrasher landed in the bowl right as some­one was mix­ing the in­gre­di­ents. The at­tempt was ab­stract, but the re­sult was ugly. And how was the bird grip­ping the stick? Was that a talon com­ing out of a wing? Poor thing had some weird genes.

FLORIDA PAN­THERS 1993-94

LIKES: Ar­tis­ti­cally, there was a ton to like about this Pan­ther logo. The big cat had tremen­dous de­tail to it, and it ap­peared to be leap­ing at you.

DIS­LIKES: THN’s Ryan Kennedy, says a great way to test a logo’s uni­ver­sal ap­peal is to ask a kid to draw it. No non-gifted child had any hope of repli­cat­ing Florida’s logo. It was far too in­tri­cate, with so many pat­terns and color vari­a­tions. It missed out on be­com­ing iconic. It gave the eyes too much to process.

COLUM­BUS BLUE JACK­ETS 2000-01

LIKES: Um, what?

DIS­LIKES: Spell­ing out a team’s name is a crutch. The fran­chise called the Blue Jack­ets had 0.0 Blue Jack­ets de­picted in its logo. The lime yel­low-green stick, which formed a ‘J,’ clashed with the rest of the col­ors. The red rib­bon, which de­picted the 13 Colonies, formed a ‘C’ and a ‘B’, which were barely leg­i­ble. Colum­bus re­deemed it­self with an al­ter­nate logo and adopted the cur­rent one for 2007-08, but the orig­i­nal was an abom­i­na­tion.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.